A shooting incident at White House farm

[Jane]

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.

One has to question what the Jury was on, that they accepted "gems" from the chief witness, such as Jeremy strangling rats with his bare hands. Undoubtedly to make sure his fingers were strong enough to pull a trigger. There were also the copious tears which flowed -making it virtually impossible for Jeremy's counsel to question her- miraculously drying up when she was questioned by the prosecution. Living locally, seeing how Julie purported herself, reading what she said, I don't think anyone expected her to be believed. Did SHE expect to be believed?

[Caroline]

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.

Sorry, still don't buy any of it BUT let me ask you if you KNOW for a FACT the things you claim happened?

[maggie]

One has to question what the Jury was on, that they accepted "gems" from the chief witness, such as Jeremy strangling rats with his bare hands. Undoubtedly to make sure his fingers were strong enough to pull a trigger. There were also the copious tears which flowed -making it virtually impossible for Jeremy's counsel to question her- miraculously drying up when she was questioned by the prosecution. Living locally, seeing how Julie purported herself, reading what she said, I don't think anyone expected her to be believed. Did SHE expect to be believed?

My guess is that JM was an opportunist, possibly when she was told by police Jeremy was going down and she could be going with him she switched loyalties in the wink of an eye. Conversations with Jeremy could easily be manipulated to have other meanings in such a way that Julie quickly became to believe herself that he had done it as that was her best bet. The NOTW offered a nice cheque, very enticing and a photo in the paper may have brought forth another opportunity, it didn't but it was worth a try and the £25, 000 gave her the opportunity to move to Canada which offered her endless opportunities.

[Jane]

My guess is that JM was an opportunist, possibly when she was told by police Jeremy was going down and she could be going with him she switched loyalties in the wink of an eye. Conversations with Jeremy could easily be manipulated to have other meanings in such a way that Julie quickly became to believe herself that he had done it as that was her best bet. The NOTW offered a nice cheque, very enticing and a photo in the paper may have brought forth another opportunity, it didn't but it was worth a try and the £25, 000 gave her the opportunity to move to Canada which offered her endless opportunities.

Maggie, it strikes me that there is greater residual anger about the way Julie walked away, Scot free, pockets well lined, to a new and lucrative future, having, supposedly, been aware for more than a year, of Jeremy's plans, than there was about Maxine Carr, who wasn't there but gave Huntley an alibi, presumably because his hand in the horrific crime wouldn't cross her mind, Whether she deserved it or not, SHE served a prison sentence for what, IMO, was a lesser crime.

[lookout]

What I want to know is that the very first headlines to reach the press from a journo who was in Pages Lane awaiting news,,came from " a police officer "? who told the journo that the grandmother had had a " brainstorm " and killed the family. How would this have been deduced ? Then a phone-call to the press to say that it was the daughter.
What was it that made officers think that it was either women ? Something must have led them to believe that either one of them was responsible,,or why didn't they blame Neville ? Why the women ??

[maggie]

Maggie, it strikes me that there is greater residual anger about the way Julie walked away, Scot free, pockets well lined, to a new and lucrative future, having, supposedly, been aware for more than a year, of Jeremy's plans, than there was about Maxine Carr, who wasn't there but gave Huntley an alibi, presumably because his hand in the horrific crime wouldn't cross her mind, Whether she deserved it or not, SHE served a prison sentence for what, IMO, was a lesser crime.

Personally, don't really understand why Maxine Carr was/is demonised, she wasn't aware of Huntley's crime whereas if Julie was telling the truth she was far more liable to accusations of guilty by association.
Think Julie looked after Julie to the detriment of anyone else. Think this stands whether Jeremy was guilty or not.

[lookout]

 Poor June saw right through her.

[Caroline]

Oh I don't know? It has a ring of truth about it.

To you perhaps, but certainly not to me, but I'd like to know if he knows for a FACT that his claims are true?

[lookout]

You really have to start worrying when the police have to read the papers to see where they are in an investigation.

These media-driven cases are no good at all.

[Caroline]

Why do you want to be Caroline?

She doesn't, she was joking! But why shouldn't she? 

[maggie]

I think she moved to Canada to get out of the way? If she was still in England she may have let certain things slip and let the cat out of the bag?

She very well may have and the cheque certainly enabled her to do so. Very handy, thanks very mucho.

[maggie]

She doesn't, she was joking! But why shouldn't she? 

She's after Alfie, Caroline 

[maggie]

To you perhaps, but certainly not to me, but I'd like to know if he knows for a FACT that his claims are true?

That is the problem with this case, we are starved of FACTS how we would relish a few proven facts.

[Caroline]

I was playing on words Caroline.

 

[Caroline]

She's after Alfie, Caroline 

He's been a little sh*t today