*Unequivocal Proof Jeremy Bamber is innocent*

[Steve_uk]

Fitted hand in glove?  Shelia was ordered to lay on the bed and shoot herself under the orders of Mathew McDonald who then placed the bible on her chest. Said Julie



Is this your idea of how a glove should fit?

Yes Julie was quoting a congenital liar. Why did she need to concoct such an incongruous story at all..

[Harry]

The allegation document is not evidence.

Glynis Howard was from the biology department and was tasked to perform blood tests on the silencer. Why would she report finding paint? That was done by Brian Elliot under a micro-scope.

Just saying the Allegation document is not evidence is a very poor response. It obviously is concerned with very important evidence. You should clarify your own basic position instead of just relying on quips which avoid the point at issue.


"47. On the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it. (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).

48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).

49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself."

There is no mention of finding a silencer in Ann Eaton's first statement. That should have been the most important part of it, if the relatives really had found a silencer.

There was no mention of it because it never happened. The plan to fake the silencer evidence was only thought up by the police after Julie Mugford came forward. The police realised that Mugford's evidence alone was most likely not enough to secure a conviction. They needed something of a "forensic" nature to go with it. So what basically happened is that when it came to their attention that the relatives had another identical silencer they saw the chance to perform a deception.

The handing in of the second silencer by the relatives on September 11th is evidence. It is clearly recorded. But they don't admit to handing in two silencers do they? That would defeat the whole object, which was for the police to fake documentation to make it appear that the silencer which the police found on August 7th and which they sent to the laboratory to be examined was the same one David Boutflour allegedly "found" about a month later.

The story of the relatives finding a silencer on August 10th was made up. The police, specifically Stan Jones, literally invited the relatives to take part in faking the silencer evidence to frame Bamber. It was a case of "You help us and we'll help you." The police were helping them write their statements with lying witnesses corroborating the testimony of other lying witnesses, but none of that happened before Ann Eaton's first statement which was made before Julie Mugford came forward.

[Harry]

Julie had told 5 people before Liz Rimington rang the police.

It was Liz Rimington's house & phone so can't see what the big deal was about her making the call to the police while Julie was with her.

No person would dare perjure themselves to such a serious extent, by accusing an innocent man of murdering 5 people. A month after the massacre. Bamber's one reason for her doing this is that he apparently 'jilted her'.

A lot of what is in Julie's WS she could have only got from Bamber. Claims that the relatives told her this falls flat as the relatives wouldn't alert Bamber's girlfriend they were digging. They would not have had the information or the opportunity to tell Julie anyway. The only other option is the police told Julie to include all of it in their WS.

Neither the police or relatives would have told Julie to include Matthew Macdonald on her WS. Matthew Macdonald came from Bamber.

It is a simple case that Bamber committed the massacre . Then his girlfriend told the police everything she knew in a 34 WS, a month later.

There is a difference between lying to the police and lying for the police.

There is in this case plenty of evidence of witnesses lying according to instructions given to them by the police. It is not always possible to prove when that happened, but sometimes it is. The accounts given by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby of their visit to the Bank are proven to be lies. They said they went there of their own volition, but the manager when interviewed said a policeman was present.

There is also much circumstantial evidence in the case of witnesses being coached.

When Ann Eaton changed the time Susan Battersby gave for when Julie Mugford received Jeremy's call she almost certainly changed it according to the instructions given to her by the police. The reason we know that is that when Susan Battersby changed the time herself, she changed Ann Eaton's time and not the time she originally gave.

1 When Susan Battersby was asked the time when Jeremy called, she originally said 03:30am. Ann Eaton made a note of that time, but later wrote a second fake note in which the time was changed to 03:15.

2 Later Susan Battersby (obviously having been got at) said that her clock was fast by about 10 minutes and changed the time she gave to just after 03:00. You see when she changed the time, allegedly because her clock was fast, she based the new time on the time given in Ann Eaton's fake note. If not she would have changed the time to 03:20.

Conclusion.

DS Stan Jones told Ann Eaton to change the time of Jeremy's call and he also told Susan Battersby to knock another 10 minutes off it. She obviously based her new time on the one which he told Ann Eaton to write down in a fake note. So the time at which Jeremy called Londen got changed from 03:30 to 03:00 or just after.

