Song For Jeremy Bamber (First version)

[Dan Straker]

The log which mentions 'one male, one female' - I have copies of the logs, I know how many there are.

Yes, most info we get is second hand - but this was 1985 - it siege situation in a tiny village setting. They didn't have the same technology as we do now. A football game and a murder or 5 people after a siege?  Is that really a good analogy? And a football match is videoed - you have the advantage of playback and you can actually watch almost any game! If not on TV, on the internet!! And how many times have goals been disputed? Even when people are actually watching?

This case is different because police admitted they made mistakes.

Just noticed your post before leaving.

My basic argument is that the number and the nature of the mistakes the police are supposed to have made is just ridiculous. Compared with all of that, Jeremy getting the time of Nevill's call slightly wrong just doesn't seem like much.

 

[Caroline]

Just noticed your post before leaving.

My basic argument is that the number and the nature of the mistakes the police are supposed to have made is just ridiculous. Compared with all of that, Jeremy getting the time of Nevill's call slightly wrong just doesn't seem like much.

I'd have the time emblazoned in my mind if I received such a call. Police make mistakes all of the time - it is of course ridiculous but I'm sure the parents of of Stephen Lawrence will tell you that - and there are an infinite number of cases where there has been a balls up! The police made huge mistakes in this case and probably tried to hide quite a few of them. I do think that Jeremy was framed as far as the silencer is concerned BUT only because SJ didn't think he had enough evidence to convict - he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to secure a conviction. No I don't think that's right but I don't think Jeremy deserves to win an appeal - he should have a retrial.

[Dan Straker]

I'd have the time emblazoned in my mind if I received such a call. Police make mistakes all of the time - it is of course ridiculous but I'm sure the parents of of Stephen Lawrence will tell you that - and there are an infinite number of cases where there has been a balls up! The police made huge mistakes in this case and probably tried to hide quite a few of them. I do think that Jeremy was framed as far as the silencer is concerned BUT only because SJ didn't think he had enough evidence to convict - he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to secure a conviction. No I don't think that's right but I don't think Jeremy deserves to win an appeal - he should have a retrial.

I'll have to turn in now, but I would like members to consider what evidence could be used against Jeremy in a retrial, if the silencer evidence is rejected.

The bible on the chest part of Julie Mugford's story of his alleged confession pretty well proves that she got the description from Ann Eaton. His defence would have to be really dumb not to be able to expose her lies in a second trial

So you've got no silencer and no Julie Mugford. So what's left?  As far as I can tell there's just no case. It's no good saying "Oh but there's lots of evidence" Could you give us a list in the manner of Adam?

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=0b2nVOmKFs3Y7AbvuoGYDg&url=http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php%3Ftopic%3D5516.0&ved=0CB0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFjbhQLM9sspG3-2pwioYGnn10y_Q&sig2=LO2uJBnYhis7rZNh0tjlJg

There is already a thread on whether there was enough evidence without the silencer.

The relatives said there was. The prosecution said they still had an overwhelming case without it.

[Adam]

No Julie, no silencer. The fact is there was. So it's all if's.

[Mr. Gee]

You had logged out Caroline. I know because I checked to see if you were still there to be able to answer my post. I suppose it's just those gremlins again! But I'm turning it in now. Goodnight.

I think Caroline is on invisible to ordinary members. Only other admin and mods can see her. This may give the impression to the ordinary members that she is not logged in.

[Mr. Gee]

Speaking generally, I would have thought it less likely that policemen would make mistakes about things like the time of a telephone call than the average person would, because it's their job to get things right. Jeremy's mistake is understandable, but it's not understandable that the police reported finding two bodies downstairs at least FOUR times.

The accusation that the police lied in their statements is based upon the evidence of the logs in which there are references to a second body found in the kitchen. Some people have tried to say that one mistake just got repeated over and over, but that just won't wash because different reports give different information.

I won't try to give the details here, but anybody can confirm or deny that the following pieces of information were given separately.

1 That a female body was seen in the kitchen before the police broke into the house-I am of course referring to the sighting by PC Collins.

