Letter Trail - Wallet

[guest29835]

Followed this loosely.

My understanding is AE gave Nevill's wallet to Basil Cock. Bamber later went looking for it in the places he thought it would be.

Bamber didn't answer a question from Caroline. Either deliberatly or in error, which resulted in a stance change.

Hypothetically, if your dad died and you were the first immediate next-of-kin, wouldn't you be keen to know where his wallet his?  Thinking about it, it's one of the first things the next-of-kin would need to know, is it not?  Apart from anything else, you need it to tie up things on the administrative side, but you'd also need to secure it if there are strangers (albeit, trusted police officers) traipsing round the house. 

I genuinely don't see the issue here.  First we're told it's suspicious because he knew the amount, but he didn't.  Just read Ann Eaton's statement.  Now we're told it's suspicious because he knew where the wallet was, but how do we know he knew that?  Wouldn't he just use his common-sense and guess?  And even if he did have an idea, so what?  He could just say he knew, next question.  He may know for entirely innocent reasons.  It's his dad, and he works with him.

[Adam]

Bamber could have taken the cash on the massacre night & left the wallet at WHF. Then collected the wallet later if it had cards he could use.

However he would have just been focusing on the massacre & frame.

[David1819]

Hypothetically, if your dad died and you were the first immediate next-of-kin, wouldn't you be keen to know where his wallet his?  Thinking about it, it's one of the first things the next-of-kin would need to know, is it not?  Apart from anything else, you need it to tie up things on the administrative side, but you'd also need to secure it if there are strangers (albeit, trusted police officers) traipsing round the house. 

I genuinely don't see the issue here.  First we're told it's suspicious because he knew the amount, but he didn't.  Just read Ann Eaton's statement.  Now we're told it's suspicious because he knew where the wallet was, but how do we know he knew that?  Wouldn't he just use his common-sense and guess?  And even if he did have an idea, so what?  He could just say he knew, next question.  He may know for entirely innocent reasons.  It's his dad, and he works with him.

In the house I grew up in, I knew where my Dad kept his wallet.

[guest29835]

In the house I grew up in, I knew where my Dad kept his wallet.

So did I.  Nothing suspicious about it, either.  I just knew by osmosis.  Jeremy grew up in that house, so he would easily know.

Another whiskey, Stan?  Move on, next question.

[Adam]

It must be hard to change stance if hardcore either way.

Posters have attempted quiet stance changes, changed stance without a reason or just given one reason.

Attempting a quiet stance change is fine if it works. You don't have to give a reason. David intially got away with it, but was outed after he kept quoting 5 year old posts of other posters. He eventually gave two reasons , one has since been dismissed.

Just giving one reason is risky as people will then start discussing it. Giving several reasons is also risky as people will say why didn't you change sooner.

Some posters will never change stance despite the evidence. I gave Lookout the chance to PM me for moral support prior to a stance change. The evidence being put onto the forum at the time was substantial. But she continues to go by her gut feeling.

[lookout]

Adam, I don't need you or anyone else changing my mind for me, it won't happen.

[guest29835]

It must be hard to change stance if hardcore either way.

Posters have attempted quiet stance changes, changed stance without a reason or just given one reason.

Attempting a quiet stance change is fine if it works. You don't have to give a reason. David intially got away with it, but was outed after he kept quoting 5 year old posts of other posters. He eventually gave two reasons , one has since been dismissed.

Just giving one reason is risky as people will then start discussing it. Giving several reasons is also risky as people will say why didn't you change sooner.

Some posters will never change stance despite the evidence. I gave Lookout the chance to PM me for moral support prior to a stance change. The evidence being put onto the forum at the time was substantial. But she continues to go by her gut feeling.

Thanks Adam.  I think we all understand what you're going through.

The 3 a.m. phone call from Jeremy must have been a shock, but he turned on the charm and after a long conversation, you're now convinced of reasonable doubt; yet, you don't want to make your stance change public just yet.

This is understandable. 

We agree about the wallet, and you've acknowledged that Sheila was not sedated, she could have struggled with Nevill, and Jeremy could not have gone by bike.  This is progress. 

We may now see more stance changes.  Steve has been receiving persuasive and forceful PMs from Adam trying to turn him too and have him change stance, offering crucial moral support for this big step, and it could be that Steve plucks up the courage and agrees that there is reasonable doubt after all.

