Why didn't Taff Jones tell Bamber & the relatives about Nevill's call ?

[David1819]

I agree with you're second statement. There was nothing Julie could have got on tape.

Because he never confessed anything in the first place.

Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point (this I have explained to you multiple times) Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!


This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann

[Roch]

Because he never confessed anything in the first place.

Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts. The fact you had mistaken Ann Eatons words for Julie Mugfords ironically helps prove my point. If I am "off my rocker" then so is Rivlin QC now (HH Rivlin)

The fundamental point (this I have explained to you multiple times) Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!


This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann

Bravo.  Is Hermann 'Martin' who used to post on here? Maybe not but that post is similar to his style of posting.

[mike tesko]

Taff believed Bamber was innocent.

As the head of the investigation he would know Nevill had called Chelmsford police from WHF.

He would have told the relatives about the call. Then that would be the end of it for them.

Taff would have also told Bamber. Even if all the other police had decided to keep it a secret for some reason. 

Taff would also use Nevill's call to save his own skin. After Peter Simpson took steps to remove Taff from heading the investigation.

If all the police knew about Nevill's call, then one of them would have told Bamber.

All seems a bit strange that Nevill's call was not brought up for 25 years. And only brought up by the OS.

The relatives were told during the early stages of the first part of the police investigation that all the tests conducted tended to show that Sheila had been responsible for shooting the others, and taking her own life! One of the tests would have included that police were satisfied that Neville had contacted them himself at 3.26am, supporting Jeremy's contention that he had been contacted by Neville himself, earlier!

[Jane]

Bravo.  Is Hermann 'Martin' who used to post on here? Maybe not but that post is similar to his style of posting.

 To the best of my knowledge, Hermann was Grahame.

[Roch]

To the best of my knowledge, Hermann was Grahame.

Well I never.  Would never have got that one.

[Roch]

Blackmailed? 

Blackmail as a term has several connotations.  Whatever Bobby had on him when he blindsided Peter Simpson - was sufficient for Simpson to ignore all the evidence that pointed towards Sheila.  In the period leading up to this, even 'Dusty' Miller had said he had been "disgusted" by the relatives insinuations regarding Jeremy. 

[Adam]

Because he never confessed anything in the first place.

Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point (this I have explained to you multiple times) Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!


This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann

I didn't read this. 

You're arguments that Julie read AE's diaries or should have attempted to get an audio confession from Bamber, after they had already split up, were totally ignored.

Resulting in you creating you're 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' thread. Which to fair got a response.  Mainly because you asked NGB to endorse it and then refused to say what it was.

I've read Julie's WS & can't see a problem. Threads created.

[Adam]

The relatives were told during the early stages of the first part of the police investigation that all the tests conducted tended to show that Sheila had been responsible for shooting the others, and taking her own life! One of the tests would have included that police were satisfied that Neville had contacted them himself at 3.26am, supporting Jeremy's contention that he had been contacted by Neville himself, earlier!

Mike, the CT said Nevill got through to Bonnet.

However Reader said Bonnet was not taking calls from the public on the massacre night. How did Nevill get through to Bonnet ?

[Reader]

I was in the thick of it when I held these beliefs and had been brainwashed. I was no longer thinking objectively.

You received dramatic new evidence (SH confessed, etc.), which made you reconsider your previous conclusions. However, "brainwashed" and "no longer thinking objectively" seem a bit strong. Were you "no longer thinking objectively" about other matters, or just the SH case? Can you tell me what SH's school exam results were and how you know?

[Caroline]

You received dramatic new evidence (SH confessed, etc.), which made you reconsider your previous conclusions. However, "brainwashed" and "no longer thinking objectively" seem a bit strong. Were you "no longer thinking objectively" about other matters, or just the SH case? Can you tell me what SH's school exam results were and how you know?

I think it's clear that Steph is talking about the SH case, although being that heavily involved in it would certainly cause her stress on an everyday basis. We just post on a forum with no involvement - the SH case was Stephanie's life and as such would have a greater impact on her life.

[Reader]

But "not thinking objectively" is completely normal, isn't it?

[Jane]

But "not thinking objectively" is completely normal, isn't it?

Objective thinking and emotional involvement are not usually considered to be mutually compatible.

[Caroline]

But "not thinking objectively" is completely normal, isn't it?

That depends what you're thinking about.

[Reader]

It tends to be difficult for someone to think objectively even if they've been asked to. Someone could easily explain a lack of objectivity by saying that they were under stress, had personal involvement which allowed them to be misled quite easily, or various other circumstances of that nature. However, saying "I had been brainwashed" seems to indicate a relatively extreme situation.  That's why I asked Stephanie about it.

[Jane]

It tends to be difficult for someone to think objectively even if they've been asked to. Someone could easily explain a lack of objectivity by saying that they were under stress, had personal involvement which allowed them to be misled quite easily, or various other circumstances of that nature. However, saying "I had been brainwashed" seems to indicate a relatively extreme situation.  That's why I asked Stephanie about it.

I don't think it's for outsiders to say more than a situation APPEARED to be extreme. The person who is experienced the situation is MORE likely to know whether or not it was extreme, and if so, HOW extreme.