This has led to guilty supporters repeatedly trying to make out that Jeremy called Julie Mugford at 03:00 which is earlier than when he said his father called, proving him a liar.

There is a lot of evidence of the police coaching witnesses. The trouble is that most people don't have the time to look at the details.

[Steve_uk]

There is a difference between lying to the police and lying for the police.

There is in this case plenty of evidence of witnesses lying according to instructions given to them by the police. It is not always possible to prove when that happened, but sometimes it is. The accounts given by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby of their visit to the Bank are proven to be lies. They said they went there of their own volition, but the manager when interviewed said a policeman was present.

There is also much circumstantial evidence in the case of witnesses being coached.

When Ann Eaton changed the time Susan Battersby gave for when Julie Mugford received Jeremy's call she almost certainly changed it according to the instructions given to her by the police. The reason we know that is that when Susan Battersby changed the time herself, she changed Ann Eaton's time and not the time she originally gave.

1 When Susan Battersby was asked the time when Jeremy called, she originally said 03:30am. Ann Eaton made a note of that time, but later wrote a second fake note in which the time was changed to 03:15.

2 Later Susan Battersby (obviously having been got at) said that her clock was fast by about 10 minutes and changed the time she gave to just after 03:00. You see when she changed the time, allegedly because her clock was fast, she based the new time on the time given in Ann Eaton's fake note. If not she would have changed the time to 03:20.

Conclusion.

DS Stan Jones told Ann Eaton to change the time of Jeremy's call and he also told Susan Battersby to knock another 10 minutes off it. She obviously based her new time on the one which he told ann Eaton to write down in a fake note. So the time at which Jeremy called Londen got changed from 03:30 to 03:00 or just after.

This has led to guilty supporters repeatedly trying to make out that Jeremy called Julie Mugford at 03:00 which is earlier than when he said his father called, proving him a liar.

There is a lot of evidence of the police coaching witnesses. The trouble is that most people don't have the time to look at the details.

Is that the best you can do after 33 years? Have you thought that maybe the girls showed up in Alan Dovey's office and a policeman in plain clothes was on the premises when they arrived?

As for Jeremy's call, have you ever asked yourself why he telephoned her at all at two o' clock in the morning..

[Harry]

Is that the best you can do after 33 years? Have you thought that maybe the girls showed up in Alan Dovey's office and a policeman in plain clothes was on the premises when they arrived?

As for Jeremy's call, have you ever asked yourself why he telephoned her at all at two o' clock in the morning..

So you believe that the girls just happened to decide upon a day and an hour when the manager just happened to have a policeman in his office. But your comment is obviously not meant seriously.

Susan Battersby said Jeremy called at 03:30, not at 02:00.

[Harry]

Just saying the Allegation document is not evidence is a very poor response. It obviously is concerned with very important evidence. You should clarify your own basic position instead of just relying on quips which avoid the point at issue.


"47. On the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it. (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).

48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).

49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself."

There is no mention of finding a silencer in Ann Eaton's first statement. That should have been the most important part of it, if the relatives really had found a silencer.

There was no mention of it because it never happened. The plan to fake the silencer evidence was only thought up by the police after Julie Mugford came forward. The police realised that Mugford's evidence alone was most likely not enough to secure a conviction. They needed something of a "forensic" nature to go with it. So what basically happened is that when it came to their attention that the relatives had another identical silencer they saw the chance to perform a deception.

The handing in of the second silencer by the relatives on September 11th is evidence. It is clearly recorded. But they don't admit to handing in two silencers do they? That would defeat the whole object, which was for the police to fake documentation to make it appear that the silencer which the police found on August 7th and which they sent to the laboratory to be examined was the same one David Boutflour allegedly "found" about a month later.

The story of the relatives finding a silencer on August 10th was made up. The police, specifically Stan Jones, literally invited the relatives to take part in faking the silencer evidence to frame Bamber. It was a case of "You help us and we'll help you." The police were helping them write their statements with lying witnesses corroborating the testimony of other lying witnesses, but none of that happened before Ann Eaton's first statement which was made before Julie Mugford came forward.

From The Allegation document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWM2FlYjUzNjAtNTZjNi00MzVmLWIzZmQtYjg5ODAwYTk2NDlh/view

"The provenance (continuity) of the sound moderator

27. The original finding of a sound moderator that was labelled SBJ/1 occurred, according to the investigating officers and prosecution witnesses, on 10th August 1985. Namely, it was discovered by a David Boutflour. It was asserted at trial that it was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS 21 Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Peter Eaton. Then on 13th August 1985 it was submitted for forensic testing at Huntingdon laboratories on by DI Cook.

