Giovani's Spy Ring Murder plot - a new lead...

[Adam]

They were far from rich ...

Anne was forced to "mortgage" her land to uncle Neville

Obviously her father Robert Boutflour didn't have the money to bail her out ...

Jeremy's 95 year old grandmother was the one with all the money ...

Robert persuaded her to sign it all over to his family whilst on her death bed only after the murders ...

I do not know anything yet about Anthony's finances except he lived in a shared cottage with his sister - there is nothing to indicate he had money ...

Why do you think the relatives were rich when they clearly were not ?

It might have been RB AND AP - who knows ?

You obviously have no understanding at all of Robert Boutflour if you think he was not capable of misleading the Jury whilst technically telling "the truth" ...

Not only was he very obviously perfectly capable but he very clearly did it ...

They were farmers. Owning land & having people work for them. It was the boom period in the 1980's.

Anyway have you got sources for the above ? I've just given Susan a source showing the relatives were 'wealthy'. Thanks to a pro Bamber video.

I would also like to know how RB technically told the truth but mislead the jury.

[sherlock]

What lies did Julie tell ?

She went to the police after one month. After telling 5 people what she knew. She had finally managed to break away from Bamber whisking her around England & Holland after he rang her at 5am on the massacre morning.

How many lies must she have told in that month ? It must have been a very large amount of lies Adam ...
She repeatedly deceived everybody for a whole month to protect a child killer   ...
Or she lied to have Jeremy wrongly convicted ...

You cannot maintain that Julie did not seriously lie and deceive people in this case ...
That point of view is very clearly a complete non starter Adam ..
You might have sympathy for her position but ou cannot say she did not significantly lie ...

Same as Anthony - same as Robert Boutflour -nthey all undeniably told lies ...

For my own reasons i am also sure that David Boutflour also lied about finding the silencer ...

What i am saying is undeniable Adam -nin hope you can see that ...

Why they lied is open to debate - but lie they all very clearly did ...

[Jane]

The law is very very often an ass (and sometimes very very corrupt) ...
Morally i get your point about Julie ...
But if i had lied like she has undoubtedly done then i would accept peoples suspicion of me for the rest of my life ...
I am not the only one to be suspicious of Anthony ....
For example in 1991 Jeremy was accusing him of being the murderer ...
And they were virtually brothers so Jeremy knew Anthony well ...
Jeremy also accused the Boutflours of planting the silencer ...
Again he knew them well ...
By pleading not guilty he called Julie a liar ...
He would have known for sure if this was true or not ...

Prisons are jam packed with innocent people - what about Jeremys rights ?

He might be guilty but if you seriously think he got a fair trial then you are extremely naive indeed ...

If he didn't receive a fair trial it has to be down to more than one faction and isn't the responsibility of just one person. The only way I can see of making this alleged MASS corruption/duplicity work is the use of COMplicity which would have involved the whole damned kit and caboodle. Ugly though this may be to contemplate, I don't see this as reason for a guilty person -a rapist/terrorist/murderer- to have their conviction quashed so they're free to commit the same crimes in the future. SURE, people like you can whip Joe Public into a frenzy when you scream about the injustice of such practice, but you'd better block you ears from the screams that will deafen you when they find out that the person responsible for the rape/murder of their daughter, sister,wife/mother had been perpetrated by someone who'd been released because their conviction had been obtained by what some called corrupt means. The guilty who refuse to admit their guilt will ALWAYS find someone else to carry their guilt. Jeremy didn't just name ONE person, he named several.

[David1819]

You might well be right David - but for all i know you might not be ...
If it was Sheila then someone must have planted the silencer - right ?
Or am i wrong on that point ?

When the relatives took the silencer from the farm. They also took a pair of Sheila's blood stained underwear with them. The relatives mentioned blood being on the silencer before the lab confirmed it was blood.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

[Adam]

How many lies must she have told in that month ? It must have been a very large amount of lies Adam ...
She repeatedly deceived everybody for a whole month to protect a child killer   ...
Or she lied to have Jeremy wrongly convicted ...

