outlandish Theory's

[wiggy]

I have loved reading all the interesting theory's in this forum most are well thought out and some even plausible. The problem is there is no evidence to back any of them up.

this case as I've said before should be overturned not because of theory's but because there is no evidence that would show that without any doubt JB is guilty.

Case rests on 3 things as per trial and summing up of the Judge.

1. Do we believe Julie Mongford

2. The silencer being found and red paint and blood found

3. Did JB get a call from his father


I do not know how appeals work but i believe there needs to be new evidence availible that would have effected the judgement of the jury. If in the opinion of the appeal board there is no such evidence that would change the jurys perception then the appeal would be stopped.

Here is where i have a problem with he judicial system.  They always seem to err on the side that the original verdict was sound and seem very seldom to allow appeals there have been a number on convictions overturned on second and third appeals. This shows the bias towards not wanting to admit there may have been mistakes made.

Look at the case of Susan May who supposedly killed her aunt for her money wheb she already had control of her money with a POA although there was good eyesight witnessing a red car at the scene this was ignored as the police had made up there mind the woman was guilty.

This went to appeal several times and the womans name never cleared although its pretty obvious to anyone she was innocent.

If you look at this case ant take the three point that convicted him.

1. Do we believe Julie Mongford

If the jury at the time of trial were made aware that she had been given immunity to be prosecuted in return for her testifying would they have been so inclined to believe her. If also they new that straight after the trial she got £25,000 for selling her story only on a guilty verdict.

Surely this new evidence that the original jury did not have would have changed there perception of her testimony.

2. The silencer and the blood evidence now casts doubt on whether the blood in there was Sheilas. It doesn't prove it wasn't her blood but shows that there is no way to be certain. If the jury was told at trial there was so much uncertainty about the blood that may have changed there perception especially if they doubted JM statement.

Also i have read that there was a log stating that the cupboard where JBs lovely cousin found the silencer was searched by police and nothing found surley there is a doubt that it was actually there. The police didnt see it being found there JBs cousin took it on himself to take it home contaminating the evidence by removing it from the scene and the police pick it up there rather than from the farm.

The red scratches on the fireplace also seem in doubt im not sure that the photographic evidence is clear as the scratches were under the ledge so not sure if the photos show this. However if you take the fact that the silencer was not found by the police which severely taints that as evidence the police who from the start thought there had been a struggle must have looked for signs of this but in all there looking failed to spot  the marks on the fireplace so along with the fact the silencer and marks were pointed out by the relatives and missed by the eagle eyed police(sarcasm sorry) this evidence is tainted.

If the jury had been told that the cupboard had been searched at the trial and nothing found this would have possibly changed there opinion.

3. Did JB dad make a call to his son.  What evidence did the prosecution bring to disprove this call.

in reading the evidence there is no evidence either way the reason the jury were so easily persuaded that the call may not have happened was that they felt (based on JMs testimony that is was possible that JB was lying) that it was more likely a way of inventing an alibi. However if they knew about JMs immunity and newspaper deal they would not have easily believed her and would have been more likely to take JB at his word.


so to summarize

JMs testimony now tainted as she was to benefit from testifying and a guilty verdict

No definitive blood evidence on silencer , and police not finding silencer or the marks on the fireplace after an extensive search, and the relatives (who gained by JBs guilty verdict) handing in the silencer but from a diffrent address rather than pointing the find out to officers at the farm.

the phone call evidence of which there is none either way can not be used as evidence alone as there is no proof on whether call wa made or not.  JB was not believed because the jury were more likely to believe JM but not if they knew about her tainted evidence.

in short theory's are good and entertaining and some quite plausible but lets try and stick to the facts of which there is very little therefore is an unsound conviction.

[lookout]

Exactly. No evidence at all and what was used was contaminated which should have been stated as inconclusive. Even in our DNA age,a match has to be a perfect one or the findings are no longer unique to that particular person,so how could the lab. say for absolute certainty that blood found on the silencer belonged to Sheila ? Rabbits blood is similar to human blood when tested,but the blood in question was only grouped of which there are a percentage of people with a similar blood group.

Julie Mugford had been coerced into saying what she'd said,knowing that there was a reward at the end of it. Pity the jury hadn't known ?

Finally I'm 100% certain that Jeremy is innocent. The exaggerations which made in the case beggared belief. EP needed a conviction under their belts or their heads went on the chopping block after their abysmal failures prior to the WHF murders.

[wiggy]

again i cant say whether he is guilty or not but the verdict is most definitely unsafe

[Adam]

Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.

Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.

The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.

[Adam]

The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.

The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.

It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.

[Adam]

Even the judge called Neville's call 'mysterious'. Which the Oxford dictionary terms 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

There is also a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence. Which has been posted.

[wiggy]

thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.

The evidence is overwhelming.

there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )

The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)

The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still  a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,

plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.

im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.

As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.

Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.

I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.

its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt.  No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.

[Jan]

Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.

Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.

The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.

Adam why do you think it is against the law for a newspaper to make an offer to any key witness in a trial before the trial has finished?

[Jan]

The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.

The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.

It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.

It was still murder and suicide in their eyes so it still should have been investigated properly . No excuses . They handled the rifle without gloves . They handled the silencer without gloves. They lost count of the amount of officers who entered the crime scene. They did not ask ballistic experts to visit the crime scene . They burnt items in the house ( their idea not that of Jeremy) I could go on.

[Jan]

The police were not looking for incriminating evidence within the 4 days after the massacre. So were not going to open every box. Especially small one's at the back of cupboards underneath other things.

The relatives were looking for evidence. And found it.

It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's.

Adam - why did they not declare the animal blood that was found on the silencer?

[Jan]

Even the judge called Neville's call 'mysterious'. Which the Oxford dictionary terms 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

There is also a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence. Which has been posted.

No there is not a mountain of forensic evidence - your grammar is misleading. 

There is nothing to place Jeremy at the scene on that night at the time of the murders.

[Jan]

Wiggy - to be clear I am still asking questions about the case and there are plenty of people on the forum who totally believe him to be guilty so someone has the balance the debate  :)otherwise it would be too one sided. But there are plenty of actual  documents on the site

[Jan]

Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.

Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.

The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.

How do you know how much Wiggy has read? That's a bit  rude of you?

[susan]

How do you know how much Wiggy has read? That's a bit  rude of you?

Jan that is quite right Adam has not got a clue how much Wiggy has read it takes months to read all his threads never mind Mike's and other information on here.

[Jan]

Susan I agree  I believe it is bad manners to start insulting posters when they have just joined.