2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:

[Adam]

I will post some extracts. It will then be possible to average out the time Bamber called Julie.

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:

"I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, "3.15 a.m."

293. Later in the same statement Ann Eaton said that on reaching home, she had made notes on a card of the events of 8 August and that she had retained the card that was handed to the police and given a reference CAE/4. The card recorded the fact that Julie had given a statement and then apparently added in brackets alongside at some later stage was:

"There was trouble getting right time of 3.15 phone call. A London friend was phoned."

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:

307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.

309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:

"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m.

311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:

[Adam]

These independent time statements completely rule out Bamber phoning the police at 3.36am. As he claims.

No one says the phone call was after 3.40am.
 

[Adam]

In short, the latest possible time was 3.30am. However two independent witnesses say it was at 3.00am. Which makes Bamber 100% guilty as he had not received Nevill's call untill 3.10am.

To be generous and allow for inaccurracies, the middle of 3.00am - 3.30am is 3.15am. This is directly after Nevill phoned Bamber and 21 minutes before Bamber phoned the police at 3.36am. Although Bamber maintains he called the police before Julie.

[Adam]

The most logical chain of events is after Bamber got home, one of the first things he did was ring Julie at 3.00am -

"Everythings going well, not to worry. There is something wrong at the farm. Bye honey.  Love you lots". 

After cleaning up he then rang Chelmsford police at 3.26am.

All seems straight forward.

[Adam]

Bamber could say he called the police at 3.26am. Then phoned Julie at 3.30am. That would fit in with him saying he called Julie after the police.

However that would mean changing times again to suit his purpose. Nevill now calling Chelmsford police at 3.36am would not work as it only gives Sheila 12 minutes to do everything before the police arrived.
 

[Adam]

In summary the available times of Bambers call to Julie are -

3.00am -

Meaning Bamber is 100% guilty.


3.15am -

Meaning Bamber called Julie before the police.


3.30am -

Meaning Bamber did not call the police at 3.36am and Nevill did not call Chelmsford police.     
                 

There is a slim chance he called the police at 3.26am, then Julie at 3.30am if the police call was very quick.
 

[David1819]

The most logical chain of events is after Bamber got home, one of the first things he did was ring Julie at 3.00am -

"Everythings going well, not to worry. There is something wrong at the farm. Bye honey.  Love you lots". 

After cleaning up he then rang Chelmsford police at 3.26am.

All seems straight forward.

All seems straight forward only to an xxxxxxxx.

Your "logical chain of events" ignores Sheila's time of death that rules Jeremy out.

Therefore the only possible scenario is Jeremy is woken by the phone call from Neville. This is further corroborated by Julies original statement were she told him to go BACK to bed. Because that's where he was prior to the call.

[lookout]

Selective amnesia affects Adam,frequently.

[Bill Robertson]

In summary the available times of Bambers call to Julie are -
3.30am -
Meaning Bamber did not call the police at 3.36am and Nevill did not call Chelmsford police.     
             

What nobody in Court noticed when testimony was being given was:

PC 1990 Michael West witness statement dated 13 September 1985:-

“I then asked him to hold the line and put the call on ‘hold’. I contacted Headquarters Information Room…I was informed Police Officers had just returned to Witham and then spoke with PC Saxby at Witham Police Station. I spent about three minutes maximum speaking to Information Room and Witham Police Station and then returned to Mr Jeremy Bamber who was still on the line” [Note: He could not have spent 3 minutes maximum, it was clearly around 5 minutes minimum]

PC Robin Saxby made a witness statement dated 23 September 1985 in which he said that he spoke to PC West at 03:30 via his personal radio.

According to her witness statement of the 8th August 1985 Julie Mugford recalled:

“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985”

According to Jeremy Bamber in his witness statement dated 7th August 1985, at 03:25 he telephoned Julie Mugford and at 03:30 they had a conversation (after her flatmate Doug Dale finally managed to rouse her).

So, if the phone call from Jeremy had been just prior to 03:26, as the police claim, how could he be calling Julie Mugford at the same time as his phone call was put on hold by PC West? How could he be speaking to Mugford at 03:30 and also be speaking/on hold to PC West at 03:30, when the phone line to 9 Head Street could only send and receive one call at a time?

It is impossible for PC West to have put Jeremy’s call on hold, just prior to 03:26 and go back to Jeremy after speaking to PC Saxby at 03:30 if Jeremy was actually engaged in an entirely different telephone call with Julie Mugford between 03:25 and 03:33.

Therefore, as PC West said all along, the phone call by Jeremy to PC West happened at 03:36 and the call prior to 03:26 to PC West had to be from Nevill Bamber. Thus Jeremy is innocent.

