A question for Jackie:

[Adam]

It's just a matter of time Susan you wait and see

Hopefully not much longer. It's already been 32 years.

[Caroline]

Speaking about police,if anyone watched the sad series about Rhys Jones,a certain officer who worked tirelessly to hunt down the killer/s of the little boy along with the gruesome parents of the killers accomplices,ended up with a rebuff from his higher-ups .
Because of this officer's grit and determination and his proving to others how an investigation should be conducted,without the bribes and deals that had been offered,he'd obviously become the thorn in the side of those who would have taken an easier option.

Instead of being rewarded for his work,the DS was stripped of his title to DCI after putting in 30 years work and ready for retirement. How's that for teamwork ?? Not !
Is honesty and hard work the best policy ? You decide.

Yes and other police officers weren't very happy about it and said so to the press, they didn't have to give their name. It seems police can talk to the press when they are unhappy about something. The following article just refers to the officer as 'a police insider'.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cop-who-caught-rhys-joness-3457649

[Caroline]

Hopefully not much longer. It's already been 32 years.

You can't rush these things.

[lookout]

Yes and other police officers weren't very happy about it and said so to the press, they didn't have to give their name. It seems police can talk to the press when they are unhappy about something. The following article just refers to the officer as 'a police insider'.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cop-who-caught-rhys-joness-3457649

You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.

[Steve_uk]

You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.

He was shabbily treated lookout.

[Caroline]

You'll always have sour grapes in such establishments,watching each other like hawks instead of getting on with the job in hand.

Well, they weren't scared of losing pensions or their careers - they spoke to the press who kept their name out of it. There has been plenty of time for someone to do the same in Jeremy's case - but not one person has.

[maggie]

The timing of the coming general election couldn't be worse either as all thoughts will be more towards that and far less likely about who should be in prison and who should not.

Well for spite to those reaping the benefits I hope Labour win and sting them for 50% tax !
 I can dream,I suppose.

  Nice one Lookout.

[Roch]

But you just said the police didn't withhold evidence from them, in fact they were told 'something' which proved Sheila was the killer.  If you and others know what this something was, then it hasn't been withheld. I fail to see how anyone would be party to this information outside of the people who were party to it at the time.

That's kind of what I'm suggesting.  Relatives were told some facts and opinion pertaining to Sheila having been responsible.  Not just from DCI Jones - but from fellow detectives who were present with Jones.  Over the years, the relatives havent detailed what this information was - but - they have gone out of their way to repeat claims made of the case during Mick Ainsley's stewardship of the 'second investigation'.  Now if you were detectives with your backs to the wall, facing angry relatives who wont go away, what's the betting you would provide them with info I am referring to, to confirm that Sheila was the killer? 

Relatives will not say what this info was - because for over 30 years - they have nailed their colours to the mast regarding the case under Ainsley.  It's not as if they can suddenly back-track and say 'actually, come to think of it we've just remembered... we were told about a, b, c.'

Instead, they will attempt to claim they were not told.  Thus pushing the blame on to police.

Jones interrogated Jeremy, are you saying he'd have done this in full knowledge of knowing he was innocent?  I think under such circumstances his superiors would have made sure he was kept away from Jeremy.  It's one thing to keep a secret such as this (although I don't believe he and others would have - no motive) but quite another to take part in the downfall - especially when you fought so hard to keep him from being arrested in the first place.

DS Jones was not kept away from Jeremy - precisely because Mick Ainsley realised that he (Jones) was already sufficiently wound-up to do a job (on Jeremy).  ACC Simpson was furious that Jim Knneally did not deviate from Sheila being implicated - and therefore could not assist in getting old man Boutlfour off his back.  Ainsley used DS Jones to get 'Bobby' off of Simpson's back.

