Prominent injustice campaigner Bob Woffinden changes his view to "guilty"

[Jackiepreece]

Where is Barbara today?

Jeremy is putting out a statement today about the article

I would like to know as well if Bob W has taken his findings to the police we hardly need more speculation about this case when we are just going to have the chance to find out actual facts from the negatives about to be released

[FredPerry]

Where is Barbara today?

Jeremy is putting out a statement today about the article

I would like to know as well if Bob W has taken his findings to the police we hardly need more speculation about this case when we are just going to have the chance to find out actual facts from the negatives about to be released

I think most of these findings were already known about during the investigation ,as its been said before nothing actually new here.

[Hartley]

Where is Barbara today?

Jeremy is putting out a statement today about the article

I would like to know as well if Bob W has taken his findings to the police we hardly need more speculation about this case when we are just going to have the chance to find out actual facts from the negatives about to be released

One wonders what reaction you would have had, if the article simply reaffirmed his earlier opinions. 

[lebaleb]

I can't see why Barbara Wilson wasn't allowed to testify because it was hearsay? What about RB saying about Jeremy saying 'I could kill my parents' or saying June said 'What would you think if you saw Jeremy trying to get Shiela to load bullets into that thing that goes on his gun'? Is that not hearsay?

How does he conclude that the children were shot first and then later shot again? The arc of the bullet wounds suggests that the gun was fired in quick succession.

I thought that the story of Taff Jones going off to play golf on the day of the murders had been poved false.

Shiela had not gone to bed so what was she doing while Ralph was being bludgeoned in the kitchen, she could have locked herself in a room upstairs. I suppose she just let Jeremy shoot her?

Why move the bedroom phone downstairs? It doesn't make sense. Then to 'Hide' the kitchen phone under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? All this to supposedly to explain why no one called 999. Jeremy's defence doesn't need to explain that. We are told that Ralph called Jeremy not 999 from the kitchen [he could have been downstairs trying to calm Shiela down, not wanting to disturb June], then something happened- maybe June was shot, Ralph drops the receiver and runs upstairs rushes to the bed and bang bang he gets shot from behind. Tries to escape and is shot again on the stairs.

At one point he calls the murders meticulously planned then he says Jeremy had to improvise because he thought about why no one called 999. Pretty quick thinking considering it took 25 years for someone else to come up with this theory. Why didn't he just hide the bedroom phone?

[Jackiepreece]

If Jeremy is in fact innocent imagine if Bob W has done this to get back in the headlines or kick start his career again because Bob W has been wrong before.

If I was Jeremy that would just about finish it off for me I would have no fight left in me at all.

I hope for gods sake this is not a just a career move from Bob W

[Alias]

I can't see why Barbara Wilson wasn't allowed to testify because it was hearsay? What about RB saying about Jeremy saying 'I could kill my parents' or saying June said 'What would you think if you saw Jeremy trying to get Shiela to load bullets into that thing that goes on his gun'? Is that not hearsay?

How does he conclude that the children were shot first and then later shot again? The arc of the bullet wounds suggests that the gun was fired in quick succession.

I thought that the story of Taff Jones going off to play golf on the day of the murders had been poved false.

Shiela had not gone to bed so what was she doing while Ralph was being bludgeoned in the kitchen, she could have locked herself in a room upstairs. I suppose she just let Jeremy shoot her?Why move the bedroom phone downstairs? It doesn't make sense. Then to 'Hide' the kitchen phone under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? All this to supposedly to explain why no one called 999. Jeremy's defence doesn't need to explain that. We are told that Ralph called Jeremy not 999 from the kitchen [he could have been downstairs trying to calm Shiela down, not wanting to disturb June], then something happened- maybe June was shot, Ralph drops the receiver and runs upstairs rushes to the bed and bang bang he gets shot from behind. Tries to escape and is shot again on the stairs.