[Steve_uk]

The most logical chain of events is after Bamber got home, one of the first things he did was ring Julie at 3.00am -

"Everythings going well, not to worry. There is something wrong at the farm. Bye honey.  Love you lots". 

After cleaning up he then rang Chelmsford police at 3.26am.

All seems straight forward.

Yes because Julie was in effect giving him an alibi from the time he telephoned at Bourtree Cottage, she being a live person and not one of the five people lying slaughtered three miles away in an isolated Georgian farmhouse, one of whom was meant to be a second alibi.

[Bill Robertson]

Yes because Julie was in effect giving him an alibi from the time he telephoned at Bourtree Cottage, she being a live person and not one of the five people lying slaughtered three miles away in an isolated Georgian farmhouse, one of whom was meant to be a second alibi.

The only time that Julie Mugford told the truth was in her witness statement of 8th August 1985, before DS21 Stan Jones had any reason to persuade her to change her story.
In her witness statement of the 8th August 1985: She recalled:

“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985. He sounded disjointed and worried and said words to the effect, ‘There’s something wrong at home’, and he did not know what to do. He sounded odd. I told him to go to bed. I was half asleep and didn’t ask him what was wrong. When I told him to go to bed I just said, bye Honey or words to that effect. He said, ‘I love you lots’, and I hung up.”

By September 1985 under the influence of police questioning and her own criminality becoming known to the police, her story changed. Not only had the time of Jeremy’s call altered but also the content of the call was dramatically different. Julie now told the Police that she had received the telephone call at 3:15am stating: “Everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm. I told him simply to go to bed”. No longer was there any content about Jeremy sounding disjointed, worried or odd. Instead Julie Mugford implied this telephone call was now of a sinister nature, because she desperately wanted immunity from prosecution.

The Police also wanted Julie Mugford to place a telephone call from Jeremy to her as early as possible on the morning of 7th August 1985, preferably even before 3am, as they wanted Jeremy to have completed the murders of his family in sufficient time to allow him to cycle home, change out of a bloodied wet-suit, have a shower, change his clothes and dispose of incriminating blood-drenched evidence before making a phone call to the Police, which they wanted to say took place at 03:26. However, Julie’s first recollection of the call, which was truthful, placed the call from Jeremy at 3:30. This was a major problem for the Police because her testimony corroborated what Jeremy said, and made his call to PC West at 3:36am appear the only credible version of events.

At Trial Julie Mugford tried to prevaricate by claiming the call was received between 3am and 3:30am but when cross-examined and no doubt aware that she was under the threat of perjury she changed the call time again, finally to the correct one, i.e. the original one, 3:30am.

[Stephanie]

What nobody in Court noticed when testimony was being given was:

PC 1990 Michael West witness statement dated 13 September 1985:-

“I then asked him to hold the line and put the call on ‘hold’. I contacted Headquarters Information Room…I was informed Police Officers had just returned to Witham and then spoke with PC Saxby at Witham Police Station. I spent about three minutes maximum speaking to Information Room and Witham Police Station and then returned to Mr Jeremy Bamber who was still on the line” [Note: He could not have spent 3 minutes maximum, it was clearly around 5 minutes minimum]

PC Robin Saxby made a witness statement dated 23 September 1985 in which he said that he spoke to PC West at 03:30 via his personal radio.

According to her witness statement of the 8th August 1985 Julie Mugford recalled:

“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985”

According to Jeremy Bamber in his witness statement dated 7th August 1985, at 03:25 he telephoned Julie Mugford and at 03:30 they had a conversation (after her flatmate Doug Dale finally managed to rouse her).

So, if the phone call from Jeremy had been just prior to 03:26, as the police claim, how could he be calling Julie Mugford at the same time as his phone call was put on hold by PC West? How could he be speaking to Mugford at 03:30 and also be speaking/on hold to PC West at 03:30, when the phone line to 9 Head Street could only send and receive one call at a time?

It is impossible for PC West to have put Jeremy’s call on hold, just prior to 03:26 and go back to Jeremy after speaking to PC Saxby at 03:30 if Jeremy was actually engaged in an entirely different telephone call with Julie Mugford between 03:25 and 03:33.

Therefore, as PC West said all along, the phone call by Jeremy to PC West happened at 03:36 and the call prior to 03:26 to PC West had to be from Nevill Bamber. Thus Jeremy is innocent.

The only time that Julie Mugford told the truth was in her witness statement of 8th August 1985, before DS21 Stan Jones had any reason to persuade her to change her story.
In her witness statement of the 8th August 1985: She recalled:

“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985. He sounded disjointed and worried and said words to the effect, ‘There’s something wrong at home’, and he did not know what to do. He sounded odd. I told him to go to bed. I was half asleep and didn’t ask him what was wrong. When I told him to go to bed I just said, bye Honey or words to that effect. He said, ‘I love you lots’, and I hung up.”