[Caroline]

That's kind of what I'm suggesting.  Relatives were told some facts and opinion pertaining to Sheila having been responsible.  Not just from DCI Jones - but from fellow detectives who were present with Jones.  Over the years, the relatives havent detailed what this information was - but - they have gone out of their way to repeat claims made of the case during Mick Ainsley's stewardship of the 'second investigation'.  Now if you were detectives with your backs to the wall, facing angry relatives who wont go away, what's the betting you would provide them with info I am referring to, to confirm that Sheila was the killer?

I wouldn't tell them anything other than to bugger off and I see no reason for anyone to have 'their backs to the wall'?

Relatives will not say what this info was - because for over 30 years - they have nailed their colours to the mast regarding the case under Ainsley.  It's not as if they can suddenly back-track and say 'actually, come to think of it we've just remembered... we were told about a, b, c.'

Instead, they will attempt to claim they were not told.  Thus pushing the blame on to police. 

How do you know they won't say what it was? Who said it was anything mind blowing anyway or compelling? It was just a couple of days after the murders, there was a lit of info to take in and at that stage, they weren't 100% sure it was Jeremy. Without knowing what they were told there's not much to it.

DS Jones was not kept away from Jeremy - precisely because Mick Ainsley realised that he (Jones) was already sufficiently wound-up to do a job (on Jeremy).  ACC Simpson was furious that Jim Knneally did not deviate from Sheila being implicated - and therefore could not assist in getting old man Boutlfour off his back.  Ainsley used DS Jones to get 'Bobby' off of Simpson's back.

I'm not talking about DS Jones, I was talking about DCI Jones (see the doc below for interviewing officers). DCI Jones who initially interrogated Jeremy (with DC Barlow), why would he agree to help build a guilty case when he was convinced of his innocence and had been all along? How do you know Simpson was furious? It would have been simple to get old man B off his back - especially armed with such compelling evidence of Sheila's guilt. You seem to be saying he succumbed to blackmail but have no reason why he would? In fact there is every reason why he wouldn't.

[Caroline]

Kenneally wrote his report before Bamber was arrested and before any of the evidence pertaining to him was available for comparison. Given that no one has seen this report then his compelling evidence is likely to be, Nevill called Jeremy and said it was Sheila who had the gun, that she was found with said gun in a (as far as could be determined) locked farmhouse and they were all dead. The very story that Jeremy fed them from day one. At the time he wrote his report, there was no official alternatives. 

[Adam]

Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.

The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.

Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to Basil Cock.

Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently said Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".

At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.

[Jane]

Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.

The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.

Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to BC.

Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently saying Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".

At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.

Guess that would be EVERY/ALL expert/police because each element would need to advise other elements of what outcome was being looked for from their particular part of the investigation?

[lookout]

Everyone on or off the forum will have different reasons for believing in guilt or innocence.

The police, the courts & a jury have to go by the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence.

Other people don't look at this at all and take a more emotive view, focusing on other people. Most recently saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins & AE gave Nevill's wallet to BC.

Some people are influenced by other people they engage with. One of Trudie's & Matts top 5 reasons for believing Bamber is innocent is because Bamber is a 'nice guy' on the phone to them. Susan recently saying Bamber is innocent because Roch posted "Sheila definately committed the massacre".

At the end of the day, Bamber will only get released if it's proved that all the incriminating evidence was fabricated by the police & experts.

Why don't you make a video on your " mountain of evidence " ? There are loads of videos showing innocence,but none showing/explaining guilt. There isn't even a speaker on video demonstrating how the killing was carried out,considering that many have described it. Actions speak louder than words.
The innocents are at least making an effort.

[lookout]

Get your voice heard on change.org to " keep him in prison ".
If I was in your position and felt as strongly as you do about JB's guilt,I'd be contacting everyone concerned. Afterall,public support goes a long way.

[Caroline]

Get your voice heard on change.org to " keep him in prison ".
If I was in your position and felt as strongly as you do about JB's guilt,I'd be contacting everyone concerned. Afterall,public support goes a long way.

He's already in prison and going nowhere.