Did Jeremy phone Witham police station ?

[Roch]

What would anyone gain from saying Jeremy said he called Witham first, if he hadn't?

Yeah I'm not really part of that argument.  So I don't know whether he did or did not attempt it.  I just don't think it's significant if he did attempt it.  That's just my personal view though.

[Stephanie]

Steph,

Robert Boutflour's interventions to ACC Simpson seems to have resulted in DCS 'Mick' Ainsley taking over the case from DCI Thomas 'Taff' Jones.  When interviewed in 2002 by Metropolitan Police, Ainsley referred to Robert Boutflour as 'Bobby'.  He eventually went on to obtain a private sector position, linked to security, at none-other than the Osea Road caravan site.   

Sends down Bobby's nephew by facilitating the altering of statements etc etc - and then winds up working at the family business. 

Now that is local. 

But conflicts of interests aren't unusual; especially in rural villages. And by referring to him as 'Bobby' when interviewed by the Met in 2002, it would show he is being open and up front regarding their friendship.

[Stephanie]

He obviously realised that he hadn't.

He hasn't realised any of the sort.

He's conning people and in so doing making things up as he goes.

Whilst people will listen to his lies, he will continue to feed into them.

[Stephanie]

Yeah I'm not really part of that argument.  So I don't know whether he did or did not attempt it.  I just don't think it's significant if he did attempt it.  That's just my personal view though.

Can you explain why you don't think it's significant? Why did he phone Witham, then Chelmsford instead of 999?

And why didn't he mention this during his police interview; like he mentioned it to the police officers that morning outside the house?

Do you think by the time he was interviewed, he had a chance to think it through and thought it was best to play down the phone call?

I'm also interested to learn what parts of the arguments you are interested in? Surely you would be interested in all the arguments if you believe him innocent? What if you have missed something by not being interested in something like the Witham phone call. What if the answers you are looking for are in the arguments you are missing?

[Roch]

But conflicts of interests aren't unusual; especially in rural villages. And by referring to him as 'Bobby' when interviewed by the Met in 2002, it would show he is being open and up front regarding their friendship.

That is downplaying the circs to the extreme Steph, to be fair.

If 'I' make complaints to police and effectively engineer a situation where a head of investigation is replaced by a different head; discover the main exhibit to be used against my nephew; inherit in his place, while he is incarcerated; and then my family (who are also beneficiaries) employ the second head of the investigation within the family business.

That is outrageous and blatant.  How they get away with it is astounding.  How it is not featured in documentaries... is a disgrace.

[Roch]

Can you explain why you don't think it's significant? Why did he phone Witham, then Chelmsford instead of 999?

And why didn't he mention this during his police interview; like he mentioned it to the police officers that morning outside the house?

Do you think by the time he was interviewed, he had a chance to think it through and thought it was best to play down the phone call?

I'm also interested to learn what parts of the arguments you are interested in? Surely you would be interested in all the arguments if you believe him innocent? What if you have missed something by not being interested in something like the Witham phone call. What if the answers you are looking for are in the arguments you are missing?

In short... I was never strong on the calls when I used to post.  The case is quite big and there are numerous different aspects.  It is an area I am currently looking in to (when I get the chance).  I find the arguments surrounding the calls not easy to digest.  Point taken though.

[Stephanie]

That is downplaying the circs to the extreme Steph, to be fair.

If 'I' make complaints to police and effectively engineer a situation where a head of investigation is replaced by a different head; discover the main exhibit to be used against my nephew; inherit in his place, while he is incarcerated; and then my family (who are also beneficiaries) employ the second head of the investigation within the family business.

That is outrageous and blatant.  How they get away with it is astounding.  How it is not featured in documentaries... is a disgrace.

I'm not sure what it is you are finding extreme in my post? Do you not think your theories are extreme? Maybe you should set out in one thread, with supporting documents, what it is that bothers you so much.

Plus ALL of what you have referred to happened AFTER the murders!

I can only refer to the SH case in relation to how you appear to perceive any injustice. Why didn't the police pursue the 'sexual element' as the motive for the murder? Why did they go for the easy option of a burglary gone wrong? Why didn't the police explore and investigate SH's family dynamics, and establish what was only established in 2012/13?

Why when SH confessed wasn't his conviction looked at again in terms of his actual sentence?

There will always be some questions we may not get the answers to or may not like the answers we get but these facts alone do not make someone innocent Roch!

[Stephanie]

If 'I' make complaints to police and effectively engineer a situation where a head of investigation is replaced by a different head; discover the main exhibit to be used against my nephew; inherit in his place, while he is incarcerated; and then my family (who are also beneficiaries) employ the second head of the investigation within the family business.

That is outrageous and blatant.  How they get away with it is astounding.  How it is not featured in documentaries... is a disgrace.

But is it so outrageous and blatant if Bamber is guilty?

Again, I do understand your point as there were outrageous conclusions when it came to the SH case.

