Audio

[curiousessex]

Abs,I agree about the fingerprints,the police handling the gun without gloves etc.There was one print found of Jeremys and one print found of Sheilas on the gun.There was also blood on the gun (you can see where the various locations of the blood were found on one of Mikes diagrams). Though I have never seen it stated anywhere as to who that blood belonged to.Has anyone else?

Exactly...... if THE gun had been left on the kitchen table it will have had to have been moved in order to lay the table for breakfast leaving the fingerprints of those who had moved it. There were none.

Jeremy was not at White House Farm so could not have moved it although he admits holding THE gun to go and shoot rabbits and Sheila had only left a fingerprint near the trigger I beleive.

Jeremy's first statement was portrayed in the documentary Crimes that shocked Britain with Jeremy leaving THE gun on the kitchen table. In which case Nevill or June's fingerprints should along with all others be on THE gun. I do not beleive either of their fingerprints were found on THE gun.

[Tyler]

It would be really helpful to have access to Jeremys original statements.I think someone said that Mike has them but cannot post them due to them containing personal things concerning Colin Caffell.Could he not post them and maybe black out the personal stuff?

[curiousessex]

It would be really helpful to have access to Jeremys original statements.I think someone said that Mike has them but cannot post them due to them containing personal things concerning Colin Caffell.Could he not post them and maybe black out the personal stuff?

Tyler

I have been trying to get Mike to post Jeremy's original statements for sometime. If you look back there is a specific thread titled Jeremy's original statements in which you can read Mike's promises and then retractions....... based on advice from others I seem to recall.

[Tyler]

Are you thinking that the refusal to show them is suspicious? That the evidence in them may contradict what Jeremy is having us believe 26 years later?Its not really fair to criticize the police for witholding evidence from Jeremy,and yet evidence can be witheld from us when he (Jeremy)needs our support.If he wants to convince us of his innocence,then he really should put all his cards on the table.Not just cherry pick evidence that puts him in a good light.

[curiousessex]

Are you thinking that the refusal to show them is suspicious? That the evidence in them may contradict what Jeremy is having us believe 26 years later?Its not really fair to criticize the police for witholding evidence from Jeremy,and yet evidence can be witheld from us when he (Jeremy)needs our support.If he wants to convince us of his innocence,then he really should put all his cards on the table.Not just cherry pick evidence that puts him in a good light.

Well it is not very transparent given, as you correctly point out, all the critisms of the Police and how things were handled.

It seems to me everything is fine and not questioned when Jeremy is not under suspicion. In the very early stages Jeremy is key to influencing or has an influence in how things might be portrayed. Remember originally everything was accepted as 4 murders and a suicide which, if Jeremy is guilty, would have been just what he would have wanted. Also if guilty Jeremy will have wrong footed the Police and it was very difficult for them to rewind so to speak.

For me the key to this are Jeremy's original statements when he was treated as a witness and the sequence and timings of the initial telephone calls.

[Tyler]

Frustrating isnt it? Well it is known that during police questioning,they got Jeremy to admit that he phoned Julie BEFORE he called the police.But Jeremys explanation for this was that the police were trying to confuse him.Well that is a common police tactic as we know.After being questioned for hours on end,he could simply have been exhausted when he made the error? And as I said,if the newspapers (back in 1985) and  various books are to be believed,then I believe that in Jeremys original statement,he says he left the gun on the kitchen table.You said that you would like to know what was in Jeremys original statement BEFORE he was a suspect.He told the police at his cottage,that he left the gun on the table.That was witnessed by Colin Caffell,who subsequently remarked that Nevill would have put the rifle away.That Nevill was meticulous about things like that.Jeremy was said to reply "yes,I would have thought so too".  Please note that this is only information that I have gathered,not my opinion of events.

[curiousessex]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

[clifford]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

That was a really good posting. Well done.+1

[curiousessex]

Frustrating isnt it? Well it is known that during police questioning,they got Jeremy to admit that he phoned Julie BEFORE he called the police.But Jeremys explanation for this was that the police were trying to confuse him.Well that is a common police tactic as we know.After being questioned for hours on end,he could simply have been exhausted when he made the error? And as I said,if the newspapers (back in 1985) and  various books are to be believed,then I believe that in Jeremys original statement,he says he left the gun on the kitchen table.You said that you would like to know what was in Jeremys original statement BEFORE he was a suspect.He told the police at his cottage,that he left the gun on the table.That was witnessed by Colin Caffell,who subsequently remarked that Nevill would have put the rifle away.That Nevill was meticulous about things like that.Jeremy was said to reply "yes,I would have thought so too".  Please note that this is only information that I have gathered,not my opinion of events.

