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

[lookout]

You are nitpicking again.

Nevill was found in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, lying over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, amid a scene suggestive of a struggle. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three in the kitchen and one on the stairs—the police concluded that he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, and during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.


 What on earth was going on for Nevill to be found located in his favourite chair with his head in the coal scuttle with injuries I won't repeat?  As for Julie in the state she was in and after giving a statement of over 20 pages is she not allowed one slip of memory, if she didn't hear the bible on the chest remark from one of the police that morning at Goldhanger anyway?

You're all wrong because if you were to have believed some of the newspapers re. the tragedy,about 5 in all,Neville was found in the hallway-----so where's it to be ? Soooo many different twists to this case that it makes it very difficult to reach the real truth of what had happened and where everyone had ended up. The ONLY guides that we have are the police.Do we fully trust them enough to have got their investigations 100% right in every way ?
 

[guest2181]

Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB's diary notes and Barlows handwritten notes.

Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.

Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.


Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?

[guest2181]

Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.

Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.


Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?

Julie refers to MacDonald in her statement dated 8th September.

[guest2181]

There was no fight. No fight = Lying Mugford

1. Upstairs Neville received three shots. One of those shots made him unable to use his left arm and the other two went into his jaw and lodged into the back of his neck. Thus he could not have put up much of a fight.

2. There are no debris on the carpet that you would find had there been such a fight.

3. No visible marks on Sheila or Jeremy.

For more info - Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview]

I'm not sure I agree with your above conclusions.

Clearly something took place in the kitchen. Whether it was a two way fight, or a one sided beating, or indeed damage caused after the event to stage the scene - we can only speculate.

Julie could be lying, or she could be truthfully repeating what she had been told by Jeremy.

I don't think that applying a particular definition to the description of a fight taking place, could be used to determine whether Julie was telling the truth or not.

[guest2181]

She (Julie) said Sheila was shot on the bed and the bible was placed on her chest. False information that she could only have got from Ann Eaton.

Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667

I don't think that this is a particularly robust conclusion.

Ann states that she was told by a police officer (she doesn't recall who) that Sheila was on the bed. We of course know that Sheila was found on the floor alongside the bed.

Clearly either Ann or the mystery police officer were mistaken. In some documents Sheila is described as being on the far side of the bed, which is an accurate description but could be misinterpreted as Shelia being actually on the bed.

Julie could have obtained this information from Ann. She could have gleaned it from the police or news reports and simply got it wrong.

She could also be truthfully repeating what she was told by Jeremy.

[Roch]

Mendacity oozes everywhere..

You cant get much more mendacious, than Essex Police claiming the 'conversation' entry in the logs refers to Jeremy Bamber.  Why would police be shouting at Jeremy through a loudhailer for four minutes - only to get no response from him?  Is he deaf as a post?  It is obvious that having been placed on the back-foot - this ill thought out response was the best they could produce.   Yet people still do not cotton on!

If the reference to 'conversation' was an error in understanding (on the part of Bonnett or whoever) - then the police should provide that as the reason.  Or - in the absence of being able to recall /understand what the term referred to - they should have conceded this and not come up with a contrived explanation.

It's the fact that they have come up with a contrived and implausible explanation that should set alarm bells ringing.

[guest2181]

You cant get much more mendacious, than Essex Police claiming the 'conversation' entry in the logs refers to Jeremy Bamber.  Why would police be shouting at Jeremy through a loudhailer for four minutes - only to get no response from him?  Is he deaf as a post?  It is obvious that having been placed on the back-foot - this ill thought out response was the best they could produce.   Yet people still do not cotton on!

If the reference to 'conversation' was an error in understanding (on the part of Bonnett or whoever) - then the police should provide that as the reason.  Or - in the absence of being able to recall /understand what the term referred to - they should have conceded this and not come up with a contrived explanation.

It's the fact that they have come up with a contrived and implausible explanation that should set alarm bells ringing.

I'm not sure I follow?

Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?

[Caroline]

I'm not sure I follow?

Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?

There were two logs following the events, the one on the reverse of West's log, doesn't mention anything about a conversation. Had one taken place, it'f not something you would miss off. Clearly the word 'conversation' was simply the wrong choice.

[David1819]

Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.

Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.


Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?

Yes. There was a meeting with the police on the 20th of August. RWB and AE were present. During this meeting a question was put forward by someone.(from a man called Mcdoanld??)

So we have Sheila on the bed, bible on her chest, £2000 and a man called Mcdonald. All linked to the relatives before Julie 'comes forward' to say Jeremy paid Mathew Mcdonald £2000. He got Sheila to sit on the bed and ordered her to kill herself and then he placed the bible on her chest.

[guest2181]

Yes. There was a meeting with the police on the 20th of August. RWB and AE were present. During this meeting a question was put forward by someone.(from a man called Mcdoanld??)

So on 20th August Barlow notes down MacDonalds name in relation to a letter from Scotland.

Then on 2nd September Robert Boutflour notes that Jeremy borrowed £2000 from Nevill and hasn't paid it back.

From that, you somehow decide that it relates to Julie telling the police that Jeremy had told her that he had paid MacDonald to commit 5 murders?

I'm struggling to see a connection.

Surely, it's quite possible that Julie is simply repeating what Jeremy told her?

[Caroline]

So on 20th August Barlow notes down MacDonalds name in relation to a letter from Scotland.

Then on 2nd September Robert Boutflour notes that Jeremy borrowed £2000 from Nevill and hasn't paid it back.

From that, you somehow decide that it relates to Julie telling the police that Jeremy had told her that he had paid MacDonald to commit 5 murders?

I'm struggling to see a connection.

Surely, it's quite possible that Julie is simply repeating what Jeremy told her?

That's the common sense version.

[Roch]

I'm not sure I follow?

Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?

Yes Hartley.  I believe it was described as 'challenges met with no response'.

There were two logs following the events, the one on the reverse of West's log, doesn't mention anything about a conversation. Had one taken place, it'f not something you would miss off. Clearly the word 'conversation' was simply the wrong choice.

If your opinion is a correct assessment, people would prefer Essex Constabulary had provided that as the explanation - rather than the contrived and implausible one about the conversation being with Jeremy.
   

[guest2181]

Yes Hartley.  I believe it was described as 'challenges met with no response'.

If your opinion is a correct assessment, people would prefer Essex Constabulary had provided that as the explanation - rather than the contrived and implausible one about the conversation being with Jeremy.
 

I haven't given an opinion Roch.

The loud hailing is described in both West's and Bonnetts logs, using different wording. It may also turn up in Saxby's log if that ever materialised.

I'm not sure I've seen an explanation given which involves JB.

[Caroline]

I haven't given an opinion Roch.

The loud hailing is described in both West's and Bonnetts logs, using different wording. It may also turn up in Saxby's log if that ever materialised.

I'm not sure I've seen an explanation given which involves JB.

I have heard it mentioned here, never seen anything official though.

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve,

I don't think there was a 'struggle' exactly, I think Jeremy made it look that way to coincide with his claim that Sheila had gone 'crazy'. The smashed light etc. were probably all staged for effect.

Actually I still believe there was some kind of life or death struggle. Nevill wouldn't have given up without a fight and had it been his daughter in the tranquillized state she ascended the stairs after Pamela's telephone call he would easily have been able to disarm her. I believe Julie's evidence when Jeremy told her he had temporarily lost control of his senses, or words to that effect, when he finally no longer had to go through the motions of existence under constant threat of disinheritance.