The prison system appear to have accepted his innocence; even though they are meant to treat all prisoners the same? How did SH's quite apparent personality disorder go unnoticed for over 12 years and how did the inquest conclude he wasn't mentally ill nor disordered?

[Stephanie]

In short... I was never strong on the calls when I used to post.  The case is quite big and there are numerous different aspects.  It is an area I am currently looking in to (when I get the chance).  I find the arguments surrounding the calls not easy to digest.  Point taken though.

I accept your points also Roch. But I am looking at this from a different position to you, and I remain firm in my belief Bamber is a classic psychopath.

Whilst I recognise his relatives may not have clean hands so to speak, could their motives not be perceived in a different way, because they genuinely realised Jeremy was guilty?

Further, SH's close relatives behaviour following arrest, conviction, appeals, zenith burglary omission, confession and subsequent death leave a bad taste in ones mouth but it doesn't change the fact SH was guilty and had deceived so many people for so many years.

[Roch]

But is it so outrageous and blatant if Bamber is guilty?

Again, I do understand your point as there were outrageous conclusions when it came to the SH case.

The prison system appear to have accepted his innocence; even though they are meant to treat all prisoners the same? How was SH's quite apparent personality disorder go unnoticed for over 12 years and how did the inquest conclude he wasn't mentally ill nor disordered?

Well it's not exactly 'transparent' or ethical or good practice.  I think the case is regarded among police officers as 'stinking to high heaven' in terms of either poor policing and/or corrupt policing.  Probably both.

As for SH - I don't know how that happened.  Clearly he had secrets and appears to have somehow flown  under the radar with regard to his darker aspects?

[Roch]

Whilst I recognise his relatives may not have clean hands so to speak, could their motives not be perceived in a different way, because they genuinely realised Jeremy was guilty?

Personally, I think his relatives were self-serving and ruthless.  He didn't see them coming.  Quite why a guilty Bamber would underestimate such ruthlessness among his cousins is a mystery to me.  It makes more sense that he had simply already burned his bridges with Robert and Ann prior to the killings.

I am somebody who honestly believes that the memory of the victims is actually insulted - by having a false version of events hoisted upon the case, in order to achieve the conviction of JB. 

[Stephanie]

Well it's not exactly 'transparent' or ethical or good practice.  I think the case is regarded among police officers as 'stinking to high heaven' in terms of either poor policing and/or corrupt policing.  Probably both.

Agreed Roch. Suffolk police got the right man but they made a pigs ears of crossing all the T's and dotting the I's. Had they not made so many cock ups and taken so long to apprehend SH (7 months) maybe his guilt would have been clearer.

Why didn't they link the Zenith burglary with the murder? Disclosures had been made to both crimes. JBarker who was with SH up until 5.30am and was arrested on the same day as SH and questioned under caution, had worked at Zenith - so there was a link. Are we to presume the police didn't figure all this out? Are we to believe the police didn't find any flock fibres at Zenith? Or was poor policing the reason these facts were missed? Or maybe they weren't missed?

[Stephanie]

Personally, I think his relatives were self-serving and ruthless.  He didn't see them coming.  Quite why a guilty Bamber would underestimate such ruthlessness among his cousins is a mystery to me.  It makes more sense that he had simply already burned his bridges with Robert and Ann prior to the killings.

I am somebody who honestly believes that the memory of the victims is actually insulted - by having a false version of events hoisted upon the case, in order to achieve the conviction of JB.

Personally I feel the same about SH's relatives, though I'm unsure if I agree with you about Jeremy not seeing them coming? Though I recall uttering those exact words to SH,when I believed him to be innocent. "He didn't see them coming.

Surely (Innocent or guilty) Jeremy must have had some idea of who and what they were/are?

As a 'guilty' Bamber he would not have been thinking of his relatives at that time; it would have been all about Jeremy. To win no matter what. His focus would not have been on the consequences of his actions until after. And even then it's about winning.

[Stephanie]

As for SH - I don't know how that happened.  Clearly he had secrets and appears to have somehow flown  under the radar with regard to his darker aspects?

Do you not think his close relatives were aware of some of his secrets and darker aspects?

Maybe you should take a look at some of the old SH threads. His brother knew exactly what he was in my firm opinion. And not only did his brother know exactly what he was, he was still prepared to attempt to assassinate my character here with his malicious smear campaign in order to protect his reputation and that of his brothers? Why was that I wonder (Rhetorical).

I think there was most probably always 'rivalry' in the Bamber family circle and what has played out in the pubic domain since the murders supports this. But I think by focusing on family rivalries you can miss other more relevant aspects. I did this myself from Nov 2012 (Zenith omission) to confession. Actually I did it long before this time. I excused many things, not realising what was there all along.

Imo there is a valid reason why Jeremy Bamber's relations have not come out in force to support him and it hasn't been about their inheritance. Just like in the SH case, things are not always as they seem.

[notsure]

OK, most of that is fair comment however, if there is still mountains of undisclosed material, why did Jeremy say he has almost all of the material hidden behind PII?

Well I presume he has since found out by things being referred to in new information that he has recieved.