At one point he calls the murders meticulously planned then he says Jeremy had to improvise because he thought about why no one called 999. Pretty quick thinking considering it took 25 years for someone else to come up with this theory. Why didn't he just hide the bedroom phone?

You have some very good points.
What has always bothered me in the "Jeremy did it" scenario is, WHERE WAS SHEILA?
-Her bed looked untouched, so she most likely didn't go to bed at all that night.
-Did she just let Jeremy kill her sons without fiercely trying to intervene (as every parent would do)?
-Where was she while Jeremy shot their mother and used some time in the kitchen fighting and killing their father? She must have known that she was next. Why didn't she try to escape (weren't there several entrances, windows to jump out of)?
-When Jeremy finally had finished off her children, her mother, her father, did she just passively lie down and let Jeremy shoot her in a position that would have required her cooperation?

That is what has always bothered me in this case - where Sheila was during all this?
And that is one of the reasons I think that Sheila actually was behind the killings and her suicide.

[bob]

What has always bothered me in the "Jeremy did it" scenario is, WHERE WAS SHEILA?
-Her bed looked untouched, so she most likely didn't go to bed at all that night.

Perhaps she was in the shower/bath at the time? That would fit with the stories about her being very clean (other than her own blood etc.).

Just a thought.

[Hartley]

To say Sheila's bed was untouched is incorrect. Her room contained two single beds, one was made up the other had been used.

Of course how long it had been used for, is impossible to know.

[John]

She probably was with June when it all kicked off.

Sorry Hartley...cross posted. 

[Alias]

To say Sheila's bed was untouched is incorrect. Her room contained two single beds, one was made up the other had been used.

Of course how long it had been used for, is impossible to know.

OK, but I still have to wonder where she was during all this.

Another thing I find impossible to comprehend is that one man could have committed those murders of THREE adults and two children; FIVE people - think of all the things that could have gone wrong, the commotion! Who would have the nerve to do that?
If I am to believe that Jeremy is behind this is that he did it with an accomplice, I can´t see it happening any other way.

[robholt]

If Jeremy was responsible for the murders, why could he have not simply took the Kitchen phone off the hook ? No need to rearrange the bedroom phone to the Kitchen and hide the original phone under magazines.

I think you need to read Woffinden's article (again) - it explains this in detail. In fact it's the crux of the entire analysis of the phones!

I have read it many times and there are simply too many assumptions for a rational person to believe beyond reasonable doubt. Known issues with the phones in the house alone injects sufficient doubt on this ‘’new’’ theory. If we assume Jeremy did commit the murders, why would he not place the bedroom phone under the magazines, it would have been easier?

Alternatively, why would such a well planned murderer knowingly place the perfectly good original kitchen phone under the magazines if he was going to such an extent to create a staged scene.?

[Alias]

She probably was with June when it all kicked off.

Sorry Hartley...cross posted. 

That is only a guess, but if we assume that, after the shootings commenced, where was she, what was she doing? It must have been some time. Besides, there were other guns in the house; Jeremy couldn´t know if Sheila would run and get one of them after he had shot her children; and her mother IN THE SAME ROOM AND JUST LEAVING SHEILA ALIVE TO BE ABLE TO STAGE HER SUICIDE LATER?
It makes no sense to me.

About her being in the shower, Bob, perhaps (a guess too); but she would have heard something. I am sorry to be graphic, but there must have been a lot of noice: from the gun, even with a silencer attached, screaming, yelling and moaning, the fight downstairs; June and Nevill didn´t die right away.

[ngb1066]

If Jeremy is in fact innocent imagine if Bob W has done this to get back in the headlines or kick start his career again because Bob W has been wrong before.

If I was Jeremy that would just about finish it off for me I would have no fight left in me at all.

