Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bill Robertson on October 07, 2019, 05:41:PM
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
-
i am sure sombody wil dispute it.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
(https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ricky-gervais-laughing.gif?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C359&ssl=1)
-
there you go somebody has.
-
there you go somebody has.
Inevitable !
-
It's a cover for embarrassment.
-
Perhaps Bill would like to explain how Jeremy Schumacher Bamber managed to travel at 90mph in the dark to WHF.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
Good to see you Bill and yes, that's how it was.
-
i am sure sombody wil dispute it.
Absolutely! It's rubbish!
-
Perhaps Bill would like to explain how Jeremy Schumacher Bamber managed to travel at 90mph in the dark to WHF.
While also seen to be driving slowly!
-
Perhaps Bill would like to explain how Jeremy Schumacher Bamber managed to travel at 90mph in the dark to WHF.
why would he hes a bambr supporter.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
Why did Jeremy remain reticent that he called the police MUCH earlier than West's timings? Not only argued it but was willing to take him to court over it. This is just a rehash of what has gone before, argued in a slightly different way - it has ZERO chance of convincing a court.
-
i am sure sombody wil dispute it.
Too right they will, nugs!! SUCH a shame I can't persuade those who believe he's innocent to meet me at his cottage. There's NO way on God's earth that Jeremy -even fully dressed which he probably was- could have left his house and driven at 30 miles per hour -which we know he did- stop to put a jumper on and reach WHF at the time he's said to have arrived there.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I don't recall that Jeremy asked Julie for advice. He stated that he "rang to hear a friendly voice"? I doubt, even if she'd contributed much to the conversation, that her tone would have been particularly friendly.
-
Definitive proof? The proof seems to be a written time of 3:37 written on a log, it's 'supposed' to prove that Jeremy Bamber was still on the phone talking to Weest at this time. Lets ignore the FACT that the word APPROX has been written underneath it and that a previous entry has been scrubbed out. I think you can just make out that the crossed out time states 03:45 or would Bill and the CT like to argue that he was still on the phone at 03:45? ;D ;D I think others may notice these stumbling blocks because basically, YOU CAN'T MISS THEM! ::)
-
While also seen to be driving slowly!
Based on my calculations he was driving at at average of 31mph. Which happens to coincide with Bews estimate of 30mph.
In Bills scenario Jeremy gets in the car ten minutes later. Jeremy has to make up for that ten mins with serious speeding. Bews was (by my calculations) going at around 45mph. Its not even possible for Bews to drive past him.
-
I don't recall that Jeremy asked Julie for advice. He stated that he "rang to hear a friendly voice"? I doubt, even if she'd contributed much to the conversation, that her tone would have been particularly friendly.
Because she was too spaced out to bother speaking hence telling JB to get back to bed.
-
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
-
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
Which would make it right, after Nevill had previously rang at 03.26. According to West anyway.
03.26--03.37==11mins
-
Because she was too spaced out to bother speaking hence telling JB to get back to bed.
But it's not about Julie, is it? It wasn't Julie who committed murder. The post said Jeremy only rang her to seek advice but it wasn't something Jeremy ever claimed he did. It's also the case that if Julie said very little he had all the time in the world to ask advice. It seems to me that the conversation was all about Jeremy giving her information. SO unconcerned was he that he didn't even tell her that Sheila -allegedly- had a gun. Just for the record, I don't know that I'd be happy to be dragged out of bed at silly o'clock. What was she supposed to do with the information?
-
Which would make it right, after Nevill had previously rang at 03.26. According to West anyway.
03.26--03.37==11mins
And I reiterate. IF those timings are correct, Jeremy did NOT have time to get dressed, get into his car, drive at around 30mph, stop to put on a jumper, and get to WHF at the time he's reported to have arrived.
-
Which would make it right, after Nevill had previously rang at 03.26. According to West anyway.
03.26--03.37==11mins
Eh? ;D ;D - Jeremy timed HIS call to West as lasting 11 mins - the CT are suggesting Jeremy didn't call the police until 03:36 not 03:26! 03:36 + 11 mins is 03:47, so unless Scotty beamed him over to WHF the whole this is just nutty!
-
Eh? ;D ;D - Jeremy timed HIS call to West as lasting 11 mins - the CT are suggesting Jeremy didn't call the police until 03:36 not 03:26! 03:36 + 11 mins is 03:47, so unless Scotty beamed him over to WHF the whole this is just nutty!
I was working on the 1 minute overlap of JB's call to EP.
-
well according to the campaghn team its going to be submitted to the ccrc.
-
I was working on the 1 minute overlap of JB's call to EP.
what one minute over lap? Read what Bill has posted!
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells
Nevill's call -03:26
Jeremy call - 03:36
The calls were 10 mins apart!
-
well according to the campaghn team its going to be submitted to the ccrc.
That's the sad thing.
-
well according to the campaghn team its going to be submitted to the ccrc.
Yes it is, even if it shows up EP as to how thick they were. It cost a man his life though which is serious.
-
well according to the campaghn team its going to be submitted to the ccrc.
And the CT may be relied upon to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth......................?
-
And the CT may be relied upon to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth......................?
God loves a trier ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes it is, even if it shows up EP as to how thick they were. It cost a man his life though which is serious.
Shooting his family cost him his life, he wasn't convicted on phone call timings.
-
That's the sad thing.
11 mins if you include the overlap.
-
of course were assuming all there notes were correct down to the minute they could easly by 2 minutes ether way.
and I doubt if they accurately rembred Jeremys speed down to the mile.
-
God loves a trier ;D ;D ;D
Yup! They put a lot of faith in the adage "If at first you don't succeed keep raking up the old stuff coz they may have forgotten it's already been used and dismissed"
-
of course were assuming all there notes were correct down to the minute they could easly by 2 minutes ether way.
Of course they could nugs but when you see something written by an officer you assume it's correct and by West writing that time down tells everyone that he was in conversation with JB at that specific time while repeating the words of the caller to one of his colleagues.
He obviously misfired when writing the first time down then scribbled it out. Why, when the clock was under his nose ? He couldn't even get that right first time.
-
"New Evidence : Discovered in the post conviction Dickinson Review which reveals Jeremy Bamber was still on the phone at 3.37"
My own timeline has Jeremy still on the phone with West 3:38
-
11 mins if you include the overlap.
Lookout, that doesn't make sense but you can keep posting it if you like.
The claim is that Jeremy called the police at 03:36. He said he was on the phone for 11 mins, that would take the time up to 03:47 and that is NOT enough time for him to have arrived at the scene when he said he did!
-
Of course they could nugs but when you see something written by an officer you assume it's correct and by West writing that time down tells everyone that he was in conversation with JB at that specific time while repeating the words of the caller to one of his colleagues.
He obviously misfired when writing the first time down then scribbled it out. Why, when the clock was under his nose ? He couldn't even get that right first time.
That specific entry that the CT and Bill are referring to wasn't written by West Lookout, West wrote the log! ::)
-
That specific entry that the CT and Bill are referring to wasn't written by West Lookout, West wrote the log! ::)
The names of them mean nothing to me any more because they were all from the same mould---corrupt !
-
Surprising that both Nevill and Jeremy called the 6th furthest away police station.
Then again, Sheila had gone crazy with a rifle for shooting rabbits. So they were not going to call 999.
-
I know where my nearest police station is. Although don't know their direct number. Or if they have one for the public.
Jeremy said himself he looked up the number of the 6th furthest away police station. I assume Nevill did the same.
-
Surprising that both Nevill and Jeremy called the 6th furthest away police station.
Then again, Sheila had gone crazy with a rifle for shooting rabbits. So they were not going to call 999.
Ha, ha!!!! Fantastic point Adam - that blows the WHOLE thing out of the water. Nevil can't have phoned West, he would definitely called 999 at that point and if he had, he wouldn't have got through to West. Also, Weest wouldn't have needed to take Nevil's details down again and he would have informed Jeremy that the incident had already been reported. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Submitting this to the CCRC will damage, not help Bambers cause.
-
Nevill had rang 999 ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha, ha!!!! Fantastic point Adam - that blows the WHOLE thing out of the water. Nevil can't have phoned West, he would definitely called 999 at that point and if he had, he wouldn't have got through to West. Also, Weest wouldn't have needed to take Nevil's details down again and he would have informed Jeremy that the incident had already been reported. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Submitting this to the CCRC will damage, not help Bambers cause.
Yes it does seem unlikely that both Nevill and Jeremy would speak to West.
West would have told Jeremy that he had already spoken to Nevill.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
Jeremy and Julie speak for 2/3 minutes? Thought it was a few seconds.
-
Nevill had rang 999 ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Then he would NEVER have gotten through to West! ::) People just have to read the log posted by Bill, it states clearly that the call was an EXCHANGE call and not a 999 call.
-
Yes it does seem unlikely that both Nevill and Jeremy would speak to West.
West would have told Jeremy that he had already spoken to Nevill.
West didn't take any 999 calls either and he had no reason to lie.
-
Nevill had rang 999 ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
In which case he'd have got through to central calls where he'd have been asked "Which service do you require?" Can you give a reasonable explanation as to why this call would have been withheld?
-
West didn't take any 999 calls either and he had no reason to lie.
Well, having babbled on about it not being possible to prove a negative, MAYBE it is!!!! IF Nevill had dialed 999 he wouldn't, as you say, have got through to a police station, but to an emergency call centre who'd have put the call through to the appropriate emergency service. UNless that person was in on the "let's frame Jeremy" thing, WHY would they have kept silent about receiving Nevill's call?
-
In which case he'd have got through to central calls where he'd have been asked "Which service do you require?" Can you give a reasonable explanation as to why this call would have been withheld?
Not one officer stated that they spoke to Nevill, the claim is ridiculous and if this is the best that the CT can come up with - I don't know why they are bothering.
-
West didn't take any 999 calls either and he had no reason to lie.
You forget - 'The industrial frame'.
-
You forget - 'The industrial frame'.
I guess we should be adding the guy in the emergency services call room to the list.
-
Mind you the Industrial frame department had not been set up when West took Nevill's and Jeremy's call.
So West would have informed Jeremy of Nevill's call. Maybe in all the excitement it slipped Jeremy's mind.
-
Mind you the Industrial frame department had not been set up when West took Nevill's and Jeremy's call.
So West would have informed Jeremy of Nevill's call. Maybe in all the excitement it slipped Jeremy's mind.
Well. some say that the IF (Industrial Frame) started with West ;D ;D
-
Well. some say that the IF (Industrial Frame) started with West ;D ;D
Indeed it was once mooted that it was West who, single handed, took it upon himself to withhold information in case it was ever decided that it would be worth prosecuting Jeremy.
-
Indeed it was once mooted that it was West who, single handed, took it upon himself to withhold information in case it was ever decided that it would be worth prosecuting Jeremy.
Well, always pays to be vigilant - never know when you might need to frame someone. Joking aside, if you feel that you have to make that kind of excuse , then you should re-evaluate your thinking.
-
3:22am Control room
JB: You’ve got to help me, my father has just phoned me saying ‘please come over, your
sister has gone crazy and has the gun’ then the phone went dead. My father sounded
terrified, I don’t think he was kidding.
West: Where does your father live?
JB: White House farm Tolleshunt D'arcy.
West: Does your sister have access to any guns?
JB: Yes my father has a collection of 12 bores and 4.10s and .22 rifles. Look my sister has a
history of mental illness. You’ve got to help me.
West: Hold the line please, I’ll contact our information room and find out where the nearest
unit is.
3:26am Information room
"I received a telephone call on the internal line. The officer at the other end announced
himself as PC 1990 at Chelmsford.
Mr Bamber was worried about a phone call that he had received from his father at
Tolleshunt D'arcy. I cannot remember the direct speech that was used but I was informed
that the telephone call had been received from Mr Bamber and that Mr Bamber's daughter
had gone berserk and had taken one of his guns and that the line had gone dead.
PC 1990 also informed me that Mr BAMBER Junior had stated that there was a collection of
guns at the house. I recorded these as being Shotguns and 410's."
3:30am Witham Police Station
"About 03:30 am I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36
BEWS and Police Constable 1509 MYALL. when I received a message over my personal radio,
from Chelmsford Police Station to the effect that a telephone call had been received from a
Mr Jeremy BAMBER, who had said that he had received a telephone call from his father Mr
Neville BAMBER of "White House Farm" Tolleshunt D'Arcy, saying that his sister was going
berserk and that she had a gun."
3:34am Control room
West: Hello
JB: Christ. You took a long time
West: I have contacted my Information room and Witham Police Station and a car is on its way
to your father's address at Tolleshunt D'Arcy. What's your father’s telephone number?
JB: Maldon 860204
West: How old is your father?
JB: Sixty two
West: Do you know who’s in the house?
JB: My father obviously , my mother and Sheila. Look, when my father rang me he sounded
terrified, I don’t think he's kidding about. I tried ringing him back and I can't get any reply.
West: Will you go to the house and wait for the Police officers and liaise with them there?
JB: Shall I go now?
West: Yes, the car from Witham won't take long. Can I have your telephone number?
JB: Goldhanger 88645
3:39am (or 3:19am)
JB: There’s something wrong at home. I don’t know what to do
Julie: Go to bed. bye honey
JB: I love you lots
3:35 - CA07 leaves Witham
3:41 - Jeremy leaves his house
3:47 - CA07 drives past Jeremy.
3:48 - CA07 arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 48mph
3:49 - Jeremy arrives at White House Farm. Average journey speed 31mph
-
Mmm. "........Look, when my father phoned me he sounded terrified..........." But Jeremy claimed he didn't think the call was urgent and he didn't think it was worth calling 999 because it wouldn't have got them there any faster, yet here we have him berating West for keeping him waiting?
-
Mmm. "........Look, when my father phoned me he sounded terrified..........." But Jeremy claimed he didn't think the call was urgent and he didn't think it was worth calling 999 because it wouldn't have got them there any faster, yet here we have him berating West for keeping him waiting?
That's not what he allegedly said. According to Bews he asked Jeremy "Well why didn't you dial 999 instead of trying two police stations?" and Jeremy replied "I didn't think it would make any difference of how quickly you got here, I don't know how your system works".
-
That's not what he allegedly said. According to Bews he asked Jeremy "Well why didn't you dial 999 instead of trying two police stations?" and Jeremy replied "I didn't think it would make any difference of how quickly you got here, I don't know how your system works".
David can you remind us how long it took Jeremy Bamber in an emergency situation to telephone Police of any description from the time he purportedly received a call from his father requesting assistance?
-
That's not what he allegedly said. According to Bews he asked Jeremy "Well why didn't you dial 999 instead of trying two police stations?" and Jeremy replied "I didn't think it would make any difference of how quickly you got here, I don't know how your system works".
The fact stands that despite his father sounding terrified, Jeremy wasted MORE time by diddling his way through a telephone directory making abortive calls, but when questioned, claimed that he didn't think it was urgent. Frankly, I don't buy "I didn't think it would make any difference................I don't know how your system works". I doubt that anyone else, passed junior school age, would buy it, either.
-
David can you remind us how long it took Jeremy Bamber in an emergency situation to telephone Police of any description from the time he purportedly received a call from his father requesting assistance?
If he called at 03:36, it took him 26 minutes.
-
It must be only me who imagines that JB had been " playing for time " while thinking the worst of what could be going on at WHF. He'd been scared ! This would have been the main reason for his dithering around and flicking through pages of the directory.
When such a call comes to you in the early hours it takes a few minutes to gather your senses and because JB had had a full day harvesting he'd have been dead beat and would have gone into a deep sleep.
I at least understand these things knowing that not everyone leaps around at that time of the morning. It would have taken time for his father's call to register with him as it's not every day someone gets such a call, and to try and get your head around that type of call which came " out of the blue " to JB would take some time to sink in---it would with anyone. I can understand his situation at the time getting a call like that when you least expect it.
Is there no understanding here of how the human body/mind reacts ??
-
If he called at 03:36, it took him 26 minutes.
So he left a man who sounded terrified alone with a girl who'd gone berserk and was brandishing a gun, whilst he idled away 26 minutes making abortive attempts at telephone calls to closed police stations. Let's face it. He actually did sweet FA.
-
Maybe Bill should put a timeline together like I have, using only quotes from the evidence.
Lets see how ALL the events transpire minute by minute.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/OYgcKl4X7fvyM/source.gif)
-
So he left a man who sounded terrified alone with a girl who'd gone berserk and was brandishing a gun, whilst he idled away 26 minutes making abortive attempts at telephone calls to closed police stations. Let's face it. He actually did sweet FA.
Like I said, it's not the sort of call one would expect at that hour of the morning ! Or any time.
-
It must be only me who imagines that JB had been " playing for time " while thinking the worst of what could be going on at WHF. He'd been scared ! This would have been the main reason for his dithering around and flicking through pages of the directory.
When such a call comes to you in the early hours it takes a few minutes to gather your senses and because JB had had a full day harvesting he'd have been dead beat and would have gone into a deep sleep.
I at least understand these things knowing that not everyone leaps around at that time of the morning. It would have taken time for his father's call to register with him as it's not every day someone gets such a call, and to try and get your head around that type of call which came " out of the blue " to JB would take some time to sink in---it would with anyone. I can understand his situation at the time getting a call like that when you least expect it.
Is there no understanding here of how the human body/mind reacts ??
You make a good case lookout but it's the issue with the telephone directory which really implicates him because it shows his brain is functioning in his mendacious scenario and is not frozen by being overwhelmed.
Of course the real reason many of us suspect for the lapse of time was that he was busying himself with cleaning up and preparing himself for the reverberations of his actions.
-
Like I said, it's not the sort of call one would expect at that hour of the morning ! Or any time.
No one ever said it was, but the juxtapositions of how he alleged his father sounded and the potential danger he was allegedly in, against Jeremy's casual attitude? D'you know, I can almost hear him humming as he turns the pages very slowly.
-
Maybe Bill should put a timeline together like I have, using only quotes from the evidence.
Lets see how ALL the events transpire minute by minute.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/OYgcKl4X7fvyM/source.gif)
He'll have to wait until the CT comes up with one.
-
It must be only me who imagines that JB had been " playing for time " while thinking the worst of what could be going on at WHF. He'd been scared ! This would have been the main reason for his dithering around and flicking through pages of the directory.
When such a call comes to you in the early hours it takes a few minutes to gather your senses and because JB had had a full day harvesting he'd have been dead beat and would have gone into a deep sleep.
I at least understand these things knowing that not everyone leaps around at that time of the morning. It would have taken time for his father's call to register with him as it's not every day someone gets such a call, and to try and get your head around that type of call which came " out of the blue " to JB would take some time to sink in---it would with anyone. I can understand his situation at the time getting a call like that when you least expect it.
Is there no understanding here of how the human body/mind reacts ??
A few minutes? If we go by what the CT are suggesting - it took him 26 minutes!
-
It must be only me who imagines that JB had been " playing for time " while thinking the worst of what could be going on at WHF. He'd been scared ! This would have been the main reason for his dithering around and flicking through pages of the directory.
When such a call comes to you in the early hours it takes a few minutes to gather your senses and because JB had had a full day harvesting he'd have been dead beat and would have gone into a deep sleep.
I at least understand these things knowing that not everyone leaps around at that time of the morning. It would have taken time for his father's call to register with him as it's not every day someone gets such a call, and to try and get your head around that type of call which came " out of the blue " to JB would take some time to sink in---it would with anyone. I can understand his situation at the time getting a call like that when you least expect it.
Is there no understanding here of how the human body/mind reacts ??
The whole narrative of him taking to long to call the police is incorrect anyway. Because it implies that a call from WHF actually happened and the argument being the duration of time it took him to call the police is is suspicious. That's illogical because if the the call from Nevill happened it don't matter how long it took JB to call the police.
If the call from Nevil never happened. Then there was no reaction time. He created a time gap for no apparent reason. Because he could have made Nevill call happen when ever he wanted to say it happened. And the reason why would make no difference to the premise regardless.
-
It must be only me who imagines that JB had been " playing for time " while thinking the worst of what could be going on at WHF. He'd been scared ! This would have been the main reason for his dithering around and flicking through pages of the directory.
When such a call comes to you in the early hours it takes a few minutes to gather your senses and because JB had had a full day harvesting he'd have been dead beat and would have gone into a deep sleep.
I at least understand these things knowing that not everyone leaps around at that time of the morning. It would have taken time for his father's call to register with him as it's not every day someone gets such a call, and to try and get your head around that type of call which came " out of the blue " to JB would take some time to sink in---it would with anyone. I can understand his situation at the time getting a call like that when you least expect it.
Is there no understanding here of how the human body/mind reacts ??
But Lookout, according to what you've previously said, Jeremy was more than used to Sheila's little quirkies. I believe you've previously said he sometimes helped Nevill with her -although I could never work out when this might have been. It also remains that Jeremy had lived a very independent life and if rumours are true he wasn't too scared to nick watches when he was abroad. The Jeremy most people -well, those who knew him pre murders- certainly was neither a scaredy cat nor the wimp you portray him as being. He probably wasn't afraid of anything until the guilty verdict came back and the life sentence was passed.