You cannot maintain that Julie did not seriously lie and deceive people in this case ...
That point of view is very clearly a complete non starter Adam ..
You might have sympathy for her position but ou cannot say she did not significantly lie ...

Same as Anthony - same as Robert Boutflour -nthey all undeniably told lies ...

For my own reasons i am also sure that David Boutflour also lied about finding the silencer ...

What i am saying is undeniable Adam -nin hope you can see that ...

Why they lied is open to debate - but lie they all very clearly did ...

Julie gave one short WS on the morning of the massacre. This was not a lie. She just confirmed who she was and that she received a 3am call from Bamber.

After that Bamber kept her well away from the police while he went on his jolly ups around England & Amsterdam with Brett & co.

[sherlock]

Julie gave one short WS on the morning of the massacre. This was not a lie. She just confirmed who she was and that she received a 3am call from Bamber.

After that Bamber kept her well away from the police while he went on his jolly ups around England & Amsterdam with Brett & co.

She went a whole month covering up for Jeremy and didn't tell a single lie to anyone ?

That is impossible Adam ...

She must have talked at length with all the relatives etc - she MUST have spent the whole month lying through her teeth Adam - with actual words and by her actions ...

Anyway we know she was an accomplished liar - hard to commit a cheque book fraud without telling a little porky or two wouldn't you say Adam ?

Shall i go on ?

Why not just accept she was reasonably good at deceiving people when she wanted too ?

Especially if there was a few quid involved ...


 

[Adam]

She went a whole month covering up for Jeremy and didn't tell a single lie to anyone ?

That is impossible Adam ...

She must have talked at length with all the relatives etc - she MUST have spent the whole month lying through her teeth Adam - with actual words and by her actions ...

Anyway we know she was an accomplished liar - hard to commit a cheque book fraud without telling a little porky or two wouldn't you say Adam ?

Shall i go on ?

Why not just accept she was reasonably good at deceiving people when she wanted too ?

Especially if there was a few quid involved ...

She spent a whole month being whisked around by Bamber. Which she put in her WS. So didn't have any chance to lie.  Bamber obviously letting her know during this period he was 'watertight' & there was nothing her or anyone else could do.

When did she talk to the relatives ? Her and Bamber spent most of the time outside of Essex after the massacre while Bamber was buying drugs, clearing out Sheila's flat or wind surfing.

What has the 1984 minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby got to do with the massacre ?

[sherlock]

If he didn't receive a fair trial it has to be down to more than one faction and isn't the responsibility of just one person. The only way I can see of making this alleged MASS corruption/duplicity work is the use of COMplicity which would have involved the whole damned kit and caboodle. Ugly though this may be to contemplate, I don't see this as reason for a guilty person -a rapist/terrorist/murderer- to have their conviction quashed so they're free to commit the same crimes in the future. SURE, people like you can whip Joe Public into a frenzy when you scream about the injustice of such practice, but you'd better block you ears from the screams that will deafen you when they find out that the person responsible for the rape/murder of their daughter, sister,wife/mother had been perpetrated by someone who'd been released because their conviction had been obtained by what some called corrupt means. The guilty who refuse to admit their guilt will ALWAYS find someone else to carry their guilt. Jeremy didn't just name ONE person, he named several.

I have no more wish to see a guilty person get off on a technicality than you do.

But either at trial or on appeal any evidence that it is not safe to rely on should be ignored.

After all such evidence has been ignored there SIMPLY MUST be enough evidence left to convince 12 members of the Public beyond any reasonable doubt.(or 10-2 Jury majority in UK)

If that is not the case then that person MUST walk free.

Unless you have insider information about the murders then you must surely agree 100% ? or not ?

[sherlock]

They were farmers. Owning land & having people work for them. It was the boom period in the 1980's.