I hope for gods sake this is not a just a career move from Bob W

It is very disappointing that Bob Woffinden has written this article.  Bob Woffinden has a good reputation in fighting against miscarriages of justice and that makes it all the more damaging to the public campaign on behalf of Jeremy Bamber which has clearly been gathering in strength recently. He did suffer a major setback in relation to the Hanratty case and that may have affected his judgement here.  The timing of the article and its publication in the Daily Mail suggests that it is designed to dampen down the public support for the CCRC to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.  The article is very poor and way below Woffinden's usual standard.  It does not ring true to me.  The headline and the conclusion of the article both suggest that through clever investigative journalism Woffinden has at last unlocked the key to the true story of what happened at WHF.  However, when the article is read carefully it is clear that there is no new evidence whatsoever that has been uncovered by Woffinden and his associate.  The information about the telephones has been known since the trial; there is nothing new there.  The rest of the article is simply speculation which is no more than much of that which has been posted on this site. 

There is more to this than Bob Woffinden is revealing in my view.   I do not believe that he has fundamentally changed his view of the case because of some blinding revelation about the significance of the telephones. My suspicion is that influence has been brought to bear by certain relatives, who are clearly increasingly concerned about the possibility of a third appeal.  I suspect that contact with Barbara Wilson may have been facilitated by relatives and that this may well be the real swing factor here.  The reference to the wetsuit and the bicycle also makes me suspicious of influence from relatives.

As a matter of detail, I do not accept that the hearsay evidence of Barbara Wilson would be admitted in evidence if a retrial were to be ordered by the Court of Appeal.  It is true that the rules relating to the admission of hearsay evidence have been relaxed since the original trial, but I do not believe that this evidence falls within one of the necessary categories for admissability in evidence. In reality I doubt if a retrial would in fact be ordered now for various reasons - if the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal and the appeal is successful I believe the conviction will be quashed without a retrial being ordered.

[paulg]

If Jeremy is in fact innocent imagine if Bob W has done this to get back in the headlines or kick start his career again because Bob W has been wrong before.

If I was Jeremy that would just about finish it off for me I would have no fight left in me at all.

I hope for gods sake this is not a just a career move from Bob W

It is very disappointing that Bob Woffinden has written this article.  Bob Woffinden has a good reputation in fighting against miscarriages of justice and that makes it all the more damaging to the public campaign on behalf of Jeremy Bamber which has clearly been gathering in strength recently. He did suffer a major setback in relation to the Hanratty case and that may have affected his judgement here.  The timing of the article and its publication in the Daily Mail suggests that it is designed to dampen down the public support for the CCRC to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.  The article is very poor and way below Woffinden's usual standard.  It does not ring true to me.  The headline and the conclusuion of the article both suggest that through clever investigative journalism Woffinden has at last unlocked the key to the true story of what happened at WHF.  However, when the article is read carefully it is clear that there is no new evidence whatsoever that has been uncovered by Woffinden and his associate.  The information about the telephones has been known since the trial; there is nothing new there.  The rest of the article is simply speculation which is no more than much of that which has been posted on this site. 

There is more to this than Bob Woffinden is revealing in my view.   I do not believe that he has fundamentally changed his view of the case because of some blinding revelation about the significance of the telephones. My suspicion is that influence has been brought to bear by certain relatives, who are clearly increasingly concerned about the possibility of a third appeal.  I suspect that contact with the former housekeeper may have been facilitated by relatives and that this may well be the real swing factor here.  The reference to the wetsuit and the bicycle also makes me suspicious of influence from relatives.

As a matter of detail, I do not accept that the hearsay evidence of the houeskeeper would be admitted in evidence if a retrial were to be ordered by the Court of Appeal.  It is true that the rules relating to the admission of hearsay evidence have been relaxed since the original trial, but I do not believe that this evidence falls within one of the necessary categories for admissability in evidence. In reality I doubt if a retrial would in fact be ordered now for various reasons - if the case is referred back to the Court of Appeal and the appeal is successful I believe the conviction will be quashed without a retrial being ordered.

Calm down, calm down (said in a scouse accent)

Lol, its only a reporter changing his tune.

[Hartley]

Them pesky relatives yet again? 

Let's blame them for global warming as well, whilst were at it.