-
The whole narrative of him taking to long to call the police is incorrect anyway. Because it implies that a call from WHF actually happened and the argument being the duration of time it took him to call the police is is suspicious. That's illogical because if the the call from Nevill happened it don't matter how long it took JB to call the police.
If the call from Nevil never happened. Then there was no reaction time. He created a time gap for no apparent reason. Because he could have made Nevill call happen when ever he wanted to say it happened. And the reason why would make no difference to the premise regardless.
I'm not so much putting importance on the length of time it took him to make the call, I'm talking about his lack of response to what were his father's alleged feelings. "He sounded terrified". Lookout has him as a quivering mess. I don't believe the call happened so Jeremy didn't need to try to work out what the appropriate responses would be to such a call which is probably why his statements regarding it are contradictory. I think you're correct in that he created a time gap for no reason and he wasn't entirely certain which was the best way to go about it. It's almost like having an almost empty car park. It takes longer to decide where is the best place to park than it does when there's only one parking space.
-
The whole narrative of him taking to long to call the police is incorrect anyway. Because it implies that a call from WHF actually happened and the argument being the duration of time it took him to call the police is is suspicious. That's illogical because if the the call from Nevill happened it don't matter how long it took JB to call the police.
If the call from Nevil never happened. Then there was no reaction time. He created a time gap for no apparent reason. Because he could have made Nevill call happen when ever he wanted to say it happened. And the reason why would make no difference to the premise regardless.
He had to create the time gap because he was busy cleaning himself up, taking a shower and changing out of his clothes.
-
The whole narrative of him taking to long to call the police is incorrect anyway. Because it implies that a call from WHF actually happened and the argument being the duration of time it took him to call the police is is suspicious. That's illogical because if the the call from Nevill happened it don't matter how long it took JB to call the police.
If the call from Nevil never happened. Then there was no reaction time. He created a time gap for no apparent reason. Because he could have made Nevill call happen when ever he wanted to say it happened. And the reason why would make no difference to the premise regardless.
That's a good point, however, before calling the police, he called Julie and he looked up the station number - those are the reasons for the time gap. Remember the initial time he gave for calling the police was much earlier than is being suggested here.
Of course he later realised that calling Julie first might sound odd, so he said he called her after - he also told me this (which I don't believe). Adding this to what the CT are claiming would extend the time even further.
-
He had to create the time gap because he was busy cleaning himself up, taking a shower and changing out of his clothes.
Yes, but he could have made the call after that - leaving no time gap. However, he called Julie and there were witnesses to that.
-
In his statement, there is no delay and yet ....... there it is.
-
In his statement, there is no delay and yet ....... there it is.
In his mind there may not have been because he filled the wasted minutes doing everything OTHER than what was appropriate under the alleged circumstances.
-
You make a good case lookout but it's the issue with the telephone directory which really implicates him because it shows his brain is functioning in his mendacious scenario and is not frozen by being overwhelmed.
Of course the real reason many of us suspect for the lapse of time was that he was busying himself with cleaning up and preparing himself for the reverberations of his actions.
I'd say it's only natural that you'd think on those lines where he'd be cleaning and preparing because of your opposing views and because of my own personal views I tend to see things from a less accusatory point of view giving him the benefit of the doubt under the present circumstances at the time.
-
In his mind there may not have been because he filled the wasted minutes doing everything OTHER than what was appropriate under the alleged circumstances.
Maybe not in his mind - but in reality.
Jeremy made a balls up when he called Julie first, not only did it cause a delay between the time he said the call from his father occurred and his call to the police - but such a delay that would need explaining, but it caused him to stumble when recalling events - hence why sometimes he called Julie first and at other times, he called the police first. I wonder when the CT will fit in the call to Julie - given that Bill hasn't even included it and Jeremy is still saying he called her after the police. None of it adds up!
-
Many have said had it been them, they'd have sped to the farmhouse at break-neck speed, but------if he'd done that, I'd have immediately said he was guilty.
-
Many have said had it been them, they'd have sped to the farmhouse at break-neck speed, but------if he'd done that, I'd have immediately said he was guilty.
?
-
Yes, but he could have made the call after that - leaving no time gap. However, he called Julie and there were witnesses to that.
I think he was relying on the call that he made from White House Farm to his answerphone to give him the alibi. However the Police removed the tapes and this part of the story was forgotten.
-
Many have said had it been them, they'd have sped to the farmhouse at break-neck speed, but------if he'd done that, I'd have immediately said he was guilty.
That's perverse almost in the extreme and I'm betting you're the only one who'd think along those lines. There again, what would have been the point when they were all dead?
-
I'd say it's only natural that you'd think on those lines where he'd be cleaning and preparing because of your opposing views and because of my own personal views I tend to see things from a less accusatory point of view giving him the benefit of the doubt under the present circumstances at the time.
But there are too many doubts which have accumulated lookout, to the point where the whole story has become a modicum of truth interwoven with a tissue of lies.
-
?
Killers can't get back to their place of murder quick enough. Right ? A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular. Haven't you read about it ? It's a power thing that they have over those who they've killed.
-
Killers can't get back to their place of murder quick enough. Right ? A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular. Haven't you read about it ? It's a power thing that they have over those who they've killed.
He did return to the scene! And he controlled the cops while he was there. The ultimate power!
-
He did return to the scene! And he controlled the cops while he was there. The ultimate power!
Inside the farmhouse where they all lay? How did he control the cops ?
-
Killers can't get back to their place of murder quick enough. Right ? A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular. Haven't you read about it ? It's a power thing that they have over those who they've killed.
The chances are he hadn't long left three. A tad too soon to admire his work. Besides which there were other and necessary things to occupy his thoughts. Such as how best to present himself as the concerned son
-
Inside the farmhouse where they all lay? How did he control the cops ?
Because they worked from his story!
-
Because they worked from his story!
Obviously ! How else would they have known anything ? You call that controlling the cops ? He'd have controlled them if he hadn't have answered what they were asking him at the time.
-
Inside the farmhouse where they all lay? How did he control the cops ?
HOW..?He told the police chapter and verse. Like the book my bro in law wrote. The preface says he told the truth but not necessarily ALL the truth.
-
Obviously ! How else would they have known anything ? You call that controlling the cops ? He'd have controlled them if he hadn't have answered what they were asking him at the time.
Had you realized that you think the exact opposite of everyone else? Do you do it deliberately or for fun :))
-
Had you realized that you think the exact opposite of everyone else? Do you do it deliberately or for fun :))
Murders aren't funny !
-
Killers can't get back to their place of murder quick enough. Right ? A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular. Haven't you read about it ? It's a power thing that they have over those who they've killed.
He did return twice following his charade with Police on August 7th: once at the request of Ann Eaton, the other ostensibly to retrieve his passport.
-
Murders aren't funny !
Oh I'm with you there. However certain reactions to them can be so off the wall that they can only be described as being so
-
He did return twice following his charade with Police on August 7th: once at the request of Ann Eaton, the other ostensibly to retrieve his passport.
I meant him actually getting inside while the bodies were in-situ. He would have been clever enough to have wormed his way in even in the company of the police, just to " view his work ".
By all accounts when he went in accompanied by AE he wasn't altogether comfortable as it hadn't been long since the murders.
The retrieval of the passport came later where he wouldn't have lingered long, not even long enough to fill his pockets ?
-
I meant him actually getting inside while the bodies were in-situ. He would have been clever enough to have wormed his way in even in the company of the police, just to " view his work ".
By all accounts when he went in accompanied by AE he wasn't altogether comfortable as it hadn't been long since the murders.
The retrieval of the passport came later where he wouldn't have lingered long, not even long enough to fill his pockets ?
Why would he need to do that when he had JUST killed them? You're talking about a completely different kind of killer.
-
I meant him actually getting inside while the bodies were in-situ. He would have been clever enough to have wormed his way in even in the company of the police, just to " view his work ".
By all accounts when he went in accompanied by AE he wasn't altogether comfortable as it hadn't been long since the murders.
The retrieval of the passport came later where he wouldn't have lingered long, not even long enough to fill his pockets ?
Ever the consummate actor! It didn't take him log to get comfortable - 10 mins or so!
-
Obviously ! How else would they have known anything ? You call that controlling the cops ? He'd have controlled them if he hadn't have answered what they were asking him at the time.
Not sure why these debates end up being hundreds of miles away from the topic - and completely surreal! ???
-
Its often been said that Jeremy being unable to call Nevil back is because Nevil had began making a call to the police. However if Nevill left the phone off the hook, Jeremy would need to keep his phone on the hook for two minutes in order to be disengaged and call out again.
"I understand that a question had been asked as follows: If caller A from Tollesbury had phoned caller B at Goldhanger and during the course of the call, caller A had placed the receiver down, but not on the hook. Would caller B he able to dial out again. The basic answer to this question is yes caller B could call out again on his line provided caller. B had replaced his, receiver on the hook for a continuous period of 1-2 minutes. There is no exact period of time up to 2 minutes.
I must stress that the period must be continuous. If caller B picked up the receiver say for a moment before the 'force-release' period had ended then the 'force release' period would begin again. The 'force release' period is up to 2 minutes although I cannot state what the minimum period is. "
Maybe Bews was right. Maybe Jeremy did call Whitman police station. He didn't get through because his own line was still engaged. And once he found the number for Chelmsford those two minutes were up. And hence got through.
-
A call would end the minute the button was depressed either manually or by replacing the cradle, then you can go straight ahead and make another call.
-
Its often been said that Jeremy being unable to call Nevil back is because Nevil had began making a call to the police. However if Nevill left the phone off the hook, Jeremy would need to keep his phone on the hook for two minutes in order to be disengaged and call out again.
"I understand that a question had been asked as follows: If caller A from Tollesbury had phoned caller B at Goldhanger and during the course of the call, caller A had placed the receiver down, but not on the hook. Would caller B he able to dial out again. The basic answer to this question is yes caller B could call out again on his line provided caller. B had replaced his, receiver on the hook for a continuous period of 1-2 minutes. There is no exact period of time up to 2 minutes.
I must stress that the period must be continuous. If caller B picked up the receiver say for a moment before the 'force-release' period had ended then the 'force release' period would begin again. The 'force release' period is up to 2 minutes although I cannot state what the minimum period is. "
Maybe Bews was right. Maybe Jeremy did call Whitman police station. He didn't get through because his own line was still engaged. And once he found the number for Chelmsford those two minutes were up. And hence got through.
But given that he said none of that, not even when the expert witness explained what would happen, we can be pretty sure, it didn't.
-
A call would end the minute the button was depressed either manually or by replacing the cradle, then you can go straight ahead and make another call.
Not if the person who called you hadn't replaced the receiver.
-
Not if the person who called you hadn't replaced the receiver.
Then you obviously wouldn't be able to ring them back but it wouldn't stop you from replacing the receiver and ringing someone else. Because one number is unobtainable doesn't render your phone useless.
Because the receiver hadn't been replaced would have been the time that JB rang EP.
-
Phones back then were operator operated and if the phone was left off the hook you'd hear the voice of the operator telling you to replace it so as long as that phone had been left that way the line remained open to the operator. If left long enough some phones would automatically put through an emergency call or would be disabled after a long drawn-out noise
-
Phones back then were operator operated and if the phone was left off the hook you'd hear the voice of the operator telling you to replace it so as long as that phone had been left that way the line remained open to the operator. If left long enough some phones would automatically put through an emergency call or would be disabled after a long drawn-out noise
I thought it had long been established that there wasn't a manual exchange in 1985. My great aunt lived in Tollesbury and I can recall that my mother could ask an operator to connect her with the Tollesbury number. After it went automatic, she couldn't manage it so I had to dial the number using the newly installed Maldon code which was, I believe, at the time, 1621 which has since been prefixed by 0.
-
refresh my memory how far is goldhanger from whf.
-
refresh my memory how far is goldhanger from whf.
By direct route or as the crow flies?
-
Then you obviously wouldn't be able to ring them back but it wouldn't stop you from replacing the receiver and ringing someone else. Because one number is unobtainable doesn't render your phone useless.
Because the receiver hadn't been replaced would have been the time that JB rang EP.
I have no idea Lookout - I'm going by what the expert said.
-
Phones back then were operator operated and if the phone was left off the hook you'd hear the voice of the operator telling you to replace it so as long as that phone had been left that way the line remained open to the operator. If left long enough some phones would automatically put through an emergency call or would be disabled after a long drawn-out noise
The exchange wasn't a maned exchange - no operator, just switches.
-
Is Bill going to bother to defend, recant or amend his claims?
-
Is Bill going to bother to defend, recant or amend his claims?
bill didentmake them campaghn team did.
-
bill didentmake them campaghn team did.
Bill claimed a "Now undisputed sequence" and "End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent."
-
Bill claimed a "Now undisputed sequence" and "End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent."
The CT have been trawling this on Twitter - perhaps Bill is a member of the CT as he tends to post what they are currently promoting.
-
The CT have been trawling this on Twitter - perhaps Bill is a member of the CT as he tends to post what they are currently promoting.
Whatever the case may be. He has a lot of explaining to do.
-
Whatever the case may be. He has a lot of explaining to do.
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. If he is in the CT (and personally, I believe he is or has connections to it), I don't think they like anyone to do any explaining - hence why they don't post here - although some are members.
-
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. If he is in the CT (and personally, I believe he is or has connections to it), I don't think they like anyone to do any explaining - hence why they don't post here - although some are members.
The CTs objective is to spread whatever they believe in. That's what Twitter is good for.
If someone lacks in critical thinking skills, you cant really blame them for thinking two calls happened, because on the surface it does appear/seem that way.
Bill has posted his "undisputed sequence" on an open forum and left a lot of questions unanswered.
-
The CTs objective is to spread whatever they believe in. That's what Twitter is good for.
If someone lacks in critical thinking skills, you cant really blame them for thinking two calls happened, because on the surface it does appear/seem that way.
Bill has posted his "undisputed sequence" on an open forum and left a lot of questions unanswered.
I can understand someone new to the case thinking there were two calls - but it doesn't take long to unravel it. Most people thought that the 'supposed' newly discovered log was the one that seems to refer to Nevil but it was the log with Jeremy's details. In fact, I think it was The Daily Mail that published an article on the subject and confused the two logs. I can understand why someone reading that and being told that a 'new' log was discovered detailing a call from Nevil, would buy into it.
How can something be 'undisputed' when it very much IS 'disputed'? ;D ;D ;D
-
The CTs objective is to spread whatever they believe in. That's what Twitter is good for.
If someone lacks in critical thinking skills, you cant really blame them for thinking two calls happened, because on the surface it does appear/seem that way.
Bill has posted his "undisputed sequence" on an open forum and left a lot of questions unanswered.
IF he knows the answers it will amuse him to keep people guessing by withholding the answers. If he doesn't know it likely that he's just parroting.
-
IF he knows the answers it will amuse him to keep people guessing by withholding the answers. If he doesn't know it likely that he's just parroting.
He could just say he was wrong.
-
I can understand someone new to the case thinking there were two calls - but it doesn't take long to unravel it.
That only applies to someone who has a predominantly skeptical way of thinking.
Most people, unfortunately think like this.
https://streamable.com/j9jy0 (https://streamable.com/j9jy0)
-
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
Jeremy didn't say that he timed his call, and didn't say that he was on the phone for 11 minutes.
Nevill's call -03:26
There's no evidence that Nevill's call was at 03:26. That was the time logged by Malcolm Bonnett for when PC 1990 (Pc West) called him.
-
Jeremy didn't say that he timed his call, and didn't say that he was on the phone for 11 minutes.
There's no evidence that Nevill's call was at 03:26. That was the time logged by Malcolm Bonnett for when PC 1990 (Pc West) called him.
It is recalled by Ann Eaton from his discussions with police officers on the morning after the murders. If you're going to contradict someone, at least do the research first!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31217
There is no evidence of Nevill's call period!
-
Even if AE is believed, "timed the police action" is not the same thing as "timed the length of his call to Julie", which is what Jane thought she had read. Also, the police acted as though they were unaware of any such claim by Jeremy. Jeremy doesn't state anything to support it in his formal statements, interviews, or at court (as far as we know).
-
A murderer will invariably return to where they committed the crime if only to see " their work ". Psychopaths in particular.
That doesn't make sense - "invariably" means "without exception", but "psychopaths in particular" implies there are exceptions, though they are not psychopaths.
-
Even if AE is believed, "timed the police action" is not the same thing as "timed the length of his call to Julie", which is what Jane thought she had read.
No, actually, you are wrong! She was talking about the earlier call to Julie but noted the number of minutes incorrectly, which is why my post indicated that the called allegedly lasted 17 minutes. You're the one who is confused over which calls were being discussed!
-
It also doesn't include the fact that Jeremy said he timed his call to West and claimed he was on the phone for 11 mins!
Why do you refer to that as fact? Ann Eaton doesn't state that Jeremy said he timed his call to Pc West.
-
Why do you refer to that as fact? Ann Eaton doesn't state that Jeremy said he timed his call to Pc West.
Well, he certainly timed something, be it the full call or the time that West left him on hold, if the latter, it further scuppers Bill's claims, because that means he was on the phone longer!
-
It is recalled by Ann Eaton from his discussions with police officers on the morning after the murders. If you're going to contradict someone, at least do the research first!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31217
There is no evidence of Nevill's call period!
There is no mention of that in Jeremy's statements to the police. Neither is it in her notes either.
Yet another product of her asymmetrical memory a month or two after the event.
-
There is no mention of that in Jeremy's statements to the police. Neither is it in her notes either.
Yet another product of her asymmetrical memory a month or two after the event.
Depends what you believe, I believe he said it.
-
Depends what you believe, I believe he said it.
West even mentions that Jeremy mentioned time, so it is likely that he recalled this to police and that Ann told the truth!
-
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.
Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.
-
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.
Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.
If we take your view, it mean the call was even LONGER!
-
I agree with David1819. The sentence in full states "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch." Even if Ann Eaton thought he said something like that, it doesn't mean that Jeremy said that the duration of any call was 11 minutes. There's nothing to indicate when he checked his watch.
Jeremy may well have remarked to Pc West that he had been "some time", but that would obviously mean "longer than he expected", not that he had been timing precisely how long he was on hold for.
Most of what AE said about Jeremy in that statement is nothing but bullshit. She also claimed that Jeremy told the police that Sheila gave June a black eye. That's not in Jeremy's statement either.
Ann Eaton gathered information and then falsely attributed those details to Jeremy in order to try and incriminate him.
-
Most of what AE said about Jeremy in that statement is nothing but bullshit. She also claimed that Jeremy told the police that Sheila gave June a black eye. That's not in Jeremy's statement either.
Ann Eaton gathered information and then falsely attributed those details to Jeremy in order to try and incriminate him.
Yep, that's your opinion. But June did actually have a black eye. I don't recall her staying that the black eye was supposed to have come from Sheila?
-
Most of what AE said about Jeremy in that statement is nothing but bullshit. She also claimed that Jeremy told the police that Sheila gave June a black eye. That's not in Jeremy's statement either.
Ann Eaton gathered information and then falsely attributed those details to Jeremy in order to try and incriminate him.
Found it, she didn't say that Jeremy said Sheila gave June a black eye, she said that he mentioned that June had a black eye and when he asked about it, she said she hit a post but he thought there was more to it. She said SHE formed the opinion that he might be suggesting that Sheila was responsible. What is odd, is that June did have a black eye!
-
The only mention of a black eye in the COA was on Nevill -
42.
The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
-
I suspect all of the above injuries on Nevill were made with the rifle. Not surprised a bit fell off.
-
I later understood that June's black eye was due to the night of the murders where injuries from bullet wounds were the cause ?
-
The only mention of a black eye in the COA was on Nevill -
42.
The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
It’s in the autopsy report!
-
JB never mentioned June's black eye and he was at the farm on the day she was supposed to have had one.
-
JB never mentioned June's black eye and he was at the farm on the day she was supposed to have had one.
According to Ann, he did and she was there so I will take her word over yours given as you weren't.
-
According to Ann, he did and she was there so I will take her word over yours given as you weren't.
Wouldn't you have thought he'd have made something of it, given the picture you've painted of him ?
-
Everything that JB did during his arrest was befitting with someone who was innocent. Only those who see the " bad " side of his character see him as guilty ! Though I'm sure he won't lose sleep about that as his only concern is his liberty and always has been. The " friends " he's lost through all this aren't/weren't his "friends ", but the ones he's gained through his incarceration are friends far more loyal and true.
-
Wouldn't you have thought he'd have made something of it, given the picture you've painted of him ?
I have no thoughts other than he knew she had a black eye. The picture I have painted of him? Don’t be silly Lookout, his reputation as a mass killer isn’t down to me.
-
I have no thoughts other than he knew she had a black eye. The picture I have painted of him? Don’t be silly Lookout, his reputation as a mass killer isn’t down to me.
