Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[maggie]

I think in the CAL book it says Jeremy was tested by a respected expert and is not a psychopath.

I am just pontificating Jan.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, I guess certain things will only come to light when someone opens up and talks about them. Presently, Jeremy is trying to maintain an "everything in the garden was rosy" position. I don't believe he needed a cocktail of drugs to disengage himself from the act. I think he was crystal clear.

These are the two striking parallels between the Jeremy Bamber and David Bain cases. It is alluded to in James McNeish's book, The Mask of Sanity,which I urge those who still believe Bain to be innocent to read. I quote one excerpt from Chapter 18:

One of the reasons,according to Paul Mullen that David Bain facing the jury sanitised everything, minimising the family conflict and his own difficulties within it, was because he wanted the jurors not to understand how angry and distressed he was-"because if they understood that, they would understand why he killed them". Some observers, like the neuro-scientist quoted earlier, go further. "Not anger, hatred. Deep hatred. Deep rage-"narcissistic rage". Absolutely destructive rage. Not rage, end, stop. Murder. He probably thought, I'll shoot mum. No, I'll shoot dad. No, I'll shoot the kids. I'll shoot the bloody lot of them."

[Steve_uk]

Yvonne: Julie Mugford



I have described previously the work I do with Jeremy and how we manage to uncover the actual facts of the case.

 We can now show that evidence given by Julie Mugford in her witness statements was manipulated by Essex Police in order to deceive the Jury into the false belief that she was a credible witness of good character.

 How we evaluated a small part of her evidence is detailed below.

 According to Essex Police documentation, Julie Mugford made no fewer than thirteen witness statements to Essex Police. These statements were dated 08.08.85, 08.09.85, 10.09.85, 23.09.85, 14.10.85, 18.11.85, 23.11.85, 09.12.85, 17.12.85, 10.03.86, 08.05.86, 18.05.86 and 05.06.86.

 The statements in bold type have never been disclosed to Jeremy or his Defence Counsel and we only uncovered the existence of these none disclosed statements in June 2015. As yet it is unknown what was included in these missing statements.

 I unearthed this fact in the following way. I created a document based on the Police document referencing system known as the Holmes computer system. Here the Police allocate each document a specific number which details which “box “or “boxes” the document was in and the number of it. So for example Julie Mugford’s first statement was given the police reference of Holmes 6/147, 17/423, 20/30, 33/182, 40/542, 45/115 and 75/73. So as you can see there is not just one copy of this particular statement but several each allocated a separate and unique referencing number by Essex Police.

 By extracting the reference numbers I was able to search the campaign’s document data base in order to detail our reference number alongside the Police one so that we can easily locate the document an example of which is shown below:




 Once all the information had been extracted and a chart created it became evident that  Essex Police have hidden five of Julie Mugford’s statements from Jeremy, his lawyers and the Courts.

 This has been done in the exact same manner for every single person involved in the case, Civilian, Police Officer, doctor etc. The chart which is well over 200 pages in length details well over a thousand individuals in total and several thousand statements and a whole catalogue of anomalies have been revealed. The evidence extracted from this chart is still being analysed.

The served copy
 The “served copy” of Julie Mugford’s statement was the only statement discussed at Trial and the only statement shown to the Defence, the Judge and the Court.

 So what is a served copy? To put it simply Essex Police had the authority to create a single statement cherry picking information from all the statements Julie Mugford had made to include on it.

 I cross referenced the individual statements we have had disclosed against the “served copy” in order to see what exactly had been hidden by Essex Police. To do this cross referencing I firstly typed each of her statements (Including the served copy) into the computer and gave each one of our unique reference numbers. From there I went through each statement word by word and highlighted the words, sentences and paragraphs using a different colour font for the sections that had NOT been included in the served copy.

 Once this had been done I could then create a document where all the omitted paragraphs, and sentences could be detailed and reference made to which statement the information had been extracted from.

 Next I created a simple chart which was made up of a series of boxes like this:




 Finally, on this issue a document was created in the format which we use for the lawyers so that they could have this information in an easy to understand and yet comprehensive form.

 From doing this work it became clear that Essex Police manipulated the evidence of the key Prosecution witness, withholding from the defence, the Trial Judge and the Jury the truth of events, and hiding evidence of numerous criminal activities which had been committed by Julie Mugford ,in order to deceive the court to believing that she was an honest and trustworthy witness.

 Full disclosure of case documents Essex Police still hold including the hidden statements created by Julie Mugford is now required.



Taken from main site - must admit I would love to see ALL her interviews .

I can't see how you can reach the conclusion that the "truth of events" has been withheld when you don't cite anything to make your case.

[lookout]

 Some of the truth to this case didn't show itself until June of this year ! What an utter disgrace.

[Caroline]

I think in the CAL book it says Jeremy was tested by a respected expert and is not a psychopath.

Another 'respected expert' said that he is.

[Caroline]

Yvonne: Julie Mugford



I have described previously the work I do with Jeremy and how we manage to uncover the actual facts of the case.