Tyler

If Jeremy's original statement as a witness was that he left THE gun on the kitchen table then that is what I beleive Jeremy wanted everyone to beleive. Jeremy also made it known he fully loaded THE gun in front of everyone including Sheila before going to shoot rabbits. Then returning, having not shot any rabbits, to place THE gun on the kitchen table before going to his cottage in Goldhanger. THE gun on the kitchen table would have been freely available for anyone to pick up. (It must be pointed out there is no one left alive who can say otherwise apart from Jeremy.)

This is not a problem when regarded as a witness. If Colin Caffell had mentioned that Nevill, as detailed in your post, would have put THE gun away, to which Jeremy agrees, again this is not a potential problem if Jeremy is regarded as a witness. However, when a suspect things change because in each case someonelse will have handled THE gun and moved it. The scenes of crime photographs clearly depict the kitchen table layed ready for breakfast. This means THE gun will have to have been moved in order to lay the table ready for breakfast. If THE gun has been moved there is a very high risk, if not a certainty, that fingerprints will have been left on THE gun. (We now know of the family members at White House Farm on the evening before the shootings there were only Jeremy's and Sheila's fingerprints found to be on THE gun. Jeremy admits to loading THE gun and it was allegedly reported Sheila had gone beserk with THE gun.)

In my opinion one way of eliminating these potential problems when regarded as a suspect would be to place THE gun in another position where it could not be certain that someone would have had to have handled THE gun in order to move it before Sheila allegedly goes beserk.

However, the stark reality is only Jeremy really knows......

[ngb1066]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police.  However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality.  I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.

Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed.  If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again.  I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial.  However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial.  Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there.  He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.

I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt.  If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.

[Jackiepreece]

I still believe there were a number of factors why the police thought it was a suicide and part of the cover up is I still believe Sheila could well have been alive later than what we have been led to believe.

5 dead bodies and we are led to believe the decision it was a suicide was led by Jeremys comments I still think the next piece of information to get is File 1 complete and any recordings we have to have everything out in the open or this will go on forever.

I actually wonder if Jeremy even remembered where he left the gun if he was as bad as me when I lived at my Mum and Dads I used to leave stuff everywhere and then couldnt remember where I had left it.
He didnt really come across very responsible and the danger of the gun he wasnt used to having kids around.

I really would like to know more about Sheila having more food left in her stomach and any further observations on that.

Also if jeremy left the farm at 9.30 june was having a conversation after that time with her sister saying sheila was acting strangely i take it jeremy did not hear that conversation but at least its not hearsay as Jeremy saying they were discussing custody with sheila

I also want to know about this bucket of bloody clothes how quickly did Ann Eaton remove them after access to the house i meant how quickly did she start poking around

Imagine the shock horror of the relatives if when they heard about the murders it must have been pandemonium I suppose Jeremy might have ended up as the overall boss

[joolz1975]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

Have a +1!

Agree with this 100%

[Tyler]

CuriousEssex.  We only have Jeremys word for it that he left a gun out at all.Its another one of those (did Nevill really indeed ring Jeremy) problems isnt it.Its something I doubt we are ever going to know for sure,so I myself have stopped agonising over those issues and have begun to look at other evidence.Evidence that can only be interpretated one way.
Personally, I myself would like to see a re-trial.But as both yourself and NGB point out,it is very unlikely,due to evidence being destroyed,some of the prosecution witnesses may be deceased etc.I too am torn.One half of me wants to see him released as I feel strongly that he had an unfair trial,and I just cant seem to feel satisfied that his guilt was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.The other half of me thinks,what if he is released and is blagging it? I would just have to console myself that he served 26 years in prison fo his crime and didnt actually get away  scot free.But I sincerly want to believe that isnt the case.

[curiousessex]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police.  However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality.  I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.

Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed.  If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again.  I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial.  However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial.  Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there.  He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.

I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt.  If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.

How ironic would it be if Jeremy was released and he then pursued Essex Police and others through the Courts for what I imagine would be very substantial compension. Money being the very motive portrayed in the original trial.

From the legal viewpoint do you beleive Jeremy would be successful in pursuit of civil action?

Are you from a legal background?

[grahameb]

Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.

Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.

Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.

Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?

curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police.  However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality.  I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.

Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed.  If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again.  I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial.  However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial.  Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there.  He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.

I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt.  If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.

You both have +1 each for your posts.