You do surprise me.I thought you " knew " he was a mass killer. You give that impression anyway.
-
You do surprise me.I thought you " knew " he was a mass killer. You give that impression anyway.
I do know he's a mass killer but when he was convicted I was in my teens and wasn't consulted on the case! ;D ;D
-
I do know he's a mass killer but when he was convicted I was in my teens and wasn't consulted on the case! ;D ;D
How can you answer the fact that so many in the legal profession are fighting for his freedom as an innocent victim of a MOJ ? That JB himself has been fighting from day one including not being beaten by his failed appeals ?
Are you saying that you know more than a QC to admit vehemently that he's guilty ?
-
How can you answer the fact that so many in the legal profession are fighting for his freedom as an innocent victim of a MOJ ? That JB himself has been fighting from day one including not being beaten by his failed appeals ?
Are you saying that you know more than a QC to admit vehemently that he's guilty ?
Like who apart from his own lawyer (which he's entitled to). Where are the hoards Lookout? ::)
-
Like who apart from his own lawyer (which he's entitled to). Where are the hoards Lookout? ::)
Hoards ? Did I say hoards ? No I didn't, but there are many working behind the scenes in a legal capacity.
-
Hoards ? Did I say hoards ? No I didn't, but there are many working behind the scenes in a legal capacity.
Ok Lookout ::)
-
Found it, she didn't say that Jeremy said Sheila gave June a black eye, she said that he mentioned that June had a black eye and when he asked about it, she said she hit a post but he thought there was more to it. She said SHE formed the opinion that he might be suggesting that Sheila was responsible. What is odd, is that June did have a black eye!
Yes. And it does not appear in Jeremy’s statement like it should, hence it’s another lie. AE could only have got that information from Julie after the mortuary visit.
-
Yes. And it does not appear in Jeremy’s statement like it should, hence it’s another lie. AE could only have got that information from Julie after the mortuary visit.
Jeremy's concern over the time he was on a call with West doesn't appear in his statement either, but we know he did have an issue because West mentions it in his statement. Hence the black eye comment doesn't have to be a lie at all.
-
Jeremy's concern over the time he was on a call with West doesn't appear in his statement either,
Why would it? He stated that he called the police and that they suggested he meet them at WHF, which were the relevant facts.
but we know he did have an issue because West mentions it in his statement.
In his later interview, Jeremy mentions it in response to a suggestion that he was on hold for 10 minutes. His response was "About five minutes it seemed like ages. Times are approximate."
-
Why would it? He stated that he called the police and that they suggested he meet them at WHF, which were the relevant facts.
In his later interview, Jeremy mentions it in response to a suggestion that he was on hold for 10 minutes. His response was "About five minutes it seemed like ages. Times are approximate."
Ae mentioned that he mentioned being on the phone for 17 mins, West also mentions that Jeremy was concerned about how long he had been on the phone. Be as pedantic as you like and I will make my own assumptions about relevance!
-
Jeremy's concern over the time he was on a call with West doesn't appear in his statement either, but we know he did have an issue because West mentions it in his statement. Hence the black eye comment doesn't have to be a lie at all.
AE claims he said that when making his statement to police. But its not in his statement like its should be if AE was telling the truth. Hence its a lie.
-
AE claims he said that when making his statement to police. But its not in his statement like its should be if AE was telling the truth. Hence its a lie.
Can you please clarify "AE claims he said that when making his statement to the police". I may have misinterpreted, but by the way you've put it, unless AE was looking over his shoulder at the time, surely there's no way she could have known that unless he told her? Would that not make any lie told, his, not hers?
-
AE claims he said that when making his statement to police. But its not in his statement like its should be if AE was telling the truth. Hence its a lie.
I don't agree, at that point, Jeremy wasn't a suspect and they weren't taking a statement in a controlled environment. West confirms he had concerns over the time the call took.
-
I don't agree, at that point, Jeremy wasn't a suspect and they weren't taking a statement in a controlled environment. West confirms he had concerns over the time the call took.
Now you are just trying to defend Anne Eaton (vomit) because she is the sole basis for walletgate. And rests on her credibility. ;D
-
Now you are just trying to defend Anne Eaton (vomit) because she is the sole basis for walletgate. And rests on her credibility. ;D
No, you see now you're doing what you usually do David, you're getting all personal - how do you describe it? Oh yes, 'salty'. Look it boils do to what you believe and I believe he mentioned the time because of West and by the comments he made himself in his interview! Also, not sure what your comment about the wallet has to do with anything or are you suggesting he didn't enquire about it on his first return to WHF?
This is all very childish David - if you can't debate, like a grown-up - move along!
-
Ae mentioned that he mentioned being on the phone for 17 mins
Wasn't that in relation to his call the previous evening to Julie, not his call to the police?
West also mentions that Jeremy was concerned about how long he had been on the phone.
That's consistent with what Jeremy said in his interview about the period on hold (to Pc West) seeming like ages. There was no reason for him to include this in his original statement.
-
Yes, I clearly remember JB's remark at being kept waiting on the phone.
-
Wasn't that in relation to his call the previous evening to Julie, not his call to the police?
That's consistent with what Jeremy said in his interview about the period on hold (to Pc West) seeming like ages. There was no reason for him to include this in his original statement.
The fact is he had an issue about time on hold or on the whole duration of the call. AE's statement supports this. Had there never been any mention of concern over time, then I could understand people being suspicious of Ann's comments. Ad it stands, I get the feeling there is a heavy play on denial (not specifically from you).
-
Yes, I clearly remember JB's remark at being kept waiting on the phone.
Was it not around this time that he decided to drop into the mix the fact of his father sounding terrified? Odd, don't you think, after having been asked why he didn't call 999, he said he didn't think it was urgent?
-
I wonder if Bill has any intention of defending his position.
-
Was it not around this time that he decided to drop into the mix the fact of his father sounding terrified? Odd, don't you think, after having been asked why he didn't call 999, he said he didn't think it was urgent?
Yes Jane: the expression "over-egg the pudding" comes to mind.
-
Terrified ? Would that have been because Sheila had been brandishing a rifle ?
-
Terrified ? Would that have been because Sheila had been brandishing a rifle ?
So why wasn't there an urgency in Jeremy Bamber's actions subsequently?
-
Terrified ? Would that have been because Sheila had been brandishing a rifle ?
Nevill was already dead by the time Jeremy called the police, possibly why he didn't dial 999 - he knew the emergency was over!
-
So why wasn't there an urgency in Jeremy Bamber's actions subsequently?
Well if the " terrified " bit referred to " over-egging " there'd have been no need for a 999 call, so he ,NB, was either terrified or he wasn't. What do you think the call sounded like ? Always supposing that you believed that there was a call-----most don't.
-
Terrified ? Would that have been because Sheila had been brandishing a rifle ?
One might have thought such had that been the case. However, Jeremy didn't think there was any urgency, hence not only did he NOT call 999, he took his time calling the police.
-
Well if the " terrified " bit referred to " over-egging " there'd have been no need for a 999 call, so he ,NB, was either terrified or he wasn't. What do you think the call sounded like ? Always supposing that you believed that there was a call-----most don't.
f course he doesn't believe there was a call, he thinks Bamber is guilty so the terrified aspect is moot! He didn't dial 999 because there was no emergency!
-
Well if the " terrified " bit referred to " over-egging " there'd have been no need for a 999 call, so he ,NB, was either terrified or he wasn't. What do you think the call sounded like ? Always supposing that you believed that there was a call-----most don't.
I don't believe there was, but as so often in this case Jeremy is condemned by the very words which sprout from his mouth.
-
I don't believe there was, but as so often in this case Jeremy is condemned by the very words which sprout from his mouth.
Exactly just like in the following!
-
Well if the " terrified " bit referred to " over-egging " there'd have been no need for a 999 call, so he ,NB, was either terrified or he wasn't. What do you think the call sounded like ? Always supposing that you believed that there was a call-----most don't.
But it's not about what WE, in the here and now, think. It's about how Jeremy reacted to an alleged -and frantic- call from his father at silly o'clock, telling him Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun. Jeremy, it seems, sees no urgency in the situation -didn't he state as much- do calmly diddles his way through a few of the local police stations, making abortive calls, phones Julie, then phones the police, at which point he changes his mind and tells them his father had sounded terrified. Did he not later tell someone that it was possible that his father had already been shot?!!!! But it wasn't urgent!!!
-
Well if the " terrified " bit referred to " over-egging " there'd have been no need for a 999 call, so he ,NB, was either terrified or he wasn't. What do you think the call sounded like ? Always supposing that you believed that there was a call-----most don't.
Now you've got it! Which is why he didn't dial 999
-
But it's not about what WE, in the here and now, think. It's about how Jeremy reacted to an alleged -and frantic- call from his father at silly o'clock, telling him Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun. Jeremy, it seems, sees no urgency in the situation -didn't he state as much- do calmly diddles his way through a few of the local police stations, making abortive calls, phones Julie, then phones the police, at which point he changes his mind and tells them his father had sounded terrified. Did he not later tell someone that it was possible that his father had already been shot?!!!! But it wasn't urgent!!!
This was Jeremy's tale to Colin.
-
This was Jeremy's tale to Colin.
Thanks Steve.
-
Exactly just like in the following!
Why would Bamber be making excuses for touching a bible usually kept in his parents bedroom?
-
Was it not around this time that he decided to drop into the mix the fact of his father sounding terrified?
I don't think so. According to Pc West, Jeremy told him that his father sounded terrified, but I don't think this was mentioned or alluded to in any way by Jeremy in his statements or interviews. However, I haven't checked whether any other police officer that Jeremy spoke to (at WHF, for example) said that Jeremy mentioned this to them.
-
I don't think so. According to Pc West, Jeremy told him that his father sounded terrified, but I don't think this was mentioned or alluded to in any way by Jeremy in his statements or interviews. However, I haven't checked whether any other police officer that Jeremy spoke to (at WHF, for example) said that Jeremy mentioned this to them.
Why does Jeremy have to 'allude' to it in his own statements etc.? We have West's statement that details what Jeremy said to him.
-
I believe he mentioned the time because of West and by the comments he made himself in his interview!
By "mentioned the time", do you mean that he mentioned or referred to how long he was on hold, as distinct from some other reference to time? Also, what specific comments that Jeremy made in his interview are you referring to?
-
By "mentioned the time", do you mean that he mentioned or referred to how long he was on hold, as distinct from some other reference to time? Also, what specific comments that Jeremy made in his interview are you referring to?
If you look at all the evidence as a whole regarding the calls. He was on hold for about 8 minutes.
Whats the big deal?
-
By "mentioned the time", do you mean that he mentioned or referred to how long he was on hold, as distinct from some other reference to time? Also, what specific comments that Jeremy made in his interview are you referring to?
Is this a serious question? I really couldn't have put what I meant in any more simple terms.
A. West reported that he complained about the time he was on the phone
B. AE made reference to him making reference to the time he was on the phone (or on hold) to West.
-
Did anyone see the " stifled cry " from Prince Harry ? Well that's how I'd imagined JB to have been in the bedroom while talking to JM when cloth-ears said it sounded as though JB was laughing ? That man knew nothing !
-
Did anyone see the " stifled cry " from Prince Harry ? Well that's how I'd imagined JB to have been in the bedroom while talking to JM when cloth-ears said it sounded as though JB was laughing ? That man knew nothing !
And again! You weren't there!
-
Did anyone see the " stifled cry " from Prince Harry ? Well that's how I'd imagined JB to have been in the bedroom while talking to JM when cloth-ears said it sounded as though JB was laughing ? That man knew nothing !
I think he's have needed to have been IN the room to have heard it if Jeremy had stifled anything the way PH did. Jeremy, away from public gaze, was perfectly free to express himself in the way he felt was appropriate.
-
I think he's have needed to have been IN the room to have heard it if Jeremy had stifled anything the way PH did. Jeremy, away from public gaze, was perfectly free to express himself in the way he felt was appropriate.
Men are known not to have the same " crying function " as women and do tend to cough to stifle their sorrow, whereas a woman can easily let the tears flow.
-
Men are known not to have the same " crying function " as women and do tend to cough to stifle their sorrow, whereas a woman can easily let the tears flow.
But, unlike PH, who, being in public with a big audience, simply put his head down and breathed deeply, Jeremy was in private and had no concerns about being witnessed.
-
Men are known not to have the same " crying function " as women and do tend to cough to stifle their sorrow, whereas a woman can easily let the tears flow.
Men have the same crying function because, they belong to the same species as 'women'. The rest, depends on the individual. ::)
-
If you look at all the evidence as a whole regarding the calls. He was on hold for about 8 minutes.
Pc West's evidence at trial indicates that it was less than 8 minutes, probably about 5 minutes. This fits with the other evidence if Jeremy got dressed before making his call to Pc West.
-
Men have the same crying function because, they belong to the same species as 'women'. The rest, depends on the individual. ::)
There's also the point that Jeremy didn't have the same levels of empathy as PH.
-
AE made reference to him making reference to the time he was on the phone (or on hold) to West.
I don't recall her doing that. What exactly did she state that you are referring to?
-
Pc West's evidence at trial indicates that it was less than 8 minutes, probably about 5 minutes. This fits with the other evidence if Jeremy got dressed before making his call to Pc West.
This supports the fact that Jeremy made his call to the police at 3.36am, and not 3.26am..
If Jeremy was on the phone talking to the police for about 5 minutes or so, his call would have been terminated at about 3.41am, leaving him 7 minutes or so to get himself to the farmhouse, and arriving there by 3.48am..
-
This supports the fact that Jeremy made his call to the police at 3.36am, and not 3.26am..
If Jeremy was on the phone talking to the police for about 5 minutes or so, his call would have been terminated at about 3.41am, leaving him 7 minutes or so to get himself to the farmhouse, and arriving there by 3.48am..
Which makes sense...
-
I don't recall her doing that. What exactly did she state that you are referring to?
It's in her statement - if you don't recall it, refresh your memory.
-
Men have the same crying function because, they belong to the same species as 'women'. The rest, depends on the individual. ::)
That's as maybe but they do things differently, such as putting on a brave front----like the rest of the ones who were at the funeral.
-
That's as maybe but they do things differently, such as putting on a brave front----like the rest of the ones who were at the funeral.
Some do. Some don't. Unless we were there, at the service, all we had were snap shots. I believe, because there wasn't sufficient space, there were more outside the church, than in it. We could not have seen them all.
-
Pc West's evidence at trial indicates that it was less than 8 minutes, probably about 5 minutes. This fits with the other evidence if Jeremy got dressed before making his call to Pc West.
West alone is not a credible source as he has changed his times and contradicted himself.
-
Ground 4 – timing of telephone call to Julie Mugford 289.
Ground 4 relates to the first telephone call made by the appellant to Julie Mugford on the night of the killing. The prosecution contended at trial that this preceded the telephone call to the police, whilst the appellant asserted that it was made after he had telephoned the police and before he left home to go to the farmhouse.
It has to be said that whichever version is right, it was remarkable that the appellant made such a call. On his own version he had just received a dramatic plea for help from his father, he had rung the police and had been asked to go to meet officers at the farm.
Yet he delayed for long enough to make a telephone call to someone many miles away, who could not possibly help in the situation. However, it clearly was even less likely that he would have telephoned before he rang the police and if the call was shortly after 3 a.m. it was wholly inconsistent with his account and only consistent with the account of Julie Mugford as to the nature of that call.
---------
Jeremy's call to Julie has always been very damaging together with his 'no comments' when interviewed about it. Although unlike Nevill's two phone calls, it did happen.
-
West alone is not a credible source as he has changed his times and contradicted himself.
According to Bill he said it was impossible for West to have put JB's call on hold prior to 03.26 and return to speak to JB after having spoken to Saxby at 03.30 if JB was having a different conversation with JM between 03.25 and 03.33. West had said all along that the call by JB to West was at 03.36 with the call prior to 03.26 had to be the call from Nevill.
-
According to Bill he said it was impossible for West to have put JB's call on hold prior to 03.26 and return to speak to JB after having spoken to Saxby at 03.30 if JB was having a different conversation with JM between 03.25 and 03.33. West had said all along that the call by JB to West was at 03.36 with the call prior to 03.26 had to be the call from Nevill.
Which makes JB innocent does it not ?
-
Which makes JB innocent does it not ?
No. An Ill thought out narrative based on misconceived data proves nothing.
-
Which makes JB innocent does it not ?
NO!! It just makes two and two anything you want it to be.
-
NO!! It just makes two and two anything you want it to be.
Lookout is well aware of the mountain of the incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence. The gut feeling means it is due to the industrial frame.
The gut feeling will mean Jeremy being the only alive suspect with motives and no alibi is down to bad luck.
-
It's in her statement - if you don't recall it, refresh your memory.
In the relevant part of AE's statement, as already discussed, it says that Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch. However, timing the police action isn't the same thing as timing the duration of his call. This does, by the way, indicate that Jeremy had dressed and put his watch on prior to making his call to the police rather than after calling the police.
The statement also asserts that one of the police officers told AE that June Bamber and Sheila Bamber were both on the bed shot with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her.
What do you make of that?
-
In the relevant part of AE's statement, as already discussed, it says that Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by checking his watch. However, timing the police action isn't the same thing as timing the duration of his call. This does, by the way, indicate that Jeremy had dressed and put his watch on prior to making his call to the police rather than after calling the police.
The statement also asserts that one of the police officers told AE that June Bamber and Sheila Bamber were both on the bed shot with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her.
What do you make of that?
Ann Eaton is not a credible witness.
-
No. An Ill thought out narrative based on misconceived data proves nothing.
I agree, no one has given a definitive and trustworthy version of the timings os they prove or disprove nothing.
-
Nothing will prove anything to those who advocate guilt. It's a losing battle.
-
Nothing will prove anything to those who advocate guilt. It's a losing battle.
Not really true Lookout given that David doesn't advocate guilt and even he can see there is a problem trying to use the phone calls timings and or a call from Nevill.
-
Not really true Lookout given that David doesn't advocate guilt and even he can see there is a problem trying to use the phone calls timings and or a call from Nevill.
David's never believed there was such a call Caroline and this has been the whole crux of the difference between innocence and guilt.
-
David's never believed there was such a call Caroline and this has been the whole crux of the difference between innocence and guilt.
Neither do I - but it's obviously not the difference, given that David supports innocence.
-
David's never believed there was such a call Caroline and this has been the whole crux of the difference between innocence and guilt.
I was open minded about it initially.
-
I was open minded about it initially.
As was I - initially.
-
Something else has also been mentioned and that's 6 photocopies of other bloodied pages of the Bible with fingerprints on them and passages which are underlined. The defence team hadn't realised this during the 2002 appeal probably because SJ had said it had been destroyed.
-
Something else has also been mentioned and that's 6 photocopies of other bloodied pages of the Bible with fingerprints on them and passages which are underlined. The defence team hadn't realised this during the 2002 appeal probably because SJ had said it had been destroyed.
I am aware of the other pages but Jeremy needs to tread carefully here!
-
Ann Eaton is not a credible witness.
Agreed, but even if her assertion about Jeremy were correct, it doesn't imply the Jeremy's telephone call to Pc West took 11 minutes. Even the prosecution accepted Pc West's assertions at trial that he dealt with Jeremy's call quickly, but they suggested his written note of the time when Jeremy rang him was a mistake. The mistake wasn't attributed to an incorrect clock, as the clock had been checked later and found to be working correctly.
Pc West noted that car CA7 was "at scene" at 03:50, which was in rough agreement with Bonnett's note of 03:48 as the arrival time of the same car, but these times are too late to fit with any guilty scenario unless the police response was incredibly slow, which isn't what the prosecution suggested.
-
I am aware of the other pages but Jeremy needs to tread carefully here!
Why ?
-
Agreed, but even if her assertion about Jeremy were correct, it doesn't imply the Jeremy's telephone call to Pc West took 11 minutes. Even the prosecution accepted Pc West's assertions at trial that he dealt with Jeremy's call quickly, but they suggested his written note of the time when Jeremy rang him was a mistake. The mistake wasn't attributed to an incorrect clock, as the clock had been checked later and found to be working correctly.
Pc West noted that car CA7 was "at scene" at 03:50, which was in rough agreement with Bonnett's note of 03:48 as the arrival time of the same car, but these times are too late to fit with any guilty scenario unless the police response was incredibly slow, which isn't what the prosecution suggested.
I can find nothing in wests trial testimony that said the response was quick.
CA07 leaves Witham at 3:35 and arrives at 3:48. According to google maps it would be travelling on average 48mph.
-
Agreed, but even if her assertion about Jeremy were correct, it doesn't imply the Jeremy's telephone call to Pc West took 11 minutes. Even the prosecution accepted Pc West's assertions at trial that he dealt with Jeremy's call quickly, but they suggested his written note of the time when Jeremy rang him was a mistake. The mistake wasn't attributed to an incorrect clock, as the clock had been checked later and found to be working correctly.
