A shooting incident at White House farm

[Caroline]

Stan Jones was a tool. A willing guy who saw which way the political wind was blowing and he pitched in. Of course he was not the prime mover. The motivation for prosecuting JB came from a higher authority. If ACC Simpson had not felt the heat from the family nothing would have happened.
Stan Jones let it be known that he was sceptical about JB's innocence and spoke out against his boss, Taff Jones. The senior officers knew that they had someone who would do as they wished. Stan Jones could be manipulated, wound-up like a toy and pointed in whatever direction was deemed necessary.

Let's not overlook the probability that ACC Simpson probably just wanted to go through the motions of investigating and prosecuting JB to get the relatives off his back. Quite likely he couldn't care tuppence whether JB was found guilty or not as long as he demonstrated a willingness to investigate. This case is all about appearances and politics, way beyond Stan Jones's level.

The relatives came to Taff Jones with their suspicions, if he had proof of a phone call from Neville (which must have been the proof that shots were fired), they wound him up so much that he would have mentioned the phone call. Stan Jones would have known about the call, as would many of the other officers involved. The call would have exonerated Jeremy Bamber. So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!

[Caroline]

I understand what you're saying,and I suppose in the case of Eddie,  because I'd met him and knew of him that I used a gut feeling after an" incident" I'd observed while working at the hospital,which when I'd heard about the tragedy a week later, I knew which way I was going with it.

Jeremy of course I don't know and have never met,but got the same feeling 30 years ago when I first saw the headlines, even though I realise that in cases such as this, 95% of the time it's a family member,,and I would imagine that the police would have taken this into consideration without looking in-depth at the real cause. That 5% will be hidden amongst documents/files with EP,and I feel will surface pretty soon.

Good 

[maggie]

I completely agree Susan! But not only did they have a suspect, according to Bill they had solid evidence to prove it 'wasn't' Jeremy.

Hi Susan, I agree they wouldn't have framed him because one man didn't like him, that is beyond possibility in my mind, however there are other possibilities where he may have been framed and I agree it is possible they knew he was guilty but had to frame him to get a conviction ......  have forgotten the phrase.

[Caroline]

He may have done? But we only know the relative's version of their talks with Taff Jones don't we? We've already seen how police close ranks and a single officer very rarely breaks ranks. I've know this before. If one officer does speak out against another everyone else in that station sends them to coventry and often the single officer has to be moved so as to secure the smooth running of the station. No one likes someone who creates waves.

I'm sorry Grahame, I don't buy any of this theory at all - what motivation could a senior police officer have for fitting up an innocent man when he KNEW who the guilty party was? And whether he was taken off the case or not, I don't believe for one moment TJ would have stood by and let them frame an innocent man. Did he just feel like it? Or was RB that intimidating that he could get the whole of EP to do his bidding even though they had proof that Sheila was responsible. Like I said, he hold no water.

[Caroline]

Hi Susan, I agree they wouldn't have framed him because one man didn't like him, that is beyond possibility in my mind, however there are other possibilities where he may have been framed and I agree it is possible they knew he was guilty but had to frame him to get a conviction ......  have forgotten the phrase.

That was my post Maggie  . However, I think you mean 'noble cause'? I do believe he was framed, but only because they thought he was guilty and didn't think they would have enough to convict.

[Caroline]

Perhaps he didn't know that? Remember that he died just before the trial. Maybe he would have testified in Bamber's favour, who knows? I personally would like to hear more from Bill before I too am convinced of his scenario.

How could he not know? The trial was more than a year after the event, EP were building a case against Jeremy while (if Bill's claims are to be believed) TJ (and other officers) must have known he couldn't have done it. It makes no sense at all to frame another man when you can prove who was responsible just to appease a few relatives.

[gringo]

Hillsborough is completely different, police more or less caused the incident to happen so tried to cover it up. There are still people that argue that Eddie Gilfoyle is guilty (although I don't know much about him) and didn't he ask his wife to write a suicide note (for whatever reason). I don't accept that they 'knew' Gilfoyle was/is innocent. Nor do I think it's a strange distinction - framing someone for a crime when you KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is, makes no sense whatsoever.

  Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
    The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
    You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?   
     It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
   

[susan]

Caroline did I read correctly (may have been from Adam) that Taff Jones actually arrested Jeremy Bamber when he returned from holiday.  Also Bambergate has stated that Taff Jones's widow said her husband was convinced Jeremy was innocent.

[maggie]

That was my post Maggie  . However, I think you mean 'noble cause'? I do believe he was framed, but only because they thought he was guilty and didn't think they would have enough to convict.

Yes, I meant 'noble cause corruption', can never remember that phrase.  Sorry I mixed you up. 

[Caroline]

  Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
    The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
    You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?   
     It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
   

I don't accept that because I can't think of anything big enough for there to be sufficient reason. Had shts been fired at Sheila, Jeremy would have heard it. They messed the crime scene up - but that's not enough to fame someone who they knew was innocent!

[susan]

Caroline I have to agree EP would not have convicted an innocent man on the say so of the relatives Freemasons or not.  Some of the guilters on this forum have for many many months been of the opinion that they knew Jeremy was guilty but did not have enough evidence so manufactured some.

[susan]

Maggie I am more than delighted to be Caroline.  I feel young again

[maggie]

Maggie I am more than delighted to be Caroline.  I feel young again

You are welcome, Susie 

[petey]

  Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
    The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
    You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?   
     It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
   

Hillsborough is very different in that thousands and thousands of people knew the real truth from the minute it happened because they were actually there.

Hillsborough is also different in that a completely different crime has been committed. Whereas with the JB case the crux of the matter was whether JB did in fact murder 5 members of his family or not, with regards Hillsborough the main issue is the apportionment of blame for the disaster, the scandalous initial inquest verdicts and the consideration of whether police officers, other emergency workers, Sheffield Wednesday FC, the FA should be held liable for the tragic loss of 96 lives, with some still calling for corporate manslaughter charges to be brought.

JUSTICE means something very different with regards Hillsborough and JB, particularly given that JUSTICE means something different to different people depending on how they have been affected by Hillsborough.

The truth was finally revealed in September 2012 but my Hillsborough justice could be very different to the justice that the victims families deserve.

JFT96

[Bill Robertson]

Perhaps he didn't know that? Remember that he died just before the trial. Maybe he would have testified in Bamber's favour, who knows? I personally would like to hear more from Bill before I too am convinced of his scenario.

Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done.

I don't know for sure what ACC Simpson's motives may have been; he was clearly placed under a lot of pressure. But let me offer one thought. I don't think that Essex Police actually wanted Jeremy Bamber convicted at the trial. I think they put up a weak case with a very dodgy chief witness who they probably thought the Jury would not believe. They offered no evidence in relation to four of the murders. Most people thought Jeremy would be acquitted.

Maybe the best possible outcome politically for ACC Simpson and EP was for Jeremy to be acquitted. They could then have said to the relatives, "Look, we did our best but the evidence did not persuade the Jury. Sorry, but there is nothing more we can do". The relatives would have grumbled and moaned, Jeremy would have walked free, his reputation tarnished and lingering doubts would have existed about his innocence. He would have been hounded by the gutter press. His life would have been miserable.

Instead EP got the worst possible scenario. A young man who protested his innocence and doubts were voiced about the safety of his conviction straight away. A man who continues to protest his innocence and by doing so has caused EP to become embroiled in on-going controversy and if I may say so, become involved in creating ever more desperate-looking and highly implausible explanations about some of the emerging evidence. i.e. "Police in conversation with someone from inside the Farm" "Oh that was a reference to Jeremy Bamber" - who do they think buys that?

So, in my view this was not some clever and devious widespread conspiracy. This was policy being made on the hoof; pretty much always reactive in nature. They tripped themselves up with the evidence.
And, I bet EP still regret the fact that Jeremy was found guilty.

Anyway, just a thought.