Caroline and Jane may also follow suit, if the tide changes.

Hartley is close to the family, but he may decide it's time to become turncoat and plump for Jeremy.

Real Justice is local, so it's difficult, but after this new revelation about the wallet, a few PMs from Adam may be enough.

It's getting exciting.

[Adam]

Adam, I don't need you or anyone else changing my mind for me, it won't happen.

I have realised that.

[Adam]

Thanks Adam.  I think we all understand what you're going through.

The 3 a.m. phone call from Jeremy must have been a shock, but he turned on the charm and after a long conversation, you're now convinced of reasonable doubt, yet you don't want to make your stance change public just yet.

This is understandable. 

We agree about the wallet, and you've acknowledged that Sheila was not sedated, she could have struggled with Nevill and Jeremy could not have gone by bike.  This is progress. 

We may now see more stance changes.  Steve has been receiving persuasive and forceful PMs from Adam trying to turn him too and have him change stance, offering crucial moral support for this big step, and it could be that Steve plucks up the courage and agrees that there is reasonable doubt after all.

Caroline and Jane may also follow suit, if the tide changes.

Hartley is close to the family, but he may decide it's time to become turncoat and plump for Jeremy.

Real Justice is local, so it's difficult, but after this new revelation about the wallet, a few PMs from Adam may be enough.

It's getting exciting.

I might be asking Lookout to PM me for moral support prior to my stance change.

[guest29835]

I might be asking Lookout to PM me for moral support prior to my stance change.

Thanks Adam.  This would be sensible.

[JackieD]

But what is there to challenge me on, Jackie?  There is nothing in this.  Unless I have misunderstood, the wallet was handed in before Jeremy mentioned it, which is why the figure comes up in Ann Eaton's statement.  The reason Ann Eaton mentions the amount is because she is suspicious that Jeremy would ask after Nevill's wallet at all.  Caroline has misinterpreted this to mean Jeremy knew what was in the wallet, but that's not what Ann was getting at.

Is there anything else to say about it?  I don't believe there is.  I think it's a total non-issue, but if I have misunderstood something here, by all means somebody can correct me.  I'd like Jeremy to be guilty, actually, so that he hasn't spent 35 years in prison for nothing, so please, by all means, somebody come forward and tell me why there's more to this wallet affair than meets the eye.

Thank you QC

[guest29835]

I might be asking Lookout to PM me for moral support prior to my stance change.

What I like about Adam is how open-minded he is:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8451.0.html

Thanks Adam.

[guest29835]

Thank you QC

I don't want you to thank me.  I don't do this out of sympathy for a mass murderer.  Looking at the case overall, the point here is that it would appear the evidence does not stand up, and guilters coming on here with rubbish and half-truths hardly helps their cause.  Whether he actually did it or not, we can't allow an unsafe conviction to stand, otherwise - eventually - we will have genuinely innocent people in prisons.  At the very least, we must voice our protest.

Of course, I accept that he protests his innocence anyway, and for all I know, he may in fact be innocent.  If he really is innocent, I can't even begin to imagine the horror and tragedy of it.  But this cannot be repaired now.  He is now approaching 60.  Guilty or innocent, his life is pretty much gone.  Rightly or wrongly, due punishment has been served.  The matter is now academic.

[JackieD]

I don't want you to thank me.  I don't do this out of sympathy for a mass murderer.  Looking at the case overall, the point here is that it would appear the evidence does not stand up, and guilters coming on here with rubbish and half-truths hardly helps their cause.  Whether he actually did it or not, we can't allow an unsafe conviction to stand, otherwise - eventually - we will have genuinely innocent people in prisons.  At the very least, we must voice our protest.

Of course, I accept that he protests his innocence anyway, and for all I know, he may in fact be innocent.  If he really is innocent, I can't even begin to imagine the horror and tragedy of it.  But this cannot be repaired now.  He is now approaching 60.  Guilty or innocent, his life is pretty much gone.  Rightly or wrongly, due punishment has been served.  The matter is now academic.

Because my own personal view is that Jeremy is innocent I find it shocking that Julie Mugford would lie to put an ex boyfriend in prison for life but I think she is definitely capable from what we know of he. Likewise the relatives. Both will have been looking over there shoulders the last thirty years

The propaganda surrounding this case is off the scale and the latest guilty party was CAL letting the press print stories she knew were untrue. She could have put the truth out there but she had a book to sell just like Colin