Pc West noted that car CA7 was "at scene" at 03:50, which was in rough agreement with Bonnett's note of 03:48 as the arrival time of the same car, but these times are too late to fit with any guilty scenario unless the police response was incredibly slow, which isn't what the prosecution suggested.
West also accepted that he could have written down an incorrect time on the log. The prosecution pushed him on his timings, especially when he stated that he dealt with the initial part of the call within 1 min. I think you're adding your own assumptions as to how they felt about his recollection.
-
Why ?
I can't say.
-
I can't say.
Wouldn't you have thought it was a bit late in the day for him to " tread carefully ?"
-
Wouldn't you have thought it was a bit late in the day for him to " tread carefully ?"
Not in this instance.
-
Not in this instance.
Well I very much doubt that his knees will be knocking.
-
Well I very much doubt that his knees will be knocking.
Oh me either Lookout, but that really doesn't matter.
-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2323572664432270&id=100003386766347&sfnsn=mo&d=n&vh=i
-
I can find nothing in West's trial testimony that said the response was quick.
When asked how long he had taken [to contact the police HQ and the police at Witham while Jeremy was on hold], he said it was about 3 minutes. Shortly after saying that, he said that he had told Jeremy to go to his father's house and wait for police officers there, and that a unit from Witham was attending and wouldn't take long. Pc West was asked a second time about this and replied "Police officers had already been sent when I spoke to him." He was later asked how long his initial conversation with Jeremy had taken, and replied "Well, it is difficult to ascribe times but perhaps a minute at most. It is — a minute is an awfully long time." He was also asked "How long do you really think it was then, a minute or maybe more?" and replied "Mo, I would say that a minute would more than cover the conversation we had initially."
Overall, the above amounts to Pc West saying that his own call-handling was so quick that within about 4 minutes from when Jeremy called him, the police at Witham had been told to go to WHF.
-
When asked how long he had taken [to contact the police HQ and the police at Witham while Jeremy was on hold], he said it was about 3 minutes. Shortly after saying that, he said that he had told Jeremy to go to his father's house and wait for police officers there, and that a unit from Witham was attending and wouldn't take long. Pc West was asked a second time about this and replied "Police officers had already been sent when I spoke to him." He was later asked how long his initial conversation with Jeremy had taken, and replied "Well, it is difficult to ascribe times but perhaps a minute at most. It is — a minute is an awfully long time." He was also asked "How long do you really think it was then, a minute or maybe more?" and replied "Mo, I would say that a minute would more than cover the conversation we had initially."
Overall, the above amounts to Pc West saying that his own call-handling was so quick that within about 4 minutes from when Jeremy called him, the police at Witham had been told to go to WHF.
No PC West stated that EACH of the two calls he made while Jeremy was on hold lasted approximately 3 minutes. 3x2 = 6. So west thinks its approx 6 mins which is not far from my own calculation of 8 mins.
Anyway what is the point you are trying to make here? If its Nevill calling the police this is not going to get you anywhere.
The calls logs and statements all show one telephone call. If you want to prove Nevills calls to the police you must unearth a whole new set of phone logs and witness statements from different phone operators not yet made public.
-
No PC West stated that EACH of the two calls he made while Jeremy was on hold lasted approximately 3 minutes. 3x2 = 6. So west thinks its approx 6 mins which is not far from my own calculation of 8 mins.
Anyway what is the point you are trying to make here? If its Nevill calling the police this is not going to get you anywhere.
The calls logs and statements all show one telephone call. If you want to prove Nevills calls to the police you must unearth a whole new set of phone logs and witness statements from different phone operators not yet made public.
Then add the time he spoke with Jeremy.
-
I always thought it was 11 minutes in all for some unknown reason ::)
-
I always thought it was 11 minutes in all for some unknown reason ::)
It's not for an unknown reason, 11 minutes is what AE stated Jeremy claimed when interviewed on the morning after the murders. I posted that days ago - but 11 minutes seems reasonable to me, given what happened during the call.
-
It's not for an unknown reason, 11 minutes is what AE stated Jeremy claimed when interviewed on the morning after the murders. I posted that days ago - but 11 minutes seems reasonable to me, given what happened during the call.
Oh, so I wasn't dreaming ;D Is this the " Christ you took long enough " as JB said when the officer returned to the phone after a pregnant pause ?
-
Oh, so I wasn't dreaming ;D Is this the " Christ you took long enough " as JB said when the officer returned to the phone after a pregnant pause ?
Words to that effect, yes.
-
As I understand it, what's been claimed by Bill Robertson is that Jeremy called the police at 03.36 and PC West put Jeremy on hold at about 03.37 when he called Witham police station. Leaving aside the question of whether this happened or not, the theory can't be refuted by an appeal to the testimony of PC West, since the claim is being made that West in his testimony was lying and that he was involved in a police cover up.
If the police wanted to cover up the fact that Nevill called the police at slightly before 03.26 and that it was Nevill who was put on hold by West, when the latter called Bonnett at headquarters, then they would naturally be trying their best to make it seem like Jeremy's call lasted for longer than it did, if they wanted people to believe that Jeremy called at 03.24 and not at 03.36.
One thing which does not seem to have been addressed on this thread is an explanation of the timing of West's call to Witham at 03.37, where he tells the officer receiving the call that he has Bamber on hold. It is perfectly consistent with Jeremy calling at 03.36
PC West did not record the fact that he called Witham twice, once at 03.30 and again at 03.37 in his statements. There were definitely two calls since the first was by radio link and the second by telephone.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bn9o-BG49y_VhWBSAS_S1FXSuoto0ylFvh7OanEeSDI4kp4sGJB0O_-EpNUodZS9lEtF_01DIbbY_La_l5VofTEGitoeG1J03fgnGcEPdxvpPkd94ug=w1175)
-
As I understand it, what's been claimed by Bill Robertson is that Jeremy called the police at 03.36 and PC West put Jeremy on hold at about 03.37 when he called Witham police station. Leaving aside the question of whether this happened or not, the theory can't be refuted by an appeal to the testimony of PC West, since the claim is being made that West in his testimony was lying and that he was involved in a police cover up.
If the police wanted to cover up the fact that Nevill called the police at slightly before 03.26 and that it was Nevill who was put on hold by West, when the latter called Bonnett at headquarters, then they would naturally be trying their best to make it seem like Jeremy's call lasted for longer than it did, if they wanted people to believe that Jeremy called at 03.24 and not at 03.36.
One thing which does not seem to have been addressed on this thread is an explanation of the timing of West's call to Witham at 03.37, where he tells the officer receiving the call that he has Bamber on hold. It is perfectly consistent with Jeremy calling at 03.36
PC West did not record the fact that he called Witham twice, once at 03.30 and again at 03.37 in his statements. There were definitely two calls since the first was by radio link and the second by telephone.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bn9o-BG49y_VhWBSAS_S1FXSuoto0ylFvh7OanEeSDI4kp4sGJB0O_-EpNUodZS9lEtF_01DIbbY_La_l5VofTEGitoeG1J03fgnGcEPdxvpPkd94ug=w1175)
This firstly, of course, is presupposing Nevill was a stupid as Jeremy. Odd, don't you think that two people from the same family, when faced with someone going berserk with a gun, would waste time looking up and calling, with all those extra digits, a local police station, when there was the 999 facility. Then comes the obvious question WHY? Jeremy, at that time, wasn't a suspect. There was no reason for anything to be covered up.
-
This firstly, of course, is presupposing Nevill was a stupid as Jeremy. Odd, don't you think that two people from the same family, when faced with someone going berserk with a gun, would waste time looking up and calling, with all those extra digits, a local police station, when there was the 999 facility. Then comes the obvious question WHY? Jeremy, at that time, wasn't a suspect. There was no reason for anything to be covered up.
Chelmsford was over 21 miles away.
Jeremy phoned Chelmsford as it gave him the best chance of being picked up at home by the police. The police car journey went near his home & even overtook Jeremy's car on the way to WHF.
Being over 21 miles away, also gave Jeremy more time at home to get himself together. He even had time to phone Julie. To hear a friendly voice.
-
As I understand it, what's been claimed by Bill Robertson is that Jeremy called the police at 03.36 and PC West put Jeremy on hold at about 03.37 when he called Witham police station. Leaving aside the question of whether this happened or not, the theory can't be refuted by an appeal to the testimony of PC West, since the claim is being made that West in his testimony was lying and that he was involved in a police cover up.
If the police wanted to cover up the fact that Nevill called the police at slightly before 03.26 and that it was Nevill who was put on hold by West, when the latter called Bonnett at headquarters, then they would naturally be trying their best to make it seem like Jeremy's call lasted for longer than it did, if they wanted people to believe that Jeremy called at 03.24 and not at 03.36.
One thing which does not seem to have been addressed on this thread is an explanation of the timing of West's call to Witham at 03.37, where he tells the officer receiving the call that he has Bamber on hold. It is perfectly consistent with Jeremy calling at 03.36
PC West did not record the fact that he called Witham twice, once at 03.30 and again at 03.37 in his statements. There were definitely two calls since the first was by radio link and the second by telephone.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bn9o-BG49y_VhWBSAS_S1FXSuoto0ylFvh7OanEeSDI4kp4sGJB0O_-EpNUodZS9lEtF_01DIbbY_La_l5VofTEGitoeG1J03fgnGcEPdxvpPkd94ug=w1175)
Strobe I also understand that West's call was being relayed as he was on the phone to Jeremy at the same time. This is where the mix-up all started, though why EP didn't own up to the two calls of " Mr Bambers " I'll never know as initially it began as a genuine mistake and then continued to snowball all owing to the mix-up in the phone-calls coming from 2 Mr Bambers. What followed from then on was abysmal.
-
Nevill's call was 999 but Jeremy hadn't been aware of that as he was killing time flicking through the phone book when the phone had remained engaged at the WHF end.
-
Strobe I also understand that West's call was being relayed as he was on the phone to Jeremy at the same time. This is where the mix-up all started, though why EP didn't own up to the two calls of " Mr Bambers " I'll never know as initially it began as a genuine mistake and then continued to snowball all owing to the mix-up in the phone-calls coming from 2 Mr Bambers. What followed from then on was abysmal.
So you really believe that the pair of them, father and son would be stupid enough, given the severity of the situation, to look up the number of a local police station, wasting precious time with extra digits, when the 999 facility would have done the job much faster?
-
So you really believe that the pair of them, father and son would be stupid enough, given the severity of the situation, to look up the number of a local police station, wasting precious time with extra digits, when the 999 facility would have done the job much faster?
For the second time, Nevill rang 999.
-
For the second time, Nevill rang 999.
Oh right. So NOW this HUGE frame up extends beyond the police, to the central call office where 999 calls go before being connected to the right emergency service.................ans are, incidentally, ALL recorded. WHAT would have been the reason to attempt to hide such a call? There was, allegedly, a victim of a potential crime on the end of the line.
-
Oh right. So NOW this HUGE frame up extends beyond the police, to the central call office where 999 calls go before being connected to the right emergency service.................ans are, incidentally, ALL recorded. WHAT would have been the reason to attempt to hide such a call? There was, allegedly, a victim of a potential crime on the end of the line.
There were plenty of things that were kept hidden, like myriads of files and documents !
Anything recorded was wiped off the tapes----so we were told. Why ? Evidence was destroyed in the 90's. Why ?
-
There were plenty of things that were kept hidden, like myriads of files and documents !
Anything recorded was wiped off the tapes----so we were told. Why ? Evidence was destroyed in the 90's. Why ?
"So we were told"!!!! By whom? -I'd like a penny for every time that's been said here- and who made the decision to 'hide' the "myriad of files and documents"? Rather stupid, don't you think when the convicted is doing everything in his power to prove it was a stitch-up? Much better, surely to destroy the whole lot, along with a few other, naturally, to allay suspicion?
-
"So we were told"!!!! By whom? -I'd like a penny for every time that's been said here- and who made the decision to 'hide' the "myriad of files and documents"? Rather stupid, don't you think when the convicted is doing everything in his power to prove it was a stitch-up? Much better, surely to destroy the whole lot, along with a few other, naturally, to allay suspicion?
Don't worry, you'll be put out of your misery soon.
-
Don't worry, you'll be put out of your misery soon.
More likely, as previously, you'll be deeper in the mire of it. How many times is it that your hopes have been dashed?
-
More likely, as previously, you'll be deeper in the mire of it. How many times is it that your hopes have been dashed?
The same number of times you have been hoping they are. I'm not in any mire either.
-
The same number of times you have been hoping they are. I'm not in any mire either.
Lookout, I'm no more bothered about you, than you say you are regarding Jeremy, ie you can turn your back on him any time. I'm only bothered that he remains where his crimes have led him.
-
Lookout, I'm no more bothered about you, than you say you are regarding Jeremy, ie you can turn your back on him any time. I'm only bothered that he remains where his crimes have led him.
Why ? What's it to you ? Why should it bother you ? You're not part of the family. In any case the last thing he'd want to do is meet that lot anyway.
-
Why ? What's it to you ? Why should it bother you ? You're not part of the family. In any case the last thing he'd want to do is meet that lot anyway.
What's it to me? Interesting question, Lookout, and the right one. ONE of the reasons I believed he was innocent -and a very personal and emotional one- was because he was adopted. I simply couldn't bring myself to believe that someone who'd been adopted would do such a thing. It was probably one of the reasons I clung to my belief in his innocence for as long as I did. Once the suspicions crept in I found myself feeling very let down by him, and furious, too. It was rather a case of how DARE he! It doesn't matter HOW bad it gets, you don't kill them, you stay with it. I had to, why shouldn't you?
-
What's it to me? Interesting question, Lookout, and the right one. ONE of the reasons I believed he was innocent -and a very personal and emotional one- was because he was adopted. I simply couldn't bring myself to believe that someone who'd been adopted would do such a thing. It was probably one of the reasons I clung to my belief in his innocence for as long as I did. Once the suspicions crept in I found myself feeling very let down by him, and furious, too. It was rather a case of how DARE he! It doesn't matter HOW bad it gets, you don't kill them, you stay with it. I had to, why shouldn't you?
I've been determined to see this through because of wrongful imprisonment and blame for something he didn't do. Adoptees don't kill unless they happen to be like Sheila had been from day one and that was passed around like a parcel after already suffering separation and attachment disorders. Even with June there was a steady stream of people who had to care for the baby Sheila when June was ill, then add together the way of life when she was growing up and all the rest of it into her teens and adulthood. Not exactly the life for a beautiful girl who got no encouragement from her mother then had the dirty done on her by her husband when they first married. Then her mental illness. It was never going to end well.
-
I've been determined to see this through because of wrongful imprisonment and blame for something he didn't do. Adoptees don't kill unless they happen to be like Sheila had been from day one and that was passed around like a parcel after already suffering separation and attachment disorders. Even with June there was a steady stream of people who had to care for the baby Sheila when June was ill, then add together the way of life when she was growing up and all the rest of it into her teens and adulthood. Not exactly the life for a beautiful girl who got no encouragement from her mother then had the dirty done on her by her husband when they first married. Then her mental illness. It was never going to end well.
And all the time everyone's focus was on Sheila, Jeremy's needs were put on hold. Sheila got to choose what she did. Jeremy didn't -certainly he was allowed (took) a couple of years out, probably in the hope he'd have sown his wild ones and come back content with sewing domestic ones, but from then on, his life was planned- his future was the one they'd laid out for him, in farming. Someone less inclined towards farming might have been difficult to find but it seems not to have been noticed.
Going back to his childhood, no sooner had he been told of his adoption, than he was being sent away to boarding school. How much more proof did a small boy need to prove to him that he wasn't good enough to be kept at home. Interesting that by the time he realized there was no escape, he did everything possible NOT to be there and by his own admission had only lived there for 3 months after his two years of globe trotting.
Whilst Sheila's problems were given expression, Jeremy was internalizing his. I wonder how often he voiced his dissatisfaction at Sheila's freedom to do what she wanted whilst he was chained to a job he wasn't suited to. For one with so much invested interest in him, I fail to see how you, too, can possibly overlook the damage inflicted on him, and your belief that he came out of it, unscathed and emotionally sound.
-
And all the time everyone's focus was on Sheila, Jeremy's needs were put on hold. Sheila got to choose what she did. Jeremy didn't -certainly he was allowed (took) a couple of years out, probably in the hope he'd have sown his wild ones and come back content with sewing domestic ones, but from then on, his life was planned- his future was the one they'd laid out for him, in farming. Someone less inclined towards farming might have been difficult to find but it seems not to have been noticed.
Going back to his childhood, no sooner had he been told of his adoption, than he was being sent away to boarding school. How much more proof did a small boy need to prove to him that he wasn't good enough to be kept at home. Interesting that by the time he realized there was no escape, he did everything possible NOT to be there and by his own admission had only lived there for 3 months after his two years of globe trotting.
Whilst Sheila's problems were given expression, Jeremy was internalizing his. I wonder how often he voiced his dissatisfaction at Sheila's freedom to do what she wanted whilst he was chained to a job he wasn't suited to. For one with so much invested interest in him, I fail to see how you, too, can possibly overlook the damage inflicted on him, and your belief that he came out of it, unscathed and emotionally sound.
An incisive post Jane. If I may also speculate that he blamed his parents for Suzette's miscarriages, then to have to endure Sheila and her children-not one but two with such delightful personalities and looks it was just too much to bear. The remark she made that "all people must be killed" must have stuck in his mind, along with the rankling stipulation in Nevill's will that his son would only inherit if he was farming at the time of his death, the temptation was to finalize everything that one morning and move on.
-
Jeremy wouldn't have known about the " all people are bad and should be killed " until after the tragedy when BW spoke to AE about it in the aftermath.
-
An incisive post Jane. If I may also speculate that he blamed his parents for Suzette's miscarriages, then to have to endure Sheila and her children-not one but two with such delightful personalities and looks it was just too much to bear. The remark she made that "all people must be killed" must have stuck in his mind, along with the rankling stipulation in Nevill's will that his son would only inherit if he was farming at the time of his death, the temptation was to finalize everything that one morning and move on.
Thank-you, Steve. It's very possible he did. Once the floodgates of realization begin to open, there's no closing them and the way is clear for us to find a home for all our hurts and rejections. The message in Nevill's will couldn't have made it more clear to him that there actually WASN'T any inheritance for him. If he wanted it, he'd have to work for it. Naturally, Sheila, without lifting a finger, and the boys' futures had been catered for.
-
Jeremy wouldn't have known about the " all people are bad and should be killed " until after the tragedy when BW spoke to AE about it in the aftermath.
He was always snooping around. Of course Barbara Wilson would not have admitted it given the circumstances even if she had spilled the beans.
-
He was always snooping around. Of course Barbara Wilson would not have admitted it given the circumstances even if she had spilled the beans.
If she hasn’t admitted to what you allege. How can you know it in the first place? ???
-
If she hasn’t admitted to what you allege. How can you know it in the first place? ???
He means that if BW had mentioned the comment to Jeremy, she wouldn't admit it.
-
He means that if BW had mentioned the comment to Jeremy, she wouldn't admit it.
He has claimed that Jeremy heard this and was the inception of his plan.
-
He has claimed that Jeremy heard this and was the inception of his plan.
Well, it's a theory.
-
Well, it's a theory.
Theories don't count.
-
Theories don't count.
They count more than sweeping statements!
-
Theories don't count.
Neither do wild and sweeping statements but it doesn't stop you making them ;D ;D
-
Neither do wild and sweeping statements but it doesn't stop you making them ;D ;D
Well that's me and I'm allowed to. :)) :)) :)) :)) :))-------What sweeping statements ?
-
Well, it's a theory.
Its a fantasy.
-
Its a fantasy.
So's the Daily Mirror report ;D ;D
-
Well that's me and I'm allowed to. :)) :)) :)) :)) :))-------What sweeping statements ?
Those of the 'one rule fits all' type!!!!!
-
So's the Daily Mirror report ;D ;D
Oh dear, you no likee ? Not only the Mirror ! It's worldwide.
-
So's the Daily Mirror report ;D ;D
Nevill calling west is not a fantasy per say. Its a retarded interpretation.
-
Oh dear, you no likee ? Not only the Mirror ! It's worldwide.
There has been plenty of previous stuff printed, as being true, by the mirror which turns out to be other. Worldwide doesn't alter it.
-
Oh dear, you no likee ? Not only the Mirror ! It's worldwide.
Which makes it an even bigger laughing stock!
-
Which makes it an even bigger laughing stock!
So you'd do nothing if you'd been wronged ?
-
This is done to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Not even the judge's closing words contained that phrase when he was pronounced guilty.
-
So you'd do nothing if you'd been wronged ?
If I was genuinely innocent, I wouldn't be claiming I called the police at 03:25 one minute and that West was a liar; and at another that he wrote down the correct time all along and that time was 03:36.
-
This is done to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Not even the judge's closing words contained that phrase when he was pronounced guilty.
But this recent claim doesn't prove anything of the sort!
-
If I was genuinely innocent, I wouldn't be claiming I called the police at 03:25 one minute and that West was a liar; and at another that he wrote down the correct time all along and that time was 03:36.