28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985, ‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’

29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The Essex Gazette,’ ‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’

30. The enquiry that was ‘reopened,’ provided suspicion that Jeremy Bamber had committed murder and killed five members of his family, his motive being for his inheritance making it appear that his mentally ill sister had in fact murdered the family members, including her two children."

[Harry]

The fact that it was ACC Simpson who told the press that the police had found a silencer on the day of the killings shows clearly that the later  retraction of those reports must have had been authorised by him and that he must have authorised the framing of Bamber or at least connived.

If the police had found the silencer sent to the laboratory only days after the murders and they later tried to deny it, the motive behind the lie seems plain enough. The relatives could not have found the silencer on August 10 if the police already had it in their possession.

It looks as if the police had considered two different ways of getting round the problem of how the relatives  could have have found the silencer. They could say that they had returned it to the farm before August 10, or they could simply say that the report of the police finding it had been mistaken.

The fake documentation in which DS Jones says he returned the silencer "covertly" suggests that they wanted to cover themselves just in case the defence discovered the proof that would contradict a retraction. But they settled for a retraction and that is still the official position, though obviously false.

I find it strange that nobody on this forum is willing to comment on this matter. Even people who think Bamber is innocent won't give up on the notion that the relatives really did find a silencer on August 10th. The fallback response to the refutation of that, insofar as it can be detected, seems to be nothing more than thoughtless expressions like  "How could all those people be lying? or "Somebody would have talked by now".

It's been suggested that two silencers were found, one by the police on the August 7 and another by the relatives on August 10. That is not credible. If two silencers had been found why would the police send only one to the laboratory. There is no record of two silencers being examined at that stage, but only one. The silencer found by the police was said to be bloodstained. Why would they not have sent the one they found themselves?

More to the point why would they deny finding a silencer and also claim in obviously fake reports which were suppressed that it had been returned to the farm by DS Jones.

It seems to me that whole silencer conspiracy would be exposed if it was clearly proven that the police found a silencer on August 7th. It appears that it has been, but nothing is happening.

[David1819]

The fact that it was ACC Simpson who told the press that the police had found a silencer on the day of the killings shows clearly that the later  retraction of those reports must have had been authorised by him and that he must have authorised the framing of Bamber or at least connived.

Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him. The fact this is not mentioned in any other major newspaper suggests the latter.

The whole thing is based on a quote from a down-market gossip tabloid with a long history of poor fact-checking and skewed reporting.

This is just embarrassing.

[David1819]

Yes Julie was quoting a congenital liar. Why did she need to concoct such an incongruous story at all..

You don't understand women.

[Steve_uk]

So you believe that the girls just happened to decide upon a day and an hour when the manager just happened to have a policeman in his office. But your comment is obviously not meant seriously.

Susan Battersby said Jeremy called at 03:30, not at 02:00.

No I'm saying that both girls admitted the cheque book fraud under separate interrogation and that at a later date they arranged an appointment with the bank manager Alan Dovey in consultation with the police. So a policeman in plain clothes may well have been waiting at the bank when the girls arrived at the branch but had not accompanied them to the premises.

[Steve_uk]

You don't understand women.

She didn't need to embellish. She had the salient points of the story anyhow, shocking as they were.

[Harry]

Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him. The fact this is not mentioned in any other major newspaper suggests the latter.

The whole thing is based on a quote from a down-market gossip tabloid with a long history of poor fact-checking and skewed reporting.

This is just embarrassing.

"Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him."

All you keep doing is saying that reports which contradict the position you have committed yourself to supporting must be mistaken. There is no reason to believe Simpson was mistaken or that he was misquoted in two different newspapers.

If further evidence corroborates reports, the best you can do is to say that those reports must also be mistaken.

The position you are defending is simply not credible. You think that the relatives scratched the mantelpiece only a day or two after allegedly finding the silencer and then straight after that they told the police about the scratches.

So the relatives fooled the police! They found the silencer on the 10th and on the 13th they are showing the police the scratches they made themselves to frame Bamber!

What really happened is that the police made up those reports of the relatives pointing out the scratches to the police. The police made the scratches after Julie Mugford came forward and told the relatives to say that they had found them. 