Anyway have you got sources for the above ? I've just given Susan a source showing the relatives were 'wealthy'. Thanks to a pro Bamber video.

I would also like to know how RB technically told the truth but mislead the jury.

Where you around in 1985 Adam ? I would not exactly call it the boom years ...

A lot of farmers are poor or go bust - it can be a very hard life.

Anne was selling her land off to Neville - what land did they really own ?

People working for them meant big wage bills to find every week ...

Are you being serious about the credibility of the source you quoted ?

I am going to start a seperate thread to explain to you what Robert Boutflour did when answering the Juries question ...

[sherlock]

They were far from rich ...

Anne was forced to "mortgage" her land to uncle Neville

Obviously her father Robert Boutflour didn't have the money to bail her out ...

Jeremy's 95 year old grandmother was the one with all the money ...

Robert persuaded her to sign it all over to his family whilst on her death bed only after the murders ...

I do not know anything yet about Anthony's finances except he lived in a shared cottage with his sister - there is nothing to indicate he had money ...

Why do you think the relatives were rich when they clearly were not ?

It might have been RB AND AP - who knows ?

You obviously have no understanding at all of Robert Boutflour if you think he was not capable of misleading the Jury whilst technically telling "the truth" ...

Not only was he very obviously perfectly capable but he very clearly did it ...

Adam - which of the above points do you need sources for ?

[sherlock]

When the relatives took the silencer from the farm. They also took a pair of Sheila's blood stained underwear with them. The relatives mentioned blood being on the silencer before the lab confirmed it was blood.

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

For my own reasons i am 100% sure that David Boutflour set Jeremy up with the silencer.
I am equally certain at least one other relative did it with him.
I am fairly sure more than 2 of the relatives knew about or were involved in setting Jeremy up.

What you are saying ties in with that exactly ...

Do you have a source for them taking blood stained underwear with them at the same time they took the silencer ? Was it in a statement ?

[Jane]

For my own reasons i am 100% sure that David Boutflour set Jeremy up with the silencer.
I am equally certain at least one other relative did it with him.
I am fairly sure more than 2 of the relatives knew about or were involved in setting Jeremy up.

What you are saying ties in with that exactly ...

Do you have a source for them taking blood stained underwear with them at the same time they took the silencer ? Was it in a statement ?

To the best of my knowledge, there were either one OR two pairs of blood-stained knickers soaking in a bucket of water which Ann, having spoken to police about it, removed to her house. If you're going to suggest that someone attempted to extract blood from an -at a rough guess- ten part water to one part blood mix, to put in a silencer, perhaps you should think again.

[Jane]

I have no more wish to see a guilty person get off on a technicality than you do.

But either at trial or on appeal any evidence that it is not safe to rely on should be ignored.

After all such evidence has been ignored there SIMPLY MUST be enough evidence left to convince 12 members of the Public beyond any reasonable doubt.(or 10-2 Jury majority in UK)

If that is not the case then that person MUST walk free.

Unless you have insider information about the murders then you must surely agree 100% ? or not ?

There have passed 30+ years of trying to dig up unsafe evidence. It really seems more and more that it's come down to commas and full stops in the wrong place. Neither of which make Jeremy innocent.

[susan]

Where you around in 1985 Adam ? I would not exactly call it the boom years ...

A lot of farmers are poor or go bust - it can be a very hard life.

Anne was selling her land off to Neville - what land did they really own ?

People working for them meant big wage bills to find every week ...

Are you being serious about the credibility of the source you quoted ?

I am going to start a seperate thread to explain to you what Robert Boutflour did when answering the Juries question ...

Sherlock very good post looking forward to your thread

[Caroline]

Caroline - you will have to wait a little longer for the hunched man documentation ...

John Sweeney is in prison and never being released ...
Police are sure he killed more women than he has been convicted for ..
Dirrk van Hussel (remember him ?) and Sweeney are definitely connected ...

Dirrk van Hussel was potentially connected to Bamber ...

Why?