West wasn't altogether honest in all this. Come to think, none of them were particularly professional in what they did.
-
West wasn't altogether honest in all this. Come to think, none of them were particularly professional in what they did.
What lie did West tell?
-
What lie did West tell?
In his statement West said he'd told Bonnett that at 03.26 that he'd received a call from Nevill, which he'd relayed to Bonnett. West then told Dickinson that he'd received JB's call at 03.26 then in a statement in September he said he didn't receive JB's call until 03.36. What's all this about ?
-
In his statement West said he'd told Bonnett that at 03.26 that he'd received a call from Nevill, which he'd relayed to Bonnett. West then told Dickinson that he'd received JB's call at 03.26 then in a statement in September he said he didn't receive JB's call until 03.36. What's all this about ?
And when we add Jeremy's own 'confusion' over the timing of his calls..........................
-
In his statement West said he'd told Bonnett that at 03.26 that he'd received a call from Nevill, which he'd relayed to Bonnett. West then told Dickinson that he'd received JB's call at 03.26 then in a statement in September he said he didn't receive JB's call until 03.36. What's all this about ?
Please find the statement in which West said he received a call from Nevill? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Please find the statement in which West said he received a call from Nevill? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well it's on the forum somewhere.
-
Find West's statements.
-
Well it's on the forum somewhere.
I have read his statement many times and at NO POINT does he state that he received a call from Nevill. The ONLY call he received, was from Jeremy!
-
If he had said he received a call from Nevill, he'd have been cross examined on it and Bamber could never havre been convicted. Sorry Lookout, but after all this time, his can you not know this?
-
As DS Ainsley stated in a closing letter referring to West :
I quote " In addition he gave the appearance of not knowing his evidence and had to be reminded by defence council of the content of his statement.
Overall his outward appearance was spoiled by his lack of respect for the court and his obvious lack of preparation for the occasion ", unquote.
-
As DS Ainsley stated in a closing letter referring to West :
I quote " In addition he gave the appearance of not knowing his evidence and had to be reminded by defence council of the content of his statement.
Overall his outward appearance was spoiled by his lack of respect for the court and his obvious lack of preparation for the occasion ", unquote.
But he didn't, despite "his lack of preparation for the occasion" say he'd received a call from Nevill.
-
But he didn't, despite "his lack of preparation for the occasion" say he'd received a call from Nevill.
If you say/think you know so, but I KNOW different.
-
As DS Ainsley stated in a closing letter referring to West :
I quote " In addition he gave the appearance of not knowing his evidence and had to be reminded by defence council of the content of his statement.
Overall his outward appearance was spoiled by his lack of respect for the court and his obvious lack of preparation for the occasion ", unquote.
Whats that got to do with him saying he received a call from Nevill?
-
If you say/think you know so, but I KNOW different.
No Lookout, you don't KNOW!
-
Whats that got to do with him saying he received a call from Nevill?
A lot, considering that a DS stated he was ill-prepared for a huge investigation, meaning that he would and did bungle his way through in a slipshod manner. If someone was doing a job using the wrong tools then it would end in a mess wouldn't it ?
West would have, or rather DID speak to both men but got lost along the way because they happened to have been 2 Mr Bambers ! He obviously couldn't get his head around it because the calls came from different directions and not just the one address.
-
I sincerely hope that this blows up in everyone's face !! It deserves to, 34 years later.
-
As it goes. A tape of JBs phone call to the police does exist.
-
The HQ room where the phone calls had been taken was known as the 999 information room--Witham.
-
As it goes. A tape of JBs phone call to the police does exist.
PII do you think or was it burnt to a cinder like everything else ?
-
As it goes. A tape of JBs phone call to the police does exist.
That doesn't state which calls and he didn't make any call to HQ. That's been posted before.
-
hi bill,iam not very happy ,last year you told the forum to put money on jb being out before christmas,so i did and the moneys down the PAN,wont be taking tips from you anymore >:(
-
Who is Bill Robertson anyway..
-
Who is Bill Robertson anyway..
Said he was an ex Essex policeman and knew Taff Jones. Personally (and just my opinion), I think he's involved with the CT because he always posts stuff before or about the same time as they twitterize it!
-
Said he was an ex Essex policeman and knew Taff Jones. Personally (and just my opinion), I think he's involved with the CT because he always posts stuff before or about the same time as they twitterize it!
mike T is also in the frame for being bill robertson ;)
-
mike T is also in the frame for being bill robertson ;)
I don't think accusing mike of being a policeman on his own forum is going to go down to well. :-\
-
I don't think accusing mike of being a policeman on his own forum is going to go down to well. :-\
others have accused him of a lot worse
-
others have accused him of a lot worse
In Mike's eyes - there is NOTHING worse! :o :o
-
In Mike's eyes - this is NOTHING worse! :o :o
lets hope he doesnt see it. ;)
-
Who is Bill Robertson anyway..
hes Bill Robertson thats all we really need to know.
-
Since when has Mike been a member of the CT ??
-
hes Bill Robertson thats all we really need to know.
The accusations that he is Mike Tesko were absurd. He spent three years studying the first hour of the case from a police perspective, after overhearing some officers or ex officers laughing at how much of a stitch-up the conviction was. His early posts are about the first hour of the case.
-
hes Bill Robertson thats all we really need to know.
If he's got any information which will exculpate Jeremy Bamber he can post it again here.
-
Bill has pm'd me over the years and has proved to have been accurate with his findings.
-
Bill has pm'd me over the years and has proved to have been accurate with his findings.
Really? Such as?
-
Bill is logging into the forum, but not posting anything.
At least try and defend your position.
-
Really? Such as?
That's between Bill and myself.
-
That's between Bill and myself.
So just your word that he's accurate? ::)
-
Bill is logging into the forum, but not posting anything.
At least try and defend your position.
Yes, I noticed that too. just checking to see how the propaganda is going down! ;D ;D ;D
-
How lovely that you are all still here and still arguing in such a friendly way a bit like groundhog day or Brexit . :)
-
How lovely that you are all still here and still arguing in such a friendly way a bit like groundhog day or Brexit . :)
Aw, Hi Jan, lovely to see you I hope you're well.
-
Aw, Hi Jan, lovely to see you I hope you're well.
thats not fair lookout,ive posted after several months and you never gave me the same welcome back :(
-
We are all pleased that sami and Jan are back.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019 (https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-call-logs-evidence-oct-2019)
Now undisputed sequence of phone calls and events proving that Jeremy is innocent.
03:23 approximately – phone call from Nevill Bamber to PC 1990 West at Chelmsford Town (CD)
03:26 call from PC West to Malcolm Bonnet – West passed on information from Nevill to Bonnet
03:25 - 03:30 Jeremy, alerted by a phone call from his father, tried to call Julie Mugford for advice, and finally roused her from bed at 03:30; spoke to her for 2-3 minutes.
03:30 PC West in radio conversation with PC Saxby at Witham – but Saxby and colleagues did not leave immediately to go to WHF
03:35 approximately – Jeremy Bamber telephoned PC West
03:36 PC West in conversation with Jeremy Bamber
03:37 PC West to PC Myall at Witham Police Station by telephone – Jeremy on-hold
03:39 PC West asked Jeremy to go to WHF and tells him to meet police officers there
03:40 approximately – CA7 departs Witham to WHF
End of story - Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
When Saxby was in radio contact with West at 03.30, was this while he was out on (or returning from) patrol with Bews and Myall?
-
When Saxby was in radio contact with West at 03.30, was this while he was out on (or returning from) patrol with Bews and Myall?
Saxby stayed at the scene maintaining a log so it must have been him who past messages back to West.
-
They don't have a cat in hells chance so I very much doubt it. ;D
I've replied on this thread because it seemed more relevant.
I very much doubt his legal team will show their hand. We may only be seeing titbits presently, as the CCRC previously expressed a disdain for use of the media regarding the gun tests. Funnily enough I can remember thinking that Kier Starmer was a w***ker when he oversaw the CCRC response to Jeremy's application. Now I've seen Starmer in his latest incarnation - I can confirm my initial thoughts were correct.
I was initially unimpressed with the Dickinson document. But arguably, it is Myall corroborating West.
-
Saxby stayed at the scene maintaining a log so it must have been him who past messages back to West.
Not sure what you mean here. This is earlier than the scene.
-
Not sure what you mean here. This is earlier than the scene.
Saxby was with Bews and Myall at Whitam when they got the radio call and went with them to the scene. There he stayed.
-
I've replied on this thread because it seemed more relevant.
I very much doubt his legal team will show their hand. We may only be seeing titbits presently, as the CCRC previously expressed a disdain for use of the media regarding the gun tests. Funnily enough I can remember thinking that Kier Starmer was a w***ker when he oversaw the CCRC response to Jeremy's application. Now I've seen Starmer in his latest incarnation - I can confirm my initial thoughts were correct.
I was initially unimpressed with the Dickinson document. But arguably, it is Myall corroborating West.
They really made a mistake backing that particular gem because Bamber himself has previously called West a liar, accusing him of altering the log from 03:26 - 03:36. Now they're arguing he did call at 03:36. \the CCRC will be aware of his earlier claim. If they have gone to the press with it, they must have been impressed. Makes you wonder if they really know all of the facts?
-
Saxby was with Bews and Myall at Whitam when they got the radio call and went with them to the scene. There he stayed.
But at some point they weren't there? Is this not why West had to resort to using personal radio link? As Bews was 'out on a couple of PC's'. Was Bews with Saxby and Myall while he was absent from Witham - then they returned after Saxby had been contacted by radio - before finally setting off after Myall witnessed Saxby being contacted by phone, inside the station?
-
But at some point they weren't there? Is this not why West had to resort to using personal radio link? As Bews was 'out on a couple of PC's'. Was Bews with Saxby and Myall while he was absent from Witham - then they returned after Saxby had been contacted by radio - before finally setting off after Myall witnessed Saxby being contacted by phone, inside the station?
Were does it say they weren't at Whitham?
-
Were does it say they weren't at Whitham?
All three state that they were at Whitham at 03:20, Saxby states that the received a radio message at 03:35 (from West).
-
Aw, Hi Jan, lovely to see you I hope you're well.
Hi lookout . Good to see you as well.
Just having a look around at the moment. Good to see such robust discussion and interesting points .
-
PC West stated that EACH of the two calls he made while Jeremy was on hold lasted approximately 3 minutes.
Where? At court, he stated "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations." He was immediately asked to confirm this, and said "Yes".
-
It's not for an unknown reason, 11 minutes is what AE stated Jeremy claimed when interviewed on the morning after the murders. I posted that days ago - but 11 minutes seems reasonable to me, given what happened during the call.
As I pointed out, she didn't claim that Jeremy was talking about the duration of his call. What she wrote left it unclear what particular interval was being referred to.
-
Nevill's call was 999 . . .
There's no evidence to indicate that Nevill made a 999 call.
-
Where? At court, he stated "I would have said, in fact, 3 minutes was the total of the two conversations." He was immediately asked to confirm this, and said "Yes".
The two calls you have referred to are West's call to Bonnett at 03.26 and his call to Witham at 03.30. The basic point people seem to overlook is that if Jeremy called West at 03.36, West must have made those two calls after putting Nevill on hold and not Jeremy. So arguments based on the length of those earlier calls have no relevance to the question as to when Jeremy left Goldhanger or how fast he drove, if he called the police at 03:36.
If Jeremy called at 03.36 and West spoke to him for a minute before calling Witham, as is suggested by Myall's note which times West's call at 03.37, there would only be this one call before West got back to Jeremy, so the time he was on hold may have been no more than 3 minutes.
So Jeremy could have left for Whitehouse farm at around 03.40.
-
Were does it say they weren't at Whitham?
Bews, Myall, and Saxby didn't say they weren't at Witham police station, but PC West did say that he was informed that the Witham area car had just arrived at Witham.
-
The accounts given in the papers are misleading. The basic argument concerning West's call by telephone to Witham at 03.37 is that it tallies perfectly with the time of 03.36 on West's log, given that West said in court that he thought he had spoken to Jeremy for about a minute before putting him on hold to make another call.
But the call he made was not the one he made to headquarters which was received by Malcolm Bonnett at 03.26. It was made to Witham Police station, as is recorded in the note with the 03.37 time apparently written by PC Myall.
What seems to have happened is this. It was Nevill and not Jeremy who called PC West at just before 03.26. It was Nevill who West put on hold when he made the two calls he described with allegedly Jeremy on hold, firstly to headquarters at 03.26 (received by Bonnett) and secondly to Witham by radio at 03.30 (received by PC Saxby).
If the length of these two call is put at around five minutes, it's likely that Nevill would have been dead or disabled when West tried to speak to him again after he, West, had called Witham at 03.30. This takes events up to about 03.33
Assuming the call to Witham took about 3 minutes, West would have had only a few minutes before Jeremy called at 03.36. He evidently spoke to Jeremy for about a minute before calling Witham again at 03.37.
It appears that the intention of the police was to cover up the fact that Nevill called earlier than Jeremy did and to pretend that Nevill's call was made by Jeremy at about 03:24. The significance of the note relating the 03.37 call is that it makes complete nonsense of the claim that Jeremy called at 03.24. That would imply that Jeremy's call lasted from 03.24 to around 03.40., a total of about 16 minutes and that he was on hold from 03.26 until about 03.39. Remember that the time on Myall's note gives the time of the start of West's call as 03.37.
Further, we are asked to believe that West actually called Witham twice while Jeremy was on hold, once by radio at 03.30 and again by phone at 03.37. It is notable that PC West did not mention his second call to Witham in his statements. It seems that when the police merged together the two calls from Nevill and Jeremy they had to do the same with the two calls to Witham. The note with the 03.37 time exposes the deception.
-
The accounts given in the papers are misleading. The basic argument concerning West's call to Witham at 03.37 is that it tallies perfectly with the time of 03.36 on West's log, given that West said in court that he thought he had spoken to Jeremy for about a minute before putting him on hold to make another call.
But the call he made was not the one he made to headquarters which was received by Malcolm Bonnett at 03.26. It was made to Witham Police station, as is recorded in the note with the 03.37 time apparently written by PC Myall.
What seems to have happened is this. It was Nevill and not Jeremy who called PC West at just before 03.26. It was Nevill who West put on hold when he made the two calls he described with allegedly Jeremy on hold, firstly to headquarters at 03.26 (received by Bonnett) and secondly to Witham at 03.30 (received by PC Saxby).
If the length of these two call is put at around five minutes, it's likely that Nevill would have been dead or disabled when West tried to speak to him again after he, West, had called Witham at 03.30. This takes events up to about 03.33
Assuming the call to Witham took about 3 minutes, West would have had only a few minutes before Jeremy called at 03.36. He evidently spoke to Jeremy for about a minute before calling Witham again at 03.37.
The intention of the police was to cover up the fact that Nevill called earlier than Jeremy did and to pretend that Nevill's call was made by Jeremy at about 03:24. The significance of the note relating the 03.37 call is that it makes complete nonsense of the claim that Jeremy called at 03.24. That would imply that Jeremy's call lasted from 03.24 to around 03.41., a total of about 17 minutes and that he was on hold from 03.26 until about 03.40. Remember that the time on Myall's note gives the time of the start of West's call as 03.37.
Further, we are asked to believe that West actually called Witham twice while Jeremy was on hold, once by radio at 03.30 and again by phone at 03.37. It is notable that PC West did not mention his second call to Witham in his statements. It seems that when the police merged together the two calls from Nevill and Jeremy they had to do the same with the two calls to Witham. The note with the 03.37 time exposes the deception.
Before West called Witham, he had had a conversation with the person who rang at 3.24 or so, he'd spoken to Bonnet for a while, and then he spoke to Witham (PC Saxby). Saxby said that he received a call from Chelmsford at about 3.30. That makes sense to me. It was Jeremy who called West at about 3.24.
If Jeremy had rung at 3.36, West wouldn't have had time to take the details from him, call Bonnet to relay those details, and then rung Witham at 3.37.
-
Before West called Witham, he had had a conversation with the person who rang at 3.24 or so, he'd spoken to Bonnet for a while, and then he spoke to Witham (PC Saxby). Saxby said that he received a call from Chelmsford at about 3.30. That makes sense to me. It was Jeremy who called West at about 3.24.
If Jeremy had rung at 3.36, West wouldn't have had time to take the details from him, call Bonnet to relay those details, and then rung Witham at 3.37.
West said in court he spoke to Jeremy for about a minute. Assuming it was a little longer does not alter the basic picture.
The point I'm making is that in this other scenario West does not call Bonnett. He said he called Bonnett after speaking to Jeremy.
But the truth may be that he only called Bonnett after speaking to Nevill.
It isn't necessary to assume that West called Bonnett twice. On the other hand, the police could have got rid of the log he made of Nevill's call before he called Bonnett. At any rate that is what is being alleged and there is strong evidence to support it.
Why would West have called Witham twice with Jeremy on hold, but left any mention of the second call by phone out of his statements?
-
West said in court he spoke to Jeremy for about a minute. Assuming it was a little longer does not alter the basic picture.
Yes, but then he spoke to Bonnet before he phoned Witham. I would say that the call to Witham happened at about 3.30 - as Saxby said.
The note allegedly written by Myall didn't actually say that the call came into Witham at 3.37. He might have been writing it at 3.37. We need more info really, not just snippets from a log.
-
Just as a point of interest, the note which refers to 3.37 appears to be different handwriting to that of PC Myall. Do we know for sure who wrote that note?
-
Just as a point of interest, the note which refers to 3.37 appears to be different handwriting to that of PC Myall. Do we know for sure who wrote that note?
Interviewers during enquiry.
-
The accounts given in the papers are misleading. The basic argument concerning West's call by telephone to Witham at 03.37 is that it tallies perfectly with the time of 03.36 on West's log, given that West said in court that he thought he had spoken to Jeremy for about a minute before putting him on hold to make another call.
But the call he made was not the one he made to headquarters which was received by Malcolm Bonnett at 03.26. It was made to Witham Police station, as is recorded in the note with the 03.37 time apparently written by PC Myall.
What seems to have happened is this. It was Nevill and not Jeremy who called PC West at just before 03.26. It was Nevill who West put on hold when he made the two calls he described with allegedly Jeremy on hold, firstly to headquarters at 03.26 (received by Bonnett) and secondly to Witham by radio at 03.30 (received by PC Saxby).
If the length of these two call is put at around five minutes, it's likely that Nevill would have been dead or disabled when West tried to speak to him again after he, West, had called Witham at 03.30. This takes events up to about 03.33
Assuming the call to Witham took about 3 minutes, West would have had only a few minutes before Jeremy called at 03.36. He evidently spoke to Jeremy for about a minute before calling Witham again at 03.37.
It appears that the intention of the police was to cover up the fact that Nevill called earlier than Jeremy did and to pretend that Nevill's call was made by Jeremy at about 03:24. The significance of the note relating the 03.37 call is that it makes complete nonsense of the claim that Jeremy called at 03.24. That would imply that Jeremy's call lasted from 03.24 to around 03.40., a total of about 16 minutes and that he was on hold from 03.26 until about 03.39. Remember that the time on Myall's note gives the time of the start of West's call as 03.37.
Further, we are asked to believe that West actually called Witham twice while Jeremy was on hold, once by radio at 03.30 and again by phone at 03.37. It is notable that PC West did not mention his second call to Witham in his statements. It seems that when the police merged together the two calls from Nevill and Jeremy they had to do the same with the two calls to Witham. The note with the 03.37 time exposes the deception.
But why in that case was this information not relayed at the earliest opportunity to the head of the whole investigation, namely DCI Taff Jones, when it would have corroborated the latter's assertion that the whole incident at White House Farm had been "a domestic" with Jeremy being unambiguously in the clear?
-
Before West called Witham, he had had a conversation with the person who rang at 3.24 or so, he'd spoken to Bonnet for a while, and then he spoke to Witham (PC Saxby). Saxby said that he received a call from Chelmsford at about 3.30. That makes sense to me. It was Jeremy who called West at about 3.24.
If Jeremy had rung at 3.36, West wouldn't have had time to take the details from him, call Bonnet to relay those details, and then rung Witham at 3.37.
West is on record saying Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.
West is on record saying he indeed wrote the time of Jeremy's call at 3:26am in his statement.
Bonnet is on record saying PC West relayed information from Jeremy.
West is on record saying he could have got the time wrong in his phone log.
West never mentioned a call from Nevill.
Bonnet never mentioned a call from Nevill.
Only one call was received.
Debating people who think Nevills call happened is becoming a fools errand. Because those who continue to believe it are too stupid to realise how stupid the argument is.
-
I still say that because both father and son had addressed themselves as " Mr Bamber " is where the confusion lay.
-
West is on record saying Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.
West is on record saying he indeed wrote the time of Jeremy's call at 3:26am in his statement.
Bonnet is on record saying PC West relayed information from Jeremy.
West is on record saying he could have got the time wrong in his phone log.
West never mentioned a call from Nevill.
Bonnet never mentioned a call from Nevill.