It very much appears that the police found the silencer, the police made the scratches, the police told the relatives to lie.

The reports of the relatives telling the police about the scratches are fake and backdated.

It's no accident that the scratches are made at a place which is not visible in the crime scene photographs and must have been made by people who had studied them carefully. The relatives messing around like that at such an early stage with little thought or preparation is not a credible theory.

They may not be all that brainy, but they are not completely stupid.

Is it correct you believe that the relatives hatched a plot to frame Bamber and went ahead with scratching the mantelpiece before 13th of August? That is when they supposedly told the police about the scratches.

[Harry]

http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1071015626/the-case-of-jeremy-bamber-condensed-from-jeremy

"Documental evidence has emerged revealing that after Essex Police seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from White House Farm shortly after the crime took place and before the 9th August 1985, a second sound moderator was found at White House Farm on the 11th September 1985, given to Essex Police and submitted for forensic examination.  A conspiracy was then entered into by DI Ron Cook, DS Stan Jones, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Forensic Scientist Malcolm Fletcher to deceive the prosecuting authorities, the Defence and the Courts by amalgamating evidence from these two sound moderators making it appear that there was only ever one sound moderator in this case.

Both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton stated that the Police were told about their discovery of the red paint on a sound moderator at White House Farm on the 10th and 12th August 1985 (Doc P20 and Doc P5).  Robert Boutflour’s notes (Doc P4) reaffirm this.  A further entry in Robert Boutflour’s notes for the12th August 1985 also states “Went to Maldon Police, they rang Witham Police and arranged for meeting about silencer, collected from Oak Farm later that evening”.

However, had Ann Eaton telephoned Essex Police on the 10th and 12th August 1985 regarding the finding of a sound moderator there would be a police telephone message report saying so, and there is not.  Nor is there a police record of the aforementioned meeting.  This is because the sound moderator was not found by Ann, David and Robert until the 11th September 1985. This is evident in Document P31 a phone message log dated the 11th September 1985 stating that “David Boutflour has found a silencer”.  Document P35 Action report 88: “Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey”.

These references make it quite clear that the sound moderator was found on the 11th September 1985 and not the 10th August 1985 as stated in Court.  The original finding of the first sound moderator SJB/1 was then concealed to give the impression that only one sound moderator was ever found, on the 10th August 1985.  Document P7 DI Cook appears to have swapped the forensic reference number from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and finally to DRB/1 in order to confuse the identity of the first sound moderator with the other: being the same make and model this was easy for the police to do."

My own summary of what I see as implied by the above


1 The police found a silencer on the day of the killings.

2 The relatives did not hand in a silencer until after  September 11th

3 The police told the relatives to say that they had found a silencer on 10th of august.

4 The deception was to maintain that the silencer examined by Glynis Howard was the one found by the relatives. The truth is the police had found that silencer on the day of the killings.

5 The police made fake backdated reports of the relatives finding the silencer and of them finding blood and paint on it. The paint only got on a silencer after the police deliberately contaminated it in September after Julie Mugford came on the scene.

[Harry]

No I'm saying that both girls admitted the cheque book fraud under separate interrogation and that at a later date they arranged an appointment with the bank manager Alan Dovey in consultation with the police. So a policeman in plain clothes may well have been waiting at the bank when the girls arrived at the branch but had not accompanied them to the premises.

Julie Mugford states explicitly that there was no appointment. She said that she and Battersby went to the bank just when they felt like going. I suppose the policeman must have been psychic.

This is what Julie Mugford says in her statement

"We did this alone we weren't prompted to go by police. Whenever we did go it was our
decision. There was no appointment made.

I think we stood outside the bank for I0 minutes, building ourselves up. Susan was a basket case, very nervous. I would have to do the initial talking."

[Roch]

"Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him."

All you keep doing is saying that reports which contradict the position you have committed yourself to supporting must be mistaken.

Just my observations..

David is a valuable poster on the forum, who often goes in to significant detail and can be persuasive when advancing a certain view.  However, among 'supporters' he seems to try and go it alone to an extreme.  Sometimes against the grain of a common consensus and sometimes closed-minded against new suggestions.  I think HG does a similar thing on the red - though I think in her case, she tries to pander and give succour to the idiotic guilty brigade that surrounds her.