 We can now show that evidence given by Julie Mugford in her witness statements was manipulated by Essex Police in order to deceive the Jury into the false belief that she was a credible witness of good character.

 How we evaluated a small part of her evidence is detailed below.

 According to Essex Police documentation, Julie Mugford made no fewer than thirteen witness statements to Essex Police. These statements were dated 08.08.85, 08.09.85, 10.09.85, 23.09.85, 14.10.85, 18.11.85, 23.11.85, 09.12.85, 17.12.85, 10.03.86, 08.05.86, 18.05.86 and 05.06.86.

 The statements in bold type have never been disclosed to Jeremy or his Defence Counsel and we only uncovered the existence of these none disclosed statements in June 2015. As yet it is unknown what was included in these missing statements.

 I unearthed this fact in the following way. I created a document based on the Police document referencing system known as the Holmes computer system. Here the Police allocate each document a specific number which details which “box “or “boxes” the document was in and the number of it. So for example Julie Mugford’s first statement was given the police reference of Holmes 6/147, 17/423, 20/30, 33/182, 40/542, 45/115 and 75/73. So as you can see there is not just one copy of this particular statement but several each allocated a separate and unique referencing number by Essex Police.

 By extracting the reference numbers I was able to search the campaign’s document data base in order to detail our reference number alongside the Police one so that we can easily locate the document an example of which is shown below:




 Once all the information had been extracted and a chart created it became evident that  Essex Police have hidden five of Julie Mugford’s statements from Jeremy, his lawyers and the Courts.

 This has been done in the exact same manner for every single person involved in the case, Civilian, Police Officer, doctor etc. The chart which is well over 200 pages in length details well over a thousand individuals in total and several thousand statements and a whole catalogue of anomalies have been revealed. The evidence extracted from this chart is still being analysed.

The served copy
 The “served copy” of Julie Mugford’s statement was the only statement discussed at Trial and the only statement shown to the Defence, the Judge and the Court.

 So what is a served copy? To put it simply Essex Police had the authority to create a single statement cherry picking information from all the statements Julie Mugford had made to include on it.

 I cross referenced the individual statements we have had disclosed against the “served copy” in order to see what exactly had been hidden by Essex Police. To do this cross referencing I firstly typed each of her statements (Including the served copy) into the computer and gave each one of our unique reference numbers. From there I went through each statement word by word and highlighted the words, sentences and paragraphs using a different colour font for the sections that had NOT been included in the served copy.

 Once this had been done I could then create a document where all the omitted paragraphs, and sentences could be detailed and reference made to which statement the information had been extracted from.

 Next I created a simple chart which was made up of a series of boxes like this:




 Finally, on this issue a document was created in the format which we use for the lawyers so that they could have this information in an easy to understand and yet comprehensive form.

 From doing this work it became clear that Essex Police manipulated the evidence of the key Prosecution witness, withholding from the defence, the Trial Judge and the Jury the truth of events, and hiding evidence of numerous criminal activities which had been committed by Julie Mugford ,in order to deceive the court to believing that she was an honest and trustworthy witness.

 Full disclosure of case documents Essex Police still hold including the hidden statements created by Julie Mugford is now required.



Taken from main site - must admit I would love to see ALL her interviews .

This sounds like someone using a lot of words but saying very little. I agree that ALL of her statements should be released but personally, I think people will be disappointed because IF there was something that proved EP conspired to frame JB it would have been destroyed years ago.

[lookout]

We all have our differences don't we ?

Some ( most ) said Barry George killed Jill Dando-------------but they were wrong weren't they ?

[Caroline]

We all have our differences don't we ?

Some ( most ) said Barry George killed Jill Dando-------------but they were wrong weren't they ?

I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.

[guest154]

I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.

Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!

[Jane]

Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!

Foiled again, eh?

[Stephanie]

Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!

David failed to list the cases to which he was referring....

The state found 'proof' of guilt in many cases in the 1980s now consider this countries appalling record of finding proof that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. specially in the 1980s. The prosecution forensics in 1986 does not stand up to modern scrutiny.

However if you look at some of the cases where innocent men were freed, they are not the same as this case. In fact they are very very different.

It was either Sheila or Jeremy Bamber. The police clearly made a mistake in the first instance believing Sheila had carried out the murders then ended her own life. They then corrected this mistake when they realised it was Jeremy.

Nothing to do with forensics imo. The anomalies speak for themselves. JB's behaviours imo show clear signs of psychopathy and guilt!

[lookout]

I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.

Easy to admit after the event,isn't it ? Any fool can say that.

[Caroline]

Easy to admit after the event,isn't it ? Any fool can say that.

And you have said it many times!

[lookout]

And you have said it many times!

I usually judge beforehand and I'm usually right too.

[Jane]

I usually judge beforehand and I'm usually right too.

 Sometimes I don't know how you manage to live with yourself, Lookout. The arrogance astounds me. I guess none of us will ever know when you're wrong -and you're as capable of being wrong as we all are-  because you're never likely to admit it.