Only one call was received.
Debating people who think Nevills call happened is becoming a fools errand. Because those who continue to believe it are too stupid to realise how stupid the argument is.
Yes. A mistake on the part of West has led to all kinds of speculation and statements that an appeal will be made. Now this "new" note has brought it all up again.
-
I still say that because both father and son had addressed themselves as " Mr Bamber " is where the confusion lay.
But if you read what both West and Bonnet wrote down, it seems clear that they were both referring to a call from Jeremy.
Why would West and Bonnet both suppress information about another call? Neither of them said there had been two calls.
-
But if you read what both West and Bonnet wrote down, it seems clear that they were both referring to a call from Jeremy.
Why would West and Bonnet both suppress information about another call? Neither of them said there had been two calls.
That's clearly their problem.
-
That's clearly their problem.
It's not their problem. When they made their first statements everyone assumed Sheila had done it, and there was no reason to suppress any information about an extra phone call.
-
The accounts given in the papers are misleading. The basic argument concerning West's call by telephone to Witham at 03.37 is that it tallies perfectly with the time of 03.36 on West's log, given that West said in court that he thought he had spoken to Jeremy for about a minute before putting him on hold to make another call.
But the call he made was not the one he made to headquarters which was received by Malcolm Bonnett at 03.26. It was made to Witham Police station, as is recorded in the note with the 03.37 time apparently written by PC Myall.
What seems to have happened is this. It was Nevill and not Jeremy who called PC West at just before 03.26. It was Nevill who West put on hold when he made the two calls he described with allegedly Jeremy on hold, firstly to headquarters at 03.26 (received by Bonnett) and secondly to Witham by radio at 03.30 (received by PC Saxby).
If the length of these two call is put at around five minutes, it's likely that Nevill would have been dead or disabled when West tried to speak to him again after he, West, had called Witham at 03.30. This takes events up to about 03.33
Assuming the call to Witham took about 3 minutes, West would have had only a few minutes before Jeremy called at 03.36. He evidently spoke to Jeremy for about a minute before calling Witham again at 03.37.
It appears that the intention of the police was to cover up the fact that Nevill called earlier than Jeremy did and to pretend that Nevill's call was made by Jeremy at about 03:24. The significance of the note relating the 03.37 call is that it makes complete nonsense of the claim that Jeremy called at 03.24. That would imply that Jeremy's call lasted from 03.24 to around 03.40., a total of about 16 minutes and that he was on hold from 03.26 until about 03.39. Remember that the time on Myall's note gives the time of the start of West's call as 03.37.
Further, we are asked to believe that West actually called Witham twice while Jeremy was on hold, once by radio at 03.30 and again by phone at 03.37. It is notable that PC West did not mention his second call to Witham in his statements. It seems that when the police merged together the two calls from Nevill and Jeremy they had to do the same with the two calls to Witham. The note with the 03.37 time exposes the deception.
So all of that aside (for a moment) - when did Jeremy call Julie?
-
That's clearly their problem.
No, that's Jeremy's problem and the problem of anyone trying to defend these silly claims.
-
No, that's Jeremy's problem and the problem of anyone trying to defend these silly claims.
Well I guess JB was relying on the officers to make notes and not for him to keep reminding them of what he ( alone ) saw when lights were going on and off. What officers saw and what they wrote down were two entirely different things once it came to trial----such as the figure in the window which changed to a trick of the light. I don't see it being JB's problem at all. It's not his fault if police chose to miss out what they all saw that night.
-
But at some point they weren't there? Is this not why West had to resort to using personal radio link? As Bews was 'out on a couple of PC's'. Was Bews with Saxby and Myall while he was absent from Witham - then they returned after Saxby had been contacted by radio - before finally setting off after Myall witnessed Saxby being contacted by phone, inside the station?
During the Dickinson enquiry Bews confirmed that he had been out on foot patrol with Myall and Saxby, effectively leaving the police station unmanned and door locked, with the phone redirected to Chelmsford. All 3 returned to Witham around 03:10. That was quite common practice at sub-stations. All three officers were at Witham when West and Saxby had their alleged radio conversation (which I don't believe ever took place).
Cheers.
-
So all of that aside (for a moment) - when did Jeremy call Julie?
In this new scenario ...... WHEN did Jeremy call Julie?
-
Based on Bills “undisputed sequence”
CA07 needs to have travelled on average 96mph to reach its destination at the time stated by its occupants.
This now explains how Chris ‘Hamilton’ Bews was able to drive passed Jeremy ‘Schumacher’ Bamber who was only travelling at around 84mph.
-
During the Dickinson enquiry Bews confirmed that he had been out on foot patrol with Myall and Saxby, effectively leaving the police station unmanned and door locked, with the phone redirected to Chelmsford. All 3 returned to Witham around 03:10. That was quite common practice at sub-stations. All three officers were at Witham when West and Saxby had their alleged radio conversation (which I don't believe ever took place).
Cheers.
Cheers for response. I've always been sceptical regarding the Nevill call scenario but have never quite been able to fully strike it from my mind. Have your views changed much from the research you did to now? I have to admit I haven't done a comparison - but for the first time ever, the calls situation seems to have perked my interest - to the point where I feel the need to examine it closely.
Can you elaborate on your radio remark?
I hope I'm not on a fool's errand as David suggests. :))
-
Based on Bills “undisputed sequence”
CA07 needs to have travelled on average 96mph to reach its destination at the time stated by its occupants.
This now explains how Chris ‘Hamilton’ Bews was able to drive passed Jeremy ‘Schumacher’ Bamber who was only travelling at around 84mph.
He has also completely omitted the call to Julie. Which is crucial given that he argued that he (Jeremy) called Julie after the police. The scenario makes no indication of what Jeremy could have been doing for 25 minutes either.
-
He has also completely omitted the call to Julie. Which is crucial given that he argued that he called Julie after the police. The scenario makes no indication of what Jeremy could have been doing for 25 minutes either.
Based on the premise of Nevill calling the police. What Jeremy did for 25 minutes or what Jeremy did or didn’t do or say wouldn’t matter. Hence anyone who believe’s in Nevills call has nothing to really answer for here.
-
Based on the premise of Nevill calling the police. What Jeremy did for 25 minutes or what Jeremy did or didn’t do or say wouldn’t matter. Hence anyone who believe’s in Nevills call has nothing to really answer for here.
No, but the scenario (because that is all it is) lacks such detail given that it is not what Bamber himself argued at the time and it completely dismisses his whole original story. Plus the call to Julie is crucial.
-
During the Dickinson enquiry Bews confirmed that he had been out on foot patrol with Myall and Saxby, effectively leaving the police station unmanned and door locked, with the phone redirected to Chelmsford. All 3 returned to Witham around 03:10. That was quite common practice at sub-stations. All three officers were at Witham when West and Saxby had their alleged radio conversation (which I don't believe ever took place).
Cheers.
Where is this documented (not that it's of importance)?
For the above not to be true, West and Saxby would have had to be in cahoots on a frame up from day one that THAT is ludicrous!
-
Well I guess JB was relying on the officers to make notes and not for him to keep reminding them of what he ( alone ) saw when lights were going on and off. What officers saw and what they wrote down were two entirely different things once it came to trial----such as the figure in the window which changed to a trick of the light. I don't see it being JB's problem at all. It's not his fault if police chose to miss out what they all saw that night.
We weren't talking about lights, we were talking about whether there were one or two phone calls to the police. West and Bonnet did write down what happened, it's just that West wrote down the time of the call wrongly.
Nobody saw lights going on and off. The police wrote down what they saw - it was up to the jury as to whether to place any credence on it. Clearly, the jury didn't believe that anyone was alive in the house when the police got there.
-
No, but the scenario (because that is all it is) lacks such detail given that it is not what Bamber himself argued at the time and it completely dismisses his whole original story. Plus the call to Julie is crucial.
If Nevill rang the police implicating Sheila. There are no inferences to draw from Jeremy actions as he cannot be guilty anyway.
What needs to be addressed is the absence of any phone log from Nevill to the police operator. The timings that simply make it impossible, West and Bonnet making no mention of a call from Nevill. The police suppressing such a call from Jeremy's relatives ect ect.
-
During the Dickinson enquiry Bews confirmed that he had been out on foot patrol with Myall and Saxby, effectively leaving the police station unmanned and door locked, with the phone redirected to Chelmsford. All 3 returned to Witham around 03:10. That was quite common practice at sub-stations. All three officers were at Witham when West and Saxby had their alleged radio conversation (which I don't believe ever took place).
Cheers.
Why would West lie about calling Witham? Are you saying that he spoke to someone other than Saxby?
-
For those who believe that Jeremy phoned West after his father phoned West, why did West not mention to Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
-
For those who believe that Jeremy phoned West after his father phoned West, why did West not mention to Jeremy that his father had already phoned?
Such things are difficult to fathom, however, we do not know police procedure in such instances.
-
Such things are difficult to fathom, however, we do not know police procedure in such instances.
Why did West not mention Nevills call in his August 9th statement?
-
Why did West not mention Nevills call in his August 9th statement?
Is his August 9th statement not a re-typed one, done on 13th Sept, or whenever it was were Ainsley oversaw a mass typing up of statements? The police are hardly going to allow a 9th Aug statement referencing a call from Nevill come to light, are they?
-
There doesn't need to have been a " frame up " as such but a bad human error which was never put right meaning that everything that followed would then have to fit in accordingly----which it did as soon as the extended family came onto the scene, much to the relief of EP.
It was noted that quite a few PO statements had been written uncannily the same.
-
Is his August 9th statement not a re-typed one, done on 13th Sept, or whenever it was were Ainsley oversaw a mass typing up of statements? The police are hardly going to allow a 9th Aug statement that references Nevill phoning them, to come to light, are they?
You have no evidence for Ainsley committing such a ludicrous conspiracy. Taff Jones was still very much on the case then also.
So I will ask again. Why did West not mention Nevills call in his August 9th statement? and while you are here explain why Taff Jones never told Robert Boutflour about Nevills call?
-
You have no evidence for Ainsley committing such a ludicrous conspiracy. Taff Jones was still very much on the case then also.
So I will ask again. Why did West not mention Nevills call in his August 9th statement? and while you are here explain why Taff Jones never told Robert Boutflour about Nevills call?
I know both the ones mentioned in your last paragraph are dead, but how will we ever know whether " Taff " Jones told RWB about the call from Nevill or not ? We've got very little, if anything on what " Taff " said/wrote.
-
Is his August 9th statement not a re-typed one, done on 13th Sept, or whenever it was were Ainsley oversaw a mass typing up of statements? The police are hardly going to allow a 9th Aug statement referencing a call from Nevill come to light, are they?
Do you have any evidence that West's statement of 9th August was actually made in September?
-
Do you have any evidence that West's statement of 9th August was actually made in September?
West made two statements. One in August and the other in September. His latter statement mentions his August statement.
::)
-
Is his August 9th statement not a re-typed one, done on 13th Sept, or whenever it was were Ainsley oversaw a mass typing up of statements? The police are hardly going to allow a 9th Aug statement referencing a call from Nevill come to light, are they?
So you're assuming that West was involved in this 'mass' typing? So why does the time still state 03:36 on his log? This apparently now works in Jeremy's favour - but back then it didn't - so which is it?
-
If Nevill rang the police implicating Sheila. There are no inferences to draw from Jeremy actions as he cannot be guilty anyway.
What needs to be addressed is the absence of any phone log from Nevill to the police operator. The timings that simply make it impossible, West and Bonnet making no mention of a call from Nevill. The police suppressing such a call from Jeremy's relatives ect ect.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. This premise asks us to suspend what has gone before and includes ALL that Jeremy initially reported. You can't just wipe the sale clean and start again. Jeremy's account is still part of the case and what he said and did are still relevant. The notion that Neill called, is just that so they need to explain how the new fits with the old. You may not think so, but I was asking those who believe that Nevill called, to explain. And while we're on, I'll ask again - when did Jeremy call Julie in this 'new' version of events?
-
So you're assuming that West was involved in this 'mass' typing? So why does the time still state 03:36 on his log? This apparently now works in Jeremy's favour - but back then it didn't - so which is it?
He put 3.26 in his statement of 9th August, and 3.36 in his statement of 13th September.
-
He put 3.26 in his statement of 9th August, and 3.36 in his statement of 13th September.
A bit like the silencer debacle, eh ? Who found what and when.
-
He put 3.26 in his statement of 9th August, and 3.36 in his statement of 13th September.
Obviously because he had learned he put the wrong time on the log. He stated in his court testimony that he was informed he wrote the wrong time.
-
A bit like the silencer debacle, eh ? Who found what and when.
It really is quite simply but complicating it makes it easier to look like a conspiracy.
West took the call from Jeremy around 03:25 - this supports what Jeremy initially stated. West probably forgot to write the time down initially and added it later or just made a mistake. At that point, he wouldn't have though that 33 years later it was still being debated and his own comments as to what happened would be disregarded and new theories applied.
-
Well, sadly and horrifically there's yet another bigger hurdle for EP to overcome than think about something that happened 34 years ago, so there'll be nothing forthcoming from them for the next 12 months or so.
RIP to the poor souls who've perished.
-
Obviously because he had learned he put the wrong time on the log. He stated in his court testimony that he was informed he wrote the wrong time.
But he put 3.26 in his first statement, and then changed it to 3.36 in his later statement.
-
my thoughts on timings in general are this
in those days - the police were well aware of the importance of timings and reliable clocks. The period of time we are talking about their Notes and time keeping was vital for evidence . they did not have technology to rely on . So IMO any changes or stating that clocks were wrong is either deceitful or down right sloppy. In court they would be expected to be accurate and detailed with their evidence.
However members of the public would obviously be more lax with their memory or accuracy . The argument that Jeremy would remember in detail all the timings and what was said because of the horrendous outcome is quite frankly ridiculous ( IMO so not to cause offence) Firstly when he took the call if he is innocent he did not know what the outcome would be and then he would ( as reported ) be in total shock . And his first thoughts would not have been I am shortly going to have to make a full and detailed statement . And if he made both calls to prove his innocence he would have pushed to mention the other call . As far as I am aware he mentioned about his fathers phone being engaged when he tried to call back that was all ?
-
And I've always maintained that when JB tried to phone his dad back and found the line engaged that Nevill would have been phoning the police at that very time. When a phone is engaged it means that someone you're trying to call is talking to someone else. Elementary isn't it ?
-
And I've always maintained that when JB tried to phone his dad back and found the line engaged that Nevill would have been phoning the police at that very time. When a phone is engaged it means that someone you're trying to call is talking to someone else. Elementary isn't it ?
In that case, Nevill would have had to have been calling the police at just after 03:10 and no one is arguing that.
-
All the Sheila scenarios submitted exclude Nevill calling the police.
It's hard enough just trying to find a suitable time for Nevill calling Jeremy. With some strange scenarios given.
-
If Nevill was only able to speak to Jeremy for 4 seconds & say 11 words, it is surprising that around 30 minutes later he was able to spend several minutes speaking to the police.
-
If Sheila had 'the gun' and was 'going crazy' at around 3.10am when Nevill called Jeremy, what went on at WHF over the next 30 minutes?
-
my thoughts on timings in general are this
in those days - the police were well aware of the importance of timings and reliable clocks. The period of time we are talking about their Notes and time keeping was vital for evidence . they did not have technology to rely on . So IMO any changes or stating that clocks were wrong is either deceitful or down right sloppy. In court they would be expected to be accurate and detailed with their evidence.
However members of the public would obviously be more lax with their memory or accuracy . The argument that Jeremy would remember in detail all the timings and what was said because of the horrendous outcome is quite frankly ridiculous ( IMO so not to cause offence) Firstly when he took the call if he is innocent he did not know what the outcome would be and then he would ( as reported ) be in total shock . And his first thoughts would not have been I am shortly going to have to make a full and detailed statement . And if he made both calls to prove his innocence he would have pushed to mention the other call . As far as I am aware he mentioned about his fathers phone being engaged when he tried to call back that was all ?
At the point when Jeremy phones, West didn't know what the outcome would be either and at around 03:30, he was probably bored and low on concentration or as you say - 'sloppy'. He was criticised for being just that after given evidence. One thing he would remember, is taking two calls, one from Nevill and one from Jeremy.
My dad had a massive heart attack in front of me I had to call the emergency services - I was in total shock but the time of the call was 21:25 - it's etched on my brain. It took 12 minutes for the paramedics to arrive from me hanging up the phone (seemed like a lifetime), he was pronounced dead at 21:40. The undertaker arrived at 10:10. Like I said, the times are etched and Bamber supposedly didn't even know there was much wrong when he made his call. He recalled the times perfectly the following day without any problem. After he had time to think, he realised that calling Julie first, was a problem.
Years later he made a complaint against West, claiming her perjured himself by changing the time on the log from 03:26 (the time Jeremy clung to at trial) to 03:36. Now he argues the opposite. He required the time to be 03:26 at trial so he could argue he called Julie after the police - he needs the time to be 03:36 now, so he can argue that Nevill called. So when did he called Julie?
-
Nevill rang the police and Sheila rang the ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed all this information and had Taff Jones murdered.
Because Robert Boutflour promised him a job at the caravan site.
-
There's a difference when you're physically there with a person who's died than if you get a phone-call at stupid o'clock from 3 or so miles away.
I nursed my husband until his death at night and was asked by the on-call GP what the time of death was and I was struggling even then.
-
Nevill rang the police and Sheila rang the ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed all this information and had Taff Jones murdered.
Because Robert Boutflour promised him a job at the caravan site.
Did Robert Boutflour have contact with Ainsley? Boutflour wrote to him which resulted in a meeting with ACC Peter Simpson. Then Ainsley appointed James Kenneally to conduct a review, which kept the original conclusion Taff Jones had jumped to. It was only when Julie came forward and Stan Jones became involved that things changed.
-
It's very difficult to prove whether Nevill rang the police but Sheila didn't ring an ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed a lot of information and was able to retire early with a police pension, to carry out his role at the caravan site, but didn't have Taff Jones murdered.
-
Nevill rang the police and Sheila rang the ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed all this information and had Taff Jones murdered.
Because Robert Boutflour promised him a job at the caravan site.
:o :o :o :o
-
Obviously because he had learned he put the wrong time on the log. He stated in his court testimony that he was informed he wrote the wrong time.
He expressed it was a matter of dispute as to whose time was wrong and whose time was right and was very stubborn about this. Why does Myall mention a similar time for a call to Witham, with the informant on hold?
-
Nevill rang the police and Sheila rang the ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed all this information and had Taff Jones murdered.
Because Robert Boutflour promised him a job at the caravan site.
Not sure I would even begin to comment on that except I often wondered about the lack of statements from ambulance staff as I would think they would have running information about what was going on
-
It's very difficult to prove whether Nevill rang the police but Sheila didn't ring an ambulance.
Ainsley suppressed a lot of information and was able to retire early with a police pension, to carry out his role at the caravan site, but didn't have Taff Jones murdered.
I was being sarcastic.
The CT claim Sheila rang an ambulance. Why don’t you believe that then?
The only thing Ainsley and Co suppressed (as far as I know). Is the evidence of no forced entry via the bathroom window. The bible and Fletchers silencer experiments.
-
I was being sarcastic.
The CT claim Sheila rang an ambulance. Why don’t you believe that then?
The only thing Ainsley and Co suppressed (as far as I know). Is the evidence of no forced entry via the bathroom window. The bible and Fletchers silencer experiments.
Sheila was the only one alive at the time that's why she rang for an ambulance.
-
I was being sarcastic.
The CT claim Sheila rang an ambulance. Why don’t you believe that then?
The only thing Ainsley and Co suppressed (as far as I know). Is the evidence of no forced entry via the bathroom window. The bible and Fletchers silencer experiments.
Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic. I looked at the ambulance thing for a while - but I felt it was weak because it was ambiguous and leant itself to different interpretations.
Friday 13 September 1985 was the “day of evil” when a good deal of the documentation used against Jeremy was created. On the morning of Friday 13th September 1985, Jeremy appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates Court where he was granted bail on charges of burglary until 16th October 1985. Both PC West and Malcolm Bonnett allegedly made statements dated 13.9.85.
-
Do you have any evidence that West's statement of 9th August was actually made in September?
Not personally. Initial statements were made at a time when Jeremy was not officially regarded as a suspect. Sheila was in the frame. Given that Ainsley was brought in with the brief of pursuing Jeremy, he could not have allowed any statements come to light which ruled Jeremy out in any obvious way.
-
There's a difference when you're physically there with a person who's died than if you get a phone-call at stupid o'clock from 3 or so miles away.
I nursed my husband until his death at night and was asked by the on-call GP what the time of death was and I was struggling even then.
There is NO difference!! >:( >:(
-
Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic. I looked at the ambulance thing for a while - but I felt it was weak because it was ambiguous and leant itself to different interpretations.
