A question for Jackie:

[Jane]

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.

I'm not aware of any groundswell of voices demanding a change to his present and future circumstances.

[lookout]

He's already in prison and going nowhere.

I was asking Adam to air his views elsewhere because of his strong feelings. We know he's in prison 
A strong over-rule will keep him there if the likes of Adam puts his side of the argument to the legal side of the CT to block any hope of his release is what I'm saying. RWB would have done.

[Caroline]

I was asking Adam to air his views elsewhere because of his strong feelings. We know he's in prison 
A strong over-rule will keep him there if the likes of Adam puts his side of the argument to the legal side of the CT to block any hope of his release is what I'm saying. RWB would have done.

Adam, me, you and anyone on this forum has no influence on what will or won't happen in the future. This is just a forum for debate.

[lookout]

Adam, me, you and anyone on this forum has no influence on what will or won't happen in the future. This is just a forum for debate.

Of course there's influence. Where do you think David got his idea from to send to the legal team ? By reading from this forum and its archives. Some people are sharper than others and those with a deeper interest in the case see things that others don't.
The same applies to those who, like Adam,don't see anything but guilt and no amount of research will convince him otherwise. If I was in his shoes I'd be like a dog with a bone sending letters here there and everywhere. I did all that in the past when I felt strongly about a couple of cases ( no internet ),the only difference being that both were innocent,but the media tore them to pieces and spread negative news to convince the public they were guilty.
I couldn't sit back and do nothing at the time because I'd felt strongly about their innocence. 

[Caroline]

Of course there's influence. Where do you think David got his idea from to send to the legal team ? By reading from this forum and its archives. Some people are sharper than others and those with a deeper interest in the case see things that others don't.
The same applies to those who, like Adam,don't see anything but guilt and no amount of research will convince him otherwise. If I was in his shoes I'd be like a dog with a bone sending letters here there and everywhere. I did all that in the past when I felt strongly about a couple of cases ( no internet ),the only difference being that both were innocent,but the media tore them to pieces and spread negative news to convince the public they were guilty.
I couldn't sit back and do nothing at the time because I'd felt strongly about their innocence.

Where did he get the idea from? The stuff about the palm print - I've already told you and what exactly do you imagine is going to happen because of it?

That's an interesting sentence.

[Roch]

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.

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?

Can you explain this any differently?  I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. 

[Roch]

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.

Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila.  Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings.  Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings.  DCI Jones stood up to them.  Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern.  I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back).  Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence.  He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'.  Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour).  Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert?  Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!). 

Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances.  After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension.  He probably thought the coast was clear.  At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site.  Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.

[maggie]

Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila.  Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings.  Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings.  DCI Jones stood up to them.  Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern.  I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back).  Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence.  He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'.  Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour).  Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert?  Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!). 

Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances.  After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension.  He probably thought the coast was clear.  At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site.  Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.

It's certainly difficult to comprehend why there would be such a cover up but I do believe life is stranger than fiction. 

I try to imagine why the likes of Ainsley agreed to cover up evidence and point the finger at the innocent Bamber, however perhaps he was just a corrupt copper willing to scratch a mates back in return for some back scratching of his own  

I have always thought there was an outside chance that a few at the top of EP may have covered up evidence rather than have to publicly admit they had been right the first time and JB wasn't guilty after all.  No one likes to look that much of a fool but it us a bit far fetched. 

I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?

[lookout]

Where did he get the idea from? The stuff about the palm print - I've already told you and what exactly do you imagine is going to happen because of it?

That's an interesting sentence.

Meaning that both cases in the past happened to have been innocents but were pronounced guilty " in the eyes of the law ". I wrote my objections when both were found guilty because I'd felt strongly that they weren't.

[Roch]

It's certainly difficult to comprehend why there would be such a cover up but I do believe life is stranger than fiction. 

I try to imagine why the likes of Ainsley agreed to cover up evidence and point the finger at the innocent Bamber, however perhaps he was just a corrupt copper willing to scratch a mates back in return for some back scratching of his own  

I have always thought there was an outside chance that a few at the top of EP may have covered up evidence rather than have to publicly admit they had been right the first time and JB wasn't guilty after all.  No one likes to look that much of a fool but it us a bit far fetched. 

I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?

ACC Peter Simpson was top brass.  He created downward internal pressures, by wanting Jeremy Bamber to be investigated for the killings (in attempting to appease Robert Boutflour).  The detective chosen to oversee this - DCS Michael Ainsley happened to become close-knit with Robert Boutflour to the extent he called him 'Bobby'.  DCS Mick Ainsley was able to make use of the fact that DS Stan Jones hated Jeremy Bamber and was gunning for him. 

Jeremy Bamber himself, seems to have done himself no favours.  I think the behaviour that gets attributed to him is a combination of three factors.  Real behaviour (for which he only has himself to blame); perceived behaviour (in the minds of suspicious and judgemental people); and made-up behaviour (deliberately designed to blacken his name further by exaggerating etc).  Perhaps it was easy for some police and others to show little sympathy or interest regarding his plight.