2 That a dead male and a dead female were found on entry.

3 That a call for an ambulance was made in which two bodies were referred to.

4 That when the upstairs part of the house was gained, it was reported that THREE more bodies were found and not four.

5 That in a statement by one Neil Davidson, the following description of the scene downstairs is given: “One murder and one suicide.”

That is one hell of a lot of mistakes. I would say that they can't all be just mistakes, because they all add up to the same conclusion. Those cops, first found Sheila downstairs having, apparently, committed suicide and lying on the kitchen floor where she was visible to PC Collins when he looked through the window.

I had been wondering about that as well. If there were not two bodies found on entry why even mention one murder and one suicide? Why not just "two bodies found"?
Of course it could be argued that since Bamber mentioned that her sister had gone crazy with a gun it was therefore just assumed that one was suicide. But you still have to explain the two bodies found on entry?
There have been various explanations in order to explain this away, but it still niggles at the back of my mind. And yes I too agree that there were just too many "mistakes" that have been flippantly to my mind explained away.

[Mr. Gee]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=0b2nVOmKFs3Y7AbvuoGYDg&url=http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php%3Ftopic%3D5516.0&ved=0CB0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFjbhQLM9sspG3-2pwioYGnn10y_Q&sig2=LO2uJBnYhis7rZNh0tjlJg

There is already a thread on whether there was enough evidence without the silencer.

The relatives said there was. The prosecution said they still had an overwhelming case without it.

They may have said so. But it ain't necessarily so?

[Jane]

They may have said so. But it ain't necessarily so?

The ubiquitous "THEY", eh, Grahame. Responsible for what? The truth? Perhaps the truth as they see it. Tweeking -modification- of the truth? Who will it hurt? As you say, "THEY MAY have said so. But it ain't necessarily so." However, if we apply it to one, we must apply it to ALL.

[tyler]

Personally,I don't buy the 'mistakes' in the logs re: two bodies on entry. The raid team had open mic's and what was occurring was being relayed live. Any mistakes in communication would have been rectified at the time imo and not later in written statements,which history shows that the Police had no problems with falsifying. As to the silencer 'evidence',well,  Neil Davidson pretty much reveals that to be bogus in his COLP interview. Revealing that a paint sample was taken from the mantle BEFORE the 'finding' of any silencer,due to red paint being found on the barrel of a gun that was discovered downstairs. A gun that's existence appears to have been well and truly covered up.   

[Mr. Gee]

The ubiquitous "THEY", eh, Grahame. Responsible for what? The truth? Perhaps the truth as they see it. Tweeking -modification- of the truth? Who will it hurt? As you say, "THEY MAY have said so. But it ain't necessarily so." However, if we apply it to one, we must apply it to ALL.

Not in this case April. Adam was referring to one group of people. I was questioning not only them, but also "overwhelming" case without the silencer evidence. In short there was no overwhelming case against Bamber.

[Jane]

Not in this case April. Adam was referring to one group of people. I was questioning not only them, but also "overwhelming" case without the silencer evidence. In short there was no overwhelming case against Bamber.

Yes Grahame. Adam does rather make use of expansive and sweeping statements. Nonetheless "THEY" get everywhere

[lookout]

He only had a brief look and Nevill had long straggly hair - I guess it was the style that is called a comb over. He didn't have time to analyse , weight, height and build. He saw the long hair and made a snap decision, which he corrected on entry.

"Long,straggly hair?" With all that farm machinery around and a wife who would have had ten fits at her husband having had" long,straggly hair". Is there a pic of this " long,straggly hair ?" Because in the outline of the poor man dead in his armchair,there didn't appear to be much hair waving about ?

[Caroline]

Errr yeah, you can see his hair in the picture of his head in the coal scuttle and it's also a mater of record!

[Adam]

Not in this case April. Adam was referring to one group of people. I was questioning not only them, but also "overwhelming" case without the silencer evidence. In short there was no overwhelming case against Bamber.

Two groups of people. The prosecution and relatives.

Both know more about the case than anyone on here. The prosecution successfully spending months prosecuting Bamber. The relatives being involved from day one and sitting through the 21 day trial.