Friday 13 September 1985 was the “day of evil” when a good deal of the documentation used against Jeremy was created. On the morning of Friday 13th September 1985, Jeremy appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates Court where he was granted bail on charges of burglary until 16th October 1985. Both PC West and Malcolm Bonnett allegedly made statements dated 13.9.85.
West made his first statement on 09/08/1985
-
West made his first statement on 09/08/1985
Yes, this has already been stated. I bet his 9th Aug statement only became available at some point after 13th Sept.
-
Yes, this has already been stated. I bet his 9th Aug statement only became available at some point after 13th Sept.
I bet it didn't.
-
There is NO difference!! >:( >:(
If YOU say so ::)
-
If YOU say so ::)
It was actually YOU who was 'saying so'
-
If YOU say so ::)
I was more concerned about my husband than the bloody time that he'd died ! It was bad enough when I rang a locum to say he'd died to get the answer " what do you mean,died ?" Unbelievably thick !
-
The accusations that he is Mike Tesko were absurd. He spent three years studying the first hour of the case from a police perspective, after overhearing some officers or ex officers laughing at how much of a stitch-up the conviction was. His early posts are about the first hour of the case.
your mistaken my friend,its well known who bill is from years ago.but if you want to believe its NOT mike than thats up to you :)
-
Bill is logging into the forum, but not posting anything.
At least try and defend your position.
:)) :)) :))
-
We are all pleased that sami and Jan are back.
thanks steve
-
I was more concerned about my husband than the bloody time that he'd died ! It was bad enough when I rang a locum to say he'd died to get the answer " what do you mean,died ?" Unbelievably thick !
I was MORE concerned about my Dad then the time, I looked at the clock so I could have an idea of how long the paramedics would take and I'll never forget someone pronouncing my dad dead nor when they took him out of the house!
Jeremy on the other hand, offered up the time of 03:10 and 03:25, had he said, I don't recall and in his (so called) desperate state, called 999 - I might agree on the shock suggestion.
-
So all of that aside (for a moment) - when did Jeremy call Julie?
Jeremy originally said that he called Julie Mugford before he called the police. He said he called at 03.25 and this is corroborated by the time Julie Mugford originally gave for when she got the call. She said it was 03.30. Given the tendency people have to round off times to the nearest five minutes, the call probably took place at around 03.27. Another basic reason for rejecting the view that Jeremy called the police at 03.26 is that he was calling Julie Mugford at that time.
People who defend the position that Jeremy called West at around 03.24 don't only need to maintain that West mistimed his log at 03.36, they need to change the times of all the relevant phone calls in that period, which is a reduction to the absurd.
If a time is disputed then you look for corroboration by relating it to other accepted times, but in this case the opposition maintain that the times which should count as corroboration are also wrong by about the same amount.
3:36. Time West receiving Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:24.
03:25. Time Jeremy said he called Julie Mugford. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to some time earlier than 03.25 depending on the agenda.
03:30 Time Susan Battersby said she was woken up by Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to 03.15 or whatever.
03.37 Time West's telephone call was received at Witham. Must be changed to whatever is required.
But with this last there is a another problem. Even if it is maintained that this call is mistimed, it can't seriously be denied that it took place. There is too much detail for there to be any doubt that West made a call by telephone to Witham at approximately 03.37, which he strangely did not mention in his statements.
-
From the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985:
“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”
During the Dickinson inquiry, PC Myall gave evidence of a call from PC West at 03.37.
“We received a telephone call at the P.Stn. [Police Station, Witham]. The officer (PC West) at CD Control [Chelmsford] was on the phone and told us that he was relating information to us and still had the informant (Jeremy Bamber) on the other telephone.”
-
Jeremy originally said that he called Julie Mugford before he called the police. He said he called at 03.25 and this is corroborated by the time Julie Mugford originally gave for when she got the call. She said it was 03.30. Given the tendency people have to round off times to the nearest five minutes, the call probably took place at around 03.27. Another basic reason for rejecting the view that Jeremy called the police at 03.26 is that he was calling Julie Mugford at that time.
People who defend the position that Jeremy called West at around 03.24 don't only need to maintain that West mistimed his log at 03.36, they need to change the times of all the relevant phone calls in that period, which is a reduction to the absurd.
If a time is disputed then you look for corroboration by relating it to other accepted times, but in this case the opposition maintain that the times which should count as corroboration are also wrong by about the same amount.
3:36. Time West receiving Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:24.
03:25. Time Jeremy said he called Julie Mugford. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to some time earlier than 03.25 depending on the agenda.
03:30 Time Susan Battersby said she was woken up by Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to 03.15 or whatever.
03.37 Time West's telephone call was received at Witham. Must be changed to whatever is required.
But with this last there is a another problem. Even if it is maintained that this call is mistimed, it can't seriously be denied that it took place. There is too much detail for there to be any doubt that West made a call by telephone to Witham at approximately 03.37, which he strangely did not mention in his statements.
Yes, he did say he called Julie first, then quickly denied it and still denies it!
What evidence is there that West made a 'telephone' call to Witham at 03:37?
-
Jeremy originally said that he called Julie Mugford before he called the police. He said he called at 03.25 and this is corroborated by the time Julie Mugford originally gave for when she got the call. She said it was 03.30. Given the tendency people have to round off times to the nearest five minutes, the call probably took place at around 03.27. Another basic reason for rejecting the view that Jeremy called the police at 03.26 is that he was calling Julie Mugford at that time.
People who defend the position that Jeremy called West at around 03.24 don't only need to maintain that West mistimed his log at 03.36, they need to change the times of all the relevant phone calls in that period, which is a reduction to the absurd.
If a time is disputed then you look for corroboration by relating it to other accepted times, but in this case the opposition maintain that the times which should count as corroboration are also wrong by about the same amount.
3:36. Time West receiving Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:24.
03:25. Time Jeremy said he called Julie Mugford. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to some time earlier than 03.25 depending on the agenda.
03:30 Time Susan Battersby said she was woken up by Jeremy's call. Must be corrected to 03:40 or to 03.15 or whatever.
03.37 Time West's telephone call was received at Witham. Must be changed to whatever is required.
But with this last there is a another problem. Even if it is maintained that this call is mistimed, it can't seriously be denied that it took place. There is too much detail for there to be any doubt that West made a call by telephone to Witham at approximately 03.37, which he strangely did not mention in his statements.
West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.
West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.
There are statements from friends of Susans who said the digital clock in her room was always running at the wrong time. Both Susan and Julie were half-asleep when taking note of the time anyway.
Back to the drawing board you must go.
-
Blimey, give the man a break. He's lost all his family yet is expected to remember every detail that's asked of him. I've said this before that if he had remembered details clearly, I'd have been bothered !
-
West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.
West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.
There are statements from friends of Susans who said the digital clock in her room was always running at the wrong time. Both Susan and Julie were half-asleep when taking note of the time anyway.
Back to the drawing board you must go.
David, why do you feel the need for the last sentence?
Lomax is well worth a read regarding the Jeremy / Julie phone call. I think AE is referenced in relation to it also.
-
Yes, he did say he called Julie first, then quickly denied it and still denies it!
What evidence is there that West made a 'telephone' call to Witham at 03:37?
Unless I misunderstanding either you or the CT, is this not what Myall references in his Dickinson interview?
-
David, why do you feel the need for the last sentence?
Lomax is well worth a read regarding the Jeremy / Julie phone call. I think AE is referenced in relation to it also.
Lomax told me there was no call from Nevill.
-
I bet it didn't.
In what sense? Prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect - who would have requested sight of a genuine original 9th Aug statement? It was an internal police document. Once Jeremy becomes a suspect, his legal team can request sight of the statements. But by that time, that's less of a problem for Ainsley - who is prepared.
-
West stated in his original statement that Jeremy rang him before 3:26am.
In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.
West does mention his call to Witham in his statements.
Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.
Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.
-
Lomax told me there was no call from Nevill.
And he may be right. Or he may be wrong. But my reference to Lomax was in relation to the Jeremy Julie phone call.
My understanding of Lomax is that he can be quite a prickly character. Wasn't there some fall out, regarding demands to see certain documents? He then announced he was writing another book that Jeremy wouldn't have sight of. But so far, it hasn't materialised.
-
In what sense? Prior to Jeremy becoming a suspect - who would have requested sight of a genuine original 9th Aug statement? It was an internal police document. Once Jeremy becomes a suspect, his legal team can request sight of the statements. But by that time, that's not a problem for Ainsley - who is prepared.
Coming up with a conspiracy theory to justify your position is not going to achieve anything.
PC West writing down one number incorrectly. Is not enough evidence to make the conspiracy theory a plausible one.
Furthermore the log from West to Bonnet that was shown in court is what is now alleged to be Nevills call. How could Ainsley let that one slip! ::)
-
In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.
Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.
It does't have a ring of truth to you because it doesn't suit your dogma.
Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.
This has already been explained to you. You are ignoring the full stop in the relevant sentence and misinterpreting as if he is saying he never made a statement at all.
-
I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. Sure, they had some of the family nagging at them, but that's not a good reason. They had Julie changing her statement, but that was a genuine reason to look again at the case. They had no reason to hide anything.
-
I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. Sure, they had some of the family nagging at them, but that's not a good reason. They had Julie changing her statement, but that was a genuine reason to look again at the case. They had no reason to hide anything.
We cant answer that without being castigated by David for 'conspiracy theories'. He forgets that the police originally compiled a case file of evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible.
-
It does't have a ring of truth to you because it doesn't suit your dogma.
Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.
This has already been explained to you. You are ignoring the full stop in the relevant sentence and misinterpreting as if he is saying he never made a statement at all.
Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.
I just want to know what would be the motive for the police to stitch Jeremy up or lie about what happened. . . They had no reason to hide anything.
Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.
-
Coming up with a conspiracy theory to justify your position is not going to achieve anything.
PC West writing down one number incorrectly. Is not enough evidence to make the conspiracy theory a plausible one.
Furthermore the log from West to Bonnet that was shown in court is what is now alleged to be Nevills call. How could Ainsley let that one slip! ::)
I'm not trying to achieve anything. For me, what is important is to discover what really took place. If that truth includes malpractice and foul play - you have the right to term that a 'conspiracy'. Personally I feel it's an umbrella term that's used dismissively.
West did not accept he wrote down the wrong time. He disputed that argument. And Myall's Dickinson interview notes now arguably provide some corroboration.
I don't know how much of the log was shown - my understanding is that it's more complicated than you infer.
-
Bill said he posted a reply to one of my posts - but then he couldn't see the reply, so he pm'd me.
Personal radios were notoriously unreliable in the 1970/80 period, with a transmission range of between 1-2 miles depending on factors such as the weather and obstructions in the path of the signal. It is 8.5 miles from Chelmsford to Witham and in my view, impossible for a personal radio to transmit over that distance.
Another question is, if there really was a radio contact with PC Saxby at 03:30 why would West not have asked Saxby to call him back by phone, or answer the phone if West called? A radio conversation only works in one direction – it's not like talking on the telephone. A transmission is one-directional and does not facilitate easy conversation; only one person can speak, the other is forced to listen and cannot interject or ask questions. PC West’s witness statement of 13 September implies that he spoke to PC Saxby for at least one minute, possibly two – that is a very long time to be holding a radio conversation, as radio is prone to breaks in transmission and is also not private (in those days the public could listen in). It would be far easier to explain the situation by telephone than via a radio link that is liable to fail.
So the question is, Why did Saxby lie about this? Simply, because he was asked to help the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber by creating a false timeline of events when PC West seemingly insisted on telling the truth about the time of Jeremy’s phone call at 03:36.
-
David, how about this...
After taking over the case from a previous standpoint where Sheila Caffell was implicated - and a casefile of evidence had been assembled supporting this conclusion
In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:
[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking. Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
1 = conspiracy
2 = ?
-
Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.
Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.
Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.
That's more of a reason to stick with their original theory - that Sheila had done it.
-
That's more of a reason to stick with their original theory - that Sheila had done it.
It's impossible to pinpoint why police would sacrifice a person they either knew to be innocent or suspected was likely innocent. Some police officers clearly favoured the relatives and empathised with their pleas, regarding their perceived 'plight'. It's possible that the patriarch of the relatives had got wind of some info via an informal channel. For example, things not stacking up in relation the TFG op, the positioning of bodies, 'informatives' coming in to carry out training - who knows.
But once the deputy head ordered that the attention should be turned on to JB, the culture at that time was for subordinates to be expected to fall in line and follow suit. in these circs... if those officers now 'on the up' happened to be the same officers who had a cosy relationship with the relatives...
-
It's impossible to pinpoint why police would sacrifice a person they either knew to be innocent or suspected was likely innocent. Some police officers clearly favoured the relatives and empathised with their pleas, regarding their perceived 'plight'. It's possible that the patriarch of the relatives had got wind of some info via an informal channel. For example, things not stacking up in relation the TFG op, the positioning of bodies, 'informatives' coming in to carry out training - who knows.
But once the deputy head ordered that the attention should be turned on to JB, the culture at that time was for subordinates to be expected to fall in line and follow suit. in these circs... if those officers now 'on the up' happened to be the same officers who had a cosy relationship with the relatives...
I don't know why anyone would empathise with the "plight" of the relatives, other than to be sorry they lost part of their family. I'm not going to say much because they wouldn't like what I said.
-
Unless I misunderstanding either you or the CT, is this not what Myall references in his Dickinson interview?
Have you got the reference?
-
Bill said he posted a reply to one of my posts - but then he couldn't see the reply, so he pm'd me.
Police used radio's all of the time and West had no reason to lie.
-
Blimey, give the man a break. He's lost all his family yet is expected to remember every detail that's asked of him. I've said this before that if he had remembered details clearly, I'd have been bothered !
It's a big event in his life, of course he would remember! He gave times in his first W/S - if he didn't remember, he'd have said so. Also, during interview he asked police to refer to his original statement for details.
-
In Pc West's "original" statement, he gave "about 03.26" not "before 03.26". This statement (dated 9th August 1985) doesn't seem to have the "ring of truth". It's as though someone else worded it for him.
Pc West doesn't mention his telephone call to Witham in his statements. He specifically states that he used a radio link, and makes no mention of a separate telephone call to any officer at Witham.
Weirdly, PC West's statement dated 13th August 1985 ends with "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." and makes no mention of his statement of 9th August 1985.
You're doing what the CT and those who seek to apply a conspiracy - the use of the word 'call' simply indicates that a 'communication' was made. It amazes me how people try and twist one word in order to make a new and different situation.
-
We cant answer that without being castigated by David for 'conspiracy theories'. He forgets that the police originally compiled a case file of evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible.
Of course you can answer it - what reason did they have?
-
Pc West states that he asked Jeremy a couple of questions and then put him on hold. He then states that he spent 3 minutes relaying the initial information to the HQ information room. He didn't need 3 minutes to pass on so little information and find out which station covered WHF.
Every sentence has a full stop. His closing sentence didn't need to be included, and many of the earlier sentences covered the same ground as sentences in his statement of the 9th August 1985.
Unless they did have a reason - they'd blundered too much and couldn't afford to be truthful.
How do you know how long it took to relay the message and what else was being said at the time? No reason to lie!
I guess it you were giving the statement, you could choose what to put in or leave out but deciding what other people should do is a little odd.
-
I'm not trying to achieve anything. For me, what is important is to discover what really took place. If that truth includes malpractice and foul play - you have the right to term that a 'conspiracy'. Personally I feel it's an umbrella term that's used dismissively.
West did not accept he wrote down the wrong time. He disputed that argument. And Myall's Dickinson interview notes now arguably provide some corroboration.
I don't know how much of the log was shown - my understanding is that it's more complicated than you infer.
He didn't dispute it, he indicated that it was possible!
All of the log was shown, the CT aren't denying that and if they are, then that's a new one!
-
David, how about this...
After taking over the case from a previous standpoint where Sheila Caffell was implicated - and a casefile of evidence had been assembled supporting this conclusion
In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:
[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking. Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
1 = conspiracy
2 = ?
Not sure what the point if your post is Roch? Obviously further information would be required from witness's - like the Raid team and those that had interaction with Bamber.
-
Police used radio's all of the time and West had no reason to lie.
I think he means that Saxby 'went along' with there being radio communication, as a result of the predicament that Ainsley was placed in, by West stubbornly refusing to change the time of Jeremy's call.
-
I think he means that Saxby 'went along' with there being radio communication, as a result of the predicament that Ainsley was placed in, by West stubbornly refusing to change the time of Jeremy's call.
But that's his assumption based no doubt on the evidence that, like David just did earlier, someone referred to 'call' when they actually meant radioed message.
-
It would be helpful to see the Saxby interview that Bill is referring to?
-
It would be helpful to see the Saxby interview that Bill is referring to?
I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.
-
I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.
What are you on about. Myall's pocketbook states they left Witham at 3:39am and arrived at WHF at 3:45am.
-
COLP interview notes state a radio message re. a domestic incident at WHF--03.35--Saxby.
03.39 CA/7 with PS Bews, PC Mayall and Self to WHF.
-
What are you on about. Myall's pocketbook states they left Witham at 3:39am and arrived at WHF at 3:45am.
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says they left Witham at 03:39, it says nothing about when they arrived at WHF.
His witness statement says that he was on duty at 03:45; in the context of the arrival at Pages Lane that is a meaningless statement, it is not the time they arrived at WHF.
-
I don't recall referring to any interview with Saxby. It is very straightforward. You do the research and you draw conclusions from it. My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, as is the statement that CA7 left Witham at 03:35. They obviously didn't; Myall's pocketbook gives their time of departure as 03:39 - just after West phoned at 03:37. The 03:30 radio communication is a fiction created by Ainsley which Saxby agreed to support.
This is just your opinion and based on timings that you have chosen to back! Please indicate (as you missed it from your time line) when Jeremy called Julie and why he chose to lie about it? Also, why did accuse West of perjury because of his 03:36 time entry?
-
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says they left Witham at 03:39, it says nothing about when they arrived at WHF.
His witness statement says that he was on duty at 03:45; in the context of the arrival at Pages Lane that is a meaningless statement, it is not the time they arrived at WHF.
That's splitting hairs!
-
Someone guessed or remembered the time wrong = Nevil rang the police + Conspiracy
-
Someone guessed or remembered the time wrong = Nevil rang the police + Conspiracy
If you want people on the same side as you to debate on here, sarcastic dismissive remarks won't help. It just drives people back in to lurking.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-new-evidence-could-20651305.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjHv5ufvrXlAhVfThUIHQMuDQcQFjAFegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3t9LuDvHprWW92QAGYdJX6&cf=1
The Mirror is so accurrate it is claiming it is Jeremy's voice.
-
If you want people on the same side as you to debate on here, sarcastic dismissive remarks won't help. It just drives people back in to lurking.
As you know, usually I don't get along with David, however, what I will say is that like me, he doesn't accept things just because they support an 'innocent' Bamber and it is rather frustrating when people come along, make sweeping statements, refuse to answer anything put to them and either just bugger off or loiter as a guest.
If their argument is sound, they should be able to back it up. Bill et al's argument goes against what Jeremy maintained at the time (he called police around 03:25 and called the police before Julie) and against what both West and Bonnet stated (no call from Nevill).
I have asked Bill what time he thinks Bamber called Julie - no response.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-new-evidence-could-20651305.amp&ved=2ahUKEwjHv5ufvrXlAhVfThUIHQMuDQcQFjAFegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3t9LuDvHprWW92QAGYdJX6&cf=1
The Mirror is so accurrate it is claiming it is Jeremy's voice.
WTF ...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
WTF ...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
See how inaccurate these things are? Jeremy didn't call 999 for starters. They are obviously trying to dramatise the article.
-
It does not matter when Jeremy called Julie. Calling her to 'hear a friendly voice' could be done before or after calling the police.
But a bit weird getting a frantic 4 second call from Nevill, then calling Julie straight away.
More plausible he would call Julie after speaking to the police & calming down a bit. This would of course mean he phoned the police at 3.26am as he would not have time to call Julie after a 3.36am call.
-
My conclusion is that there was no radio communication at 03:30; it is a lie, . . .
You also asserted (according to Roch) "Personal radios were notoriously unreliable in the 1970/80 period, with a transmission range of between 1-2 miles depending on factors such as the weather and obstructions in the path of the signal." However, Pc West asserted that he used a radio link between Chelmsford police station and Witham police station, rather than a personally carried radio.
-
If the CT is saying Jeremy called the police at 3.36am, then he called Julie beforehand.
Not for advice but to 'hear a friendly voice'.
-
If the CT is saying Jeremy called the police at 3.36am, then he called Julie beforehand.
Not for advice but to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Exactly! But he denies that - can't have it both ways!
-
If he got Nevill's call around 3.10am, then called the police at 3.36am, that is 26 minutes.
Did he have session under his sun bed?
-
If he got Nevill's call around 3.10am, then called the police at 3.36am, that is 26 minutes.
Did he have session under his sun bed?
Adam! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It does not matter when Jeremy called Julie. Calling her to 'hear a friendly voice' could be done before or after calling the police.
But a bit weird getting a frantic 4 second call from Nevill, then calling Julie straight away.