The conviction has plagued Essex Police for 32 years.  Knowing what they know now, if they could go back in time and revisit the immediate aftermath of the killings - I very much doubt they would make the same decisions. 

They would either come clean from the off regarding any complications in the farmhouse - or at the very least they would send the vultures packing, when they showed up with their bullshit grievances and theories.

[lookout]

I certainly couldn't have put it better,Roch. Well said.

[Roch]

I certainly couldn't have put it better,Roch. Well said.

Thanks.  I was going to say that I cannot believe what I have seen.  But to be honest, that isn't strictly true.  What I have seen, is actually what I suspected all along.  It feels good to be vindicated - if nothing else - (as sadly, I have no faith in CCRC etc.).

[Roch]

I am curious as to how the rest of the raid team and others who accepted Sheila was guilty for what Roch has said was readily available evidence, were closed down and have been kept quiet ever since?

Whatever concerns existed were raised internally and were subdued internally.  I do not think there are many known instances were police officers have openly raised concerns outside of their force command structure. I am not aware of any but I couldn't say I had actively researched the issue.

To some extent it comes down to whether or not an individual is prepared to believe Mark Higgs, who made sustained attempts to contact TFG members.  He claimed to have received a mixed response with plenty hostility and avoidance.   He claimed that TFG felt that they were not prepared to be made scapegoats for the wrongful conviction, due decisions that were made outside of their control / remit. 

Police pensions are a strong motivating factor in any decision made.  I think the police pension is generally regarded as a very good deal.  People have lives and families etc. I doubt Julia Jeapes is unaware that Sheila Caffell was alive in the farmhouse when they were all outside.  She is now a Councillor in a local authority.  If it was in my ward, I would feel a bit uncomfortable about it and question whether she was fit for such public service.  Perhaps she doesn't see why she should take the blame and perhaps she doesn't feel comfortable upsetting the apple-cart that contains so many of her ex-colleagues.

[Caroline]

Robert Boutflour and his daughter were not interested in any evidence that indicated Sheila.  Both strongly desired Jeremy to be investigated for the killings.  Ann Eaton had identified Jeremy as a 'threat' to their interests prior to the killings.  DCI Jones stood up to them.  Quite why Simpson did not stand up to Robert and instead acquiesced is not easy to discern.  I'm not certain but I know there were claims that relatives were threatening to go to the press (they had after all been receiving inside information on the case behind Thomas Jones' back).  Perhaps Simpson thought that it was worth a gamble - because any investigation in to Jeremy would be doomed to failure due to insufficient evidence.  He would be able to shrug his shoulders to Robert Boutflour and say - 'we tried our best - we did try to tell you it was Sheila but you just wouldn't listen'.  Simpson was angered during Kenneally's review - because there was nothing that assisted him in getting the investigation in to Jeremy off the ground (i.e. to appease Robert Boutflour).  Perhaps Simpson hadn't factored-in or realised the extent of coziness between Mick Ainsley and Robert?  Once Ainsley was in position, he was prepared to 'do a job' for Robert by literally concealing the evidence that indicated Sheila (i.e that evidence which caused Thomas Jones to hold firm!). 

Robert (or at least his family) prospered from the conviction and enhanced their circumstances.  After the first appeal and enquiry were done and dusted, Mick Ainsley retired from EC and began collecting his police pension.  He probably thought the coast was clear.  At some point he became linked to security at the caravan site.  Perhaps this was arranged at an earlier stage, when Robert required a detective to 'do a job' for him - on his own nephew.

Unless you or whoever told you this was present when it happened, there is no substance to what you say. When Kenneally wrote his report Bamber hadn't even been arrested and wasn't considered a suspect (officially) so he had nothing to compare Sheila as a suspect with. And why would TAFF Jones take part in the interrogation of Bamber if he KNEW Sheila was the killer? Someone like Simpson, doesn't get to be such a high ranking office by giving into a silly old man and a couple of farmers. The press were already scathing of the police, switching to Jeremy made it even worse, not better. I don't know what you have seen but I bet it could be interpreted in more than one way.

[Caroline]

Whatever concerns existed were raised internally and were subdued internally.  I do not think there are many known instances were police officers have openly raised concerns outside of their force command structure. I am not aware of any but I couldn't say I had actively researched the issue.

To some extent it comes down to whether or not an individual is prepared to believe Mark Higgs, who made sustained attempts to contact TFG members.  He claimed to have received a mixed response with plenty hostility and avoidance.   He claimed that TFG felt that they were not prepared to be made scapegoats for the wrongful conviction, due decisions that were made outside of their control / remit. 

Police pensions are a strong motivating factor in any decision made.  I think the police pension is generally regarded as a very good deal.  People have lives and families etc. I doubt Julia Jeapes is unaware that Sheila Caffell was alive in the farmhouse when they were all outside.  She is now a Councillor in a local authority.  If it was in my ward, I would feel a bit uncomfortable about it and question whether she was fit for such public service.  Perhaps she doesn't see why she should take the blame and perhaps she doesn't feel comfortable upsetting the apple-cart that contains so many of her ex-colleagues.

Police could have given information the the press anonymously.