A question for Jackie:

[Roch]

I don't know what you have seen but I bet it could be interpreted in more than one way.

What you mean is that other people, due to their stance, are preemptively desperate to interpret it another way (a way that fits with their stance).

When Robert Boutflour was told about the windows and doors having been secured from the inside and that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows, he was unable to accept the implications - because it didn't fit in with his stance or aims.  So he went away and did more scheming and theorising.  If he had not schemed and theorised further - we would have found out about the evidence I am referring to 32 years ago.

[Roch]

Police could have given information the the press anonymously.

That's a fair point.  Were papers allowed to print stories on anonymous tip-offs? In the 80's possibly.  Wasn't some kind of block put on that kind of reporting? 

[guest2181]

What you mean is that other people, due to their stance, are preemptively desperate to interpret it another way (a way that fits with their stance).

When Robert Boutflour was told about the windows and doors having been secured from the inside and that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows, he was unable to accept the implications - because it didn't fit in with his stance or aims.  So he went away and did more scheming and theorising.  If he had not schemed and theorised further - we would have found out about the evidence I am referring to 32 years ago.

These are all lovely stories and theories Roch.

Maybe you should start 'The Rochford Society' seeking out corruption wherever it may be.

Maybe we could get Dylan to sing a song called "Talkin' Rochford Paranoid Blue's", in a similar vein to his John Birch effort. 

[Roch]

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'm not aware of the exact dynamics involved at the time, regarding Boutflour / Simpson - Ainsley / Kenneally and Mugford / Jones.  Several things are supposed to have happened on the same day - and I suspect the scheming behind the scenes had already began in earnest.

DCI Jones dealt with Jeremy Bamber professionally.  If he 'interrogated' him or interviewed him - it blows out of the water any claims he was blind to Jeremy's alleged murderous scheming.

Not one poster on here has yet explained why the deputy head of CID would want (or allow himself to be involved in) a mass murderer going free? 

At which point did the press become scathing of police? 

[Roch]

These are all lovely stories and theories Roch.

Maybe you should start 'The Rochford Society' seeking out corruption wherever it may be.

Maybe we could get Dylan to sing a song called "Talkin' Rochford Paranoid Blue's", in a similar vein to his John Birch effort. 

I hate Bob Dylan.  Some people compare him to Shakespeare.  I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics.  Prefer a catchy tune.

[guest2181]

I hate Bob Dylan.  Some people compare him to Shakespeare.  I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics.  Prefer a catchy tune.

Jimmy Nail then? 

[maggie]

I hate Bob Dylan.  Some people compare him to Shakespeare.  I cannot stand his nasally whining voice and convoluted lyrics.  Prefer a catchy tune.

He's my hero!

[Roch]

Jimmy Nail then? 

Ha ha.  Bit of big daft galoot on screen (apart from in Spender?).  Bit too 'Geordie' for me. 

[Roch]

He's my hero!

My apologies 

[guest2181]

He's my hero!

Jimmy Nail's your hero? 

[maggie]

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.

It's really difficult to believe anyone would behave that way but we have to remember we are not all the same. Not all human beings have the same sense of moral compass and may put loyalty to colleagues above anything else.  Food for thought Roch

[maggie]

My apologies 

Should think so!!

[Roch]

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 lot 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.

They persisted with complaints that it couldn't have been Sheila (thereby insinuating it could have been Jeremy). DCI Jones became enraged and shouted 'I dont have to put up with this' or words to that effect.

Other detectives also present then began to explain some information to Peter and Anthony (both gun experts) and possibly also Ann.  This resulted in either Peter / Anthony or both accepting that Sheila could have indeed been responsible for the killings.   They already knew that Jeremy had been the informant of the incident and had told police his sister had mental health issues etc etc etc.  So this other information (that was able to subdue the relatives) was additional information. 

In answer to your question - I do not believe they will give an honest account of exactly what that information was - probably because such a frank disclosure would counter the information that they have already gone on record as parroting from the Ainsley era.   

[maggie]

Jimmy Nail's your hero? 

No!  Bob Dylan have you guys got a soul??

[notsure]

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.

I've wondered why any police force frame anyone Caroline. There doesn't have to be a fantastic reason as far as I can tell. I think we should all be worried how this happens.