By September 1985 under the influence of police questioning and her own criminality becoming known to the police, her story changed. Not only had the time of Jeremy’s call altered but also the content of the call was dramatically different. Julie now told the Police that she had received the telephone call at 3:15am stating: “Everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm. I told him simply to go to bed”. No longer was there any content about Jeremy sounding disjointed, worried or odd. Instead Julie Mugford implied this telephone call was now of a sinister nature, because she desperately wanted immunity from prosecution.

The Police also wanted Julie Mugford to place a telephone call from Jeremy to her as early as possible on the morning of 7th August 1985, preferably even before 3am, as they wanted Jeremy to have completed the murders of his family in sufficient time to allow him to cycle home, change out of a bloodied wet-suit, have a shower, change his clothes and dispose of incriminating blood-drenched evidence before making a phone call to the Police, which they wanted to say took place at 03:26. However, Julie’s first recollection of the call, which was truthful, placed the call from Jeremy at 3:30. This was a major problem for the Police because her testimony corroborated what Jeremy said, and made his call to PC West at 3:36am appear the only credible version of events.

At Trial Julie Mugford tried to prevaricate by claiming the call was received between 3am and 3:30am but when cross-examined and no doubt aware that she was under the threat of perjury she changed the call time again, finally to the correct one, i.e. the original one, 3:30am.

There are often discrepancies during trials regarding timings, there were in the SH case. It's not unusual for witnesses to recall different times. Ultimately, it's up to the jury to decide after having weighed up all the evidence.

[Steve_uk]

The only time that Julie Mugford told the truth was in her witness statement of 8th August 1985, before DS21 Stan Jones had any reason to persuade her to change her story.
In her witness statement of the 8th August 1985: She recalled:

“The next time I heard from Jeremy was by telephone again at about 3.30 am on Wednesday morning the 7th August 1985. He sounded disjointed and worried and said words to the effect, ‘There’s something wrong at home’, and he did not know what to do. He sounded odd. I told him to go to bed. I was half asleep and didn’t ask him what was wrong. When I told him to go to bed I just said, bye Honey or words to that effect. He said, ‘I love you lots’, and I hung up.”

By September 1985 under the influence of police questioning and her own criminality becoming known to the police, her story changed. Not only had the time of Jeremy’s call altered but also the content of the call was dramatically different. Julie now told the Police that she had received the telephone call at 3:15am stating: “Everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm. I told him simply to go to bed”. No longer was there any content about Jeremy sounding disjointed, worried or odd. Instead Julie Mugford implied this telephone call was now of a sinister nature, because she desperately wanted immunity from prosecution.

The Police also wanted Julie Mugford to place a telephone call from Jeremy to her as early as possible on the morning of 7th August 1985, preferably even before 3am, as they wanted Jeremy to have completed the murders of his family in sufficient time to allow him to cycle home, change out of a bloodied wet-suit, have a shower, change his clothes and dispose of incriminating blood-drenched evidence before making a phone call to the Police, which they wanted to say took place at 03:26. However, Julie’s first recollection of the call, which was truthful, placed the call from Jeremy at 3:30. This was a major problem for the Police because her testimony corroborated what Jeremy said, and made his call to PC West at 3:36am appear the only credible version of events.

At Trial Julie Mugford tried to prevaricate by claiming the call was received between 3am and 3:30am but when cross-examined and no doubt aware that she was under the threat of perjury she changed the call time again, finally to the correct one, i.e. the original one, 3:30am.

It's hardly surprising that Julie couldn't remember the exact timing of a telephone call in the middle of the night. She's pushing it to get four tenants of the same house to lie for her and the post Mike wrote suggests that they were each as unsure of the time as she was.

You have to ask yourself why Jeremy would telephone Julie at such a time, especially as he himself stated to Police under interrogation that their relationship had been cooling for months. What on earth has a purported telephone call from White House Farm got to do with Julie anyway? The most likely explanation was that Jeremy had only minutes before perpetrated the murders and wished for a timed telephone call as proof of his whereabouts in the event that he at a future date would become a suspect, which indeed is how things proceeded.

[lookout]

Weren't the tenants smashed off their skulls smoking pot ? I wouldn't like to rely on someone like that in court.

[Adam]

Yes because Julie was in effect giving him an alibi from the time he telephoned at Bourtree Cottage, she being a live person and not one of the five people lying slaughtered three miles away in an isolated Georgian farmhouse, one of whom was meant to be a second alibi.

That is true. The day after the massacre he and Julie made no secret they had spoken on the phone around 3am.

It was Bamber saying, l was at home, and rang my girlfriend from here after Nevill phoned me.  Some of which is actually true.

Whether he phoned Julie before or after the police, Bamber probably believed was not and would never be important.