He evidently tried to call Nevill back first. Unable to get back to Nevill, he wasn't sure what to do and so he telephoned Julie for advice. He eventually spoke to her, but she wasn't helpful.
-
He evidently tried to call Nevill back first. Unable to get back to Nevill, he wasn't sure what to do and so he telephoned Julie for advice. He eventually spoke to her, but she wasn't helpful.
He denies calling Julie first - even now!
-
Then he's mistaken. The earliest available evidence (from both him and Julie) indicates he telephoned Julie before calling the police.
-
He evidently tried to call Nevill back first. Unable to get back to Nevill, he wasn't sure what to do and so he telephoned Julie for advice. He eventually spoke to her, but she wasn't helpful.
He said he phoned her to 'hear a friendly voice'. And phoned her after the police. Although he is now saying he phoned her before the police.
-
Then he's mistaken. The earliest available evidence (from both him and Julie) indicates he telephoned Julie before calling the police.
Mistaken? Really? You think he's JUST mistaken? ;D
-
He said he phoned her to 'hear a friendly voice'. And phoned her after the police. Although he is now saying he phoned her before the police.
No, NOW he is saying he phoned her 'after' the police - the time scales being claimed here make that impossible.
-
Julie did give Jeremy some advice - 'go back to bed'.
-
No, NOW he is saying he phoned her 'after' the police - the time scales being claimed here make that impossible.
He's now indirectly saying he phoned her before the police. But does not want to draw attention to it. The Mirror won't focus on it & just publicise Nevill's call claim.
-
The CT focus on Nevill's call because it creates maximum publicity.
It's not some boring technicality. It shows Jeremy is innocent & the biggest MOJ & Industrial frame ever has occurred. Over 34 years.
Correct or not, the media will love it
-
Nevill's call is also easy for the public to understand. People not familiar with the case will understand how a call makes Jeremy innocent.
The Mirror & other similar newspapers won't want to confuse the public with anything too complicated.
People that read the Nevill's call articles may be attracted to the case.
-
If you want people on the same side as you to debate on here, sarcastic dismissive remarks won't help. It just drives people back in to lurking.
I know enough people on the same side as me who know there is nothing to debate here, as far as this subject is concerned. If anything drives people back to lurking it’s absurd ideas like this.
-
Nevill's call is also easy for the public to understand. People not familiar with the case will understand how a call makes Jeremy innocent.
The Mirror & other similar newspapers won't want to confuse the public with anything too complicated.
People that read the Nevill's call articles may be attracted to the case.
Yes, agree, but anyone who spends a little while looking into things will see it's hot air.
-
I know enough people on the same side as me who know there is nothing to debate here, as far as this subject is concerned. If anything drives people back to lurking it’s absurd ideas like this.
When you ask a believer in Nevills police call. Why Taff Jones never told Robert Boutflour about it?
(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Patrick-Star-Dumb-Confused-Uhhh..-On-Spongebob.gif)
-
Have we seen " Taff " Jones's notebook ?
-
Exactly! But he denies that - can't have it both ways!
He'd have phoned JM when he couldn't get back to his father during WHF's engaged line.
-
When you ask a believer in Nevills police call. Why Taff Jones never told Robert Boutflour about it?
(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Patrick-Star-Dumb-Confused-Uhhh..-On-Spongebob.gif)
Or anyone.
-
He'd have phoned JM when he couldn't get back to his father during WHF's engaged line.
Not sure what that has to do with the fact that he claims he called the police first.
-
Not sure what that has to do with the fact that he claims he called the police first.
For what it's worth because of the short length of time he was on the phone to JM who'd told him to go back to bed anyway, he'd easily have fitted in the call to police after that.
-
If the CT is saying Jeremy called the police at 3.36am, then he called Julie beforehand.
Not for advice but to 'hear a friendly voice'.
Exactly! But he denies that - can't have it both ways!
Jeremy was interviewed as follows:
And how long were you on the phone to her?
A minute two minutes not very long as I had to ring the police.
Did you then ring the Chelmsford Police?
Yes.
When asked again about this order of calls, the interview continued as follows:
You then phoned Chelmsford Police Station and told them what had happened, is that right?
No, I think I phoned Julie before them first.
Why phone Julie before phoning the police?
I don't remember my reasons.
Jeremy's questioning on this continued and Jeremy repeatedly said he couldn't remember until eventually, when pressed as to why he called Julie, Jeremy replied "At the time I probably felt pissed off by my reaction from the police and needed a friendly ear." This was clearly said out of frustration, the true situation being that he couldn't be sure which call he made first and couldn't remember what he had said to Julie. It's reasonable to suppose that he told Julie that his father had telephoned him, which implies that he expected her advice as to what he should do. This is consistent with Julie's initial recollection of his call.
Also, Jeremy thought that his first statement was reliable in relation to the above matters. However, that statement didn't clarify either the order of the calls or what was said in the conversation other than that he called her to say that something appeared wrong.
-
When you ask a believer in Nevills police call. Why Taff Jones never told Robert Boutflour about it?
(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Patrick-Star-Dumb-Confused-Uhhh..-On-Spongebob.gif)
You're about ten years too late. This and similar questions have already been asked (and continue to be so).
-
I know enough people on the same side as me who know there is nothing to debate here, as far as this subject is concerned. If anything drives people back to lurking it’s absurd ideas like this.
The forum experience is lessened, when good posters and researchers (regardless of whether you agree with them) are put off.
I've done it myself but I wouldn't do it now.
-
Exactly! But he denies that - can't have it both ways!
Jeremy was interviewed as follows:
And how long were you on the phone to her?
A minute two minutes not very long as I had to ring the police.
Did you then ring the Chelmsford Police?
Yes.
When asked again about this order of calls, the interview continued as follows:
You then phoned Chelmsford Police Station and told them what had happened, is that right?
No, I think I phoned Julie before them first.
Why phone Julie before phoning the police?
I don't remember my reasons.
Jeremy's questioning on this continued and Jeremy repeatedly said he couldn't remember until eventually, when pressed as to why he called Julie, Jeremy replied "At the time I probably felt pissed off by my reaction from the police and needed a friendly ear." This was clearly said out of frustration, the true situation being that he couldn't be sure which call he made first and couldn't remember what he had said to Julie. It's reasonable to suppose that he told Julie that his father had telephoned him, which implies that he expected her advice as to what he should do. This is consistent with Julie's initial recollection of his call.
Also, Jeremy thought that his first statement was reliable in relation to the above matters. However, that statement didn't clarify either the order of the calls or what was said in the conversation other than that he called her to say that something appeared wrong.
Interesting that he remembers that he had to quickly terminate his call to Julie as he had to ring the police. Then later says he called Julie after the police.
He's now saying he called Julie before the police. As he would not have had time to call her after a 3.36am call to the police.
-
Exactly! But he denies that - can't have it both ways!
Jeremy was interviewed as follows:
And how long were you on the phone to her?
A minute two minutes not very long as I had to ring the police.
Did you then ring the Chelmsford Police?
Yes.
When asked again about this order of calls, the interview continued as follows:
You then phoned Chelmsford Police Station and told them what had happened, is that right?
No, I think I phoned Julie before them first.
Why phone Julie before phoning the police?
I don't remember my reasons.
Jeremy's questioning on this continued and Jeremy repeatedly said he couldn't remember until eventually, when pressed as to why he called Julie, Jeremy replied "At the time I probably felt pissed off by my reaction from the police and needed a friendly ear." This was clearly said out of frustration, the true situation being that he couldn't be sure which call he made first and couldn't remember what he had said to Julie. It's reasonable to suppose that he told Julie that his father had telephoned him, which implies that he expected her advice as to what he should do. This is consistent with Julie's initial recollection of his call.
Also, Jeremy thought that his first statement was reliable in relation to the above matters. However, that statement didn't clarify either the order of the calls or what was said in the conversation other than that he called her to say that something appeared wrong.
Jeremy is ADAMANT that he called Julie AFTER the police. He got himself into a muddle in interview, However, since then, he has told both myself and Mike that he called the police first - not only that, (and I will say this again and the risk of boring myself with it!) - He tried to bring a perjury charge against West, who he accused of changing the time on his log from 03:26 (the time he insisted he called the police) to 03:36. His reasoning was that it was supposed to make it look as though he called Julie before the police. He was THAT adamant. Now all this has change to support West's log entry - games and tactics! I have shown NGB the document I am referring to so can back up my claim if he so wishes.
-
After learning that something is going on in the family home anyone would be entitled to be in a " muddle " and the last thing you'd be thinking about is jotting down times ! The uncertainty of a situation alone is confusing enough. JB wouldn't have known if he was on his head or his heels especially after being told to " go back to bed ". Support ? I don't think so, and he had no-one else.
-
From the OS-
Jeremy Bamber's lawyer, Mark Newby, is currently in an ongoing discussion with the CPS regarding the non-disclosure of key evidence.
At the time of the trial the Defence did not know that there was more than one sound moderator seized by police. One came from the relatives (later estate beneficiaries) who found the moderator at the house days after the police had finished their work.
The other was probably taken by police from the house before the end of their scenes of crime work. It is impossible to tell the difference between them at various times, but disclosed paperwork shows that there were two moderators being examined on the same day, each with different contaminates and having different characteristics. This means that we can be certain there were two.
-------------
Not sure how this benefits Jeremy.
I have not seen any evidence that the police had two moderators. Thought they took nothing from the gun cupboard. But no big deal if at some point they did have two moderators. There would have been two or more at WHF.
If one moderator had back splatter blood inside matching Sheila's, that incriminates Bamber. The police did not need to use two silencers for that.
The OS suggests the relatives put the blood in. Again they would not need two moderators to do that.
Hopefully the OS can explain how this is a good enough technicality.
-
The police could only submit one moderator to Huntingdon. So no benefit in having two with them.
-
After learning that something is going on in the family home anyone would be entitled to be in a " muddle " and the last thing you'd be thinking about is jotting down times ! The uncertainty of a situation alone is confusing enough. JB wouldn't have known if he was on his head or his heels especially after being told to " go back to bed ". Support ? I don't think so, and he had no-one else.
It would have appeared that JM was never expecting anything to go wrong as regards WHF particularly involving JB otherwise she wouldn't have been so quick in telling him to go back to bed, would she ?
-
Where are " Taff " Jones's notes ? Where are his writings/reports on the case ?
-
Where are " Taff " Jones's notes ? Where are his writings/reports on the case ?
You think that because they aren’t on this forum, they don’t exist? ::)
-
From the OS -
'Disclosed paperwork shows that there were two moderators being examined on the same day, each with different contaminates and having different characteristics. This means that we can be certain there were two.'
-----------
Are the OS saying the police fabricated two moderators. Then submitted both to the lab team at different times. One with blood in, one with paint on. Then asked the relatives to say they found one moderator?
The lab team examined two moderators on the same day & merged the results to relate to one moderator. Meaning they are part of the industrial frame.
-
You think that because they aren’t on this forum, they don’t exist? ::)
No, I'm just asking where they are and waiting for some bright spark to tell me, that's all.
-
You're about ten years too late. This and similar questions have already been asked (and continue to be so).
And the logical answer is. There was no call to bring up in the first place.
-
From the OS -
'Disclosed paperwork shows that there were two moderators being examined on the same day, each with different contaminates and having different characteristics. This means that we can be certain there were two.'
-----------
Are the OS saying the police fabricated two moderators. Then submitted both to the lab team at different times. One with blood in, one with paint on. Then asked the relatives to say they found one moderator?
The lab team examined two moderators on the same day & merged the results to relate to one moderator. Meaning they are part of the industrial frame.
There should by rights only have been one silencer that was expected to feature, the one with paint on it to show the jury that " there had been a struggle " resulting in the Aga being affected by scratches. But-------on the day of the murders when the photographer was there taking pics of the Aga and its surround, there were no marks/scratches on it as they were found some time after, along with the silencer and its paint.
-
Hopefully the OS will go into more detail about the two moderators being examined at the same time.
-
Myalls pocket has a time of 3:39am for departure and 3:45am for arrival. However that would mean CAO7 travelled at around 80mph.
If we go by Bonnets time of departure. Then we have a more realistic speed 50mph
-
The OS say that the relatives handed in a moderator. See reply 479.
This would have had blood and paint on, otherwise there was no point handing it in. The relatives in their WS's say the moderator they found had blood & paint on. The police would have handed this to the lab team.
So why would the police need to submit a second moderator to the lab team?
-
Hopefully the OS will go into more detail about the two moderators being examined at the same time.
Not forgetting that one was also damaged too but I don't know if it was the one with paint on it or not---------for authenticity you understand.
-
And the logical answer is. There was no call to bring up in the first place.
At face value, that would seem to be the most logical answer. However, this case is something else.
-
At face value, that would seem to be the most logical answer. However, this case is something else.
It's been MADE to be something else.
-
It's been MADE to be something else.
May I respectfully remind you, that is your OPINION ;D
-
At face value, that would seem to be the most logical answer. However, this case is something else.
Not only at face value. If one looks at all the evidence its apparent there was only one call to the police.
B..b..b..but Ainsley conspired to make it look that way! (https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)
-
It's been MADE to be something else.
No, it's been FOUND OUT to be something else. Two heads are always better than one----the other being a sheep's head.
-
Not only at face value. If one looks at all the evidence its apparent there was only one call to the police.
B..b..b..but Ainsley conspired to make it look that way! (https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/067/774/edb.png)
If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, then Ainsley, as head of the investigation, must have conspired with somebody in order to convict him.
-
If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, then Ainsley, as head of the investigation, must have conspired with somebody in order to convict him.
No.
What brought Jeremy to trial was Malcom Fletcher's misguided conclusions that Sheila's gunshot wounds were not self inflicted. Thanks to what his relatives installed into the investigation.
What convicted Jeremy was a poor defence strategy from an inadequate defence team followed by an unfair summing up by the judge.
Ainsley didn't do nothing.
-
Ainsley visited RWB on the 6th of September to tell him that JM was helping police with their enquiries and was also backing what the relatives said about JB's involvement with the shootings.
This can be found in RWB's COLP statement of 1991.
-
No.
What brought Jeremy to trial was Malcom Fletcher's misguided conclusions that Sheila's gunshot wounds were not self inflicted. Thanks to what his relatives installed into the investigation.
What convicted Jeremy was a poor defence strategy from an inadequate defence team followed by an unfair summing up by the judge.
Ainsley didn't do nothing.
Then stick to this type of post, where you argue in this manner. It's interesting to read your research and opinions.
-
Then stick to this type of post, where you argue in this manner. It's interesting to read your research and opinions.
OK Understood. But I wouldn't have given you that answer if you didn't explain your thought process behind Ainsley having to do it in the first place.
Evidence was suppressed from the trial in this case. That's nothing uncommon. But the idea of Nevills call does not fall into that category, because what is believed to be Nevills police phone log was presented at trial. The two operators who are alleged to have taken such a call testified at the trial.
-
Saxby took both the radio and telephone call.
-
No, it's been FOUND OUT to be something else. Two heads are always better than one----the other being a sheep's head.
MADE that way!
-
According to that note, both messages were from HQ, so neither was from Pc West, who was at Chelmsford police station.
-
According to that note, both messages were from HQ, so neither was from Pc West, who was at Chelmsford police station.
Chelmsford police station is their headquarters.
-
No. CD was the code for Chelmsford police station. HQ was at Springfield, a different place in Chelmsford.
-
No. CD was the code for Chelmsford police station. HQ was at Springfield, a different place in Chelmsford.
Now you are just splitting hairs.
-
Saxby took both the radio and telephone call.
Bonnet must have called Saxby using the phone because it's on his log (CA7) and perfectly matches the time in his pocket book. and he was at HQ
-
In his statement of 23 September 1985, however, PC Saxby asserts that he received a radio message from Chelmsford Police Station at about 03:30 and makes no mention of receiving a telephone call from Bonnett or HQ.
He then states that as a result of that message, he left to attend WHF with Ps Bew and Pc Myall at about 03:35, arriving at about 0345.
Bonnett stated that after being contacted by Pc West, he (Bonnett) contacted a mobile police car (CA7). Contacting a car would have to be by radio. He then states that he sent that vehicle to WHF at 03:35 and subsequently received notification by radio at 03:48 of its arrival at WHF.
-
In his statement of 23 September 1985, however, PC Saxby asserts that he received a radio message from Chelmsford Police Station at about 03:30 and makes no mention of receiving a telephone call from Bonnett or HQ.
At 10am the same morning he wrote about the telephone and radio calls in his pocketbook. Six weeks later he has probably forgotten about it.
He then states that as a result of that message, he left to attend WHF with Ps Bew and Pc Myall at about 03:35, arriving at about 0345.
Yes
Bonnett stated that after being contacted by Pc West, he (Bonnett) contacted a mobile police car (CA7). Contacting a car would have to be by radio. He then states that he sent that vehicle to WHF at 03:35 and subsequently received notification by radio at 03:48 of its arrival at WHF.
Yes. The likely explanation for that is by the time Bonnet received the message it was 3:48 on his clock. The clock display in CA07 was three minutes behind Bonnets. Or there was a delay in updating bonnet about their arrival.
-
In his statement of 23 September 1985, however, PC Saxby asserts that he received a radio message from Chelmsford Police Station at about 03:30 and makes no mention of receiving a telephone call from Bonnett or HQ.
He then states that as a result of that message, he left to attend WHF with Ps Bew and Pc Myall at about 03:35, arriving at about 0345.
Bonnett stated that after being contacted by Pc West, he (Bonnett) contacted a mobile police car (CA7). Contacting a car would have to be by radio. He then states that he sent that vehicle to WHF at 03:35 and subsequently received notification by radio at 03:48 of its arrival at WHF.
So what? Perhaps West did call - what difference does it make?
-
Saxby and Myalls pocket books both state they left the station at 3.39. While Bews pocket pocket book states 3.40.
However six weeks later they all claim they left at 3:35am. That is because the times in their pocket books would mean they must have travelled at over 90mph. Hence they all agreed they left at 3.35 making the journey speed a plausible 50mph.
So probably the clock at Witham was ahead of the clocks at HQ.
If Bews and Myall are accurate in their arrival time as well as everything else par departure time. It would mean Jeremy left his place at around 3:39am
-
So what? Perhaps West did call - what difference does it make?
Pc West consistently and specifically stated that he used radio to do that, not telephone, whereas the recent notes relating to the Dickinson enquiry very specifically say that Pc West telephoned while he still had Jeremy on hold on the other (telephone) line. If both Bonnett and Pc West contacted Pc Saxby, he would presumably tell the second caller that he'd just been sent to WHF by the first caller, but neither Bonnett nor Pc West make any mention of that, and neither suggests Bonnett and Pc West contacted Pc Saxby simultaneously.
-
Pc West consistently and specifically stated that he used radio to do that, not telephone, whereas the recent notes relating to the Dickinson enquiry very specifically say that Pc West telephoned while he still had Jeremy on hold on the other (telephone) line. If both Bonnett and Pc West contacted Pc Saxby, he would presumably tell the second caller that he'd just been sent to WHF by the first caller, but neither Bonnett nor Pc West make any mention of that, and neither suggests Bonnett and Pc West contacted Pc Saxby simultaneously.
And? How would it have enriched the evidence? Which notes are you referring to?
-
Bill, do you have any intentions of addressing the problems and disputes with your "undisputed end of story"?
-
The frustrating element about this whole case is that back in October 1986 the full logs,documents were not available for disclosure to the defence. In my opinion how can a man have a fair trial without every aspect laid bare in the open. From the September 1985 arrest to the commencement of the trial some thirteen months later why wasn't all these missing logs discovered laid bare etc???? Why, and I place empathise on the word why, is Jeremy Bambers legal team discovering missing logs some 34 years later???? Why was this all suppressed and hidden? Regardless of guilt or innocence. We are supposed to be a developed country with the best justice system. Something stinks...
-
The frustrating element about this whole case is that back in October 1986 the full logs,documents were not available for disclosure to the defence. In my opinion how can a man have a fair trial without every aspect laid bare in the open. From the September 1985 arrest to the commencement of the trial some thirteen months later why wasn't all these missing logs discovered laid bare etc???? Why, and I place empathise on the word why, is Jeremy Bambers legal team discovering missing logs some 34 years later???? Why was this all suppressed and hidden? Regardless of guilt or innocence. We are supposed to be a developed country with the best justice system. Something stinks...
Which logs weren't available?
-
3.27am... God they must have put Jeremy through the mill at sports day at greashams...
?
-
Thtime your run from goldhanger to Whitehouse farm xx
-
Time your run error on my behalf xx why was west talking to Jeremy at 3.37am love??
-
Time your run error on my behalf xx why was west talking to Jeremy at 3.37am love??
He wasn't.
-
He wasn't.
Jeremy didn't go on foot from Goldhanger to WHF after talking to West, he drove.
-
No love you didn't answer my question why was the time recorded at 3.37????
-
Apologise for the 3.27am 3.37am a mistake purely on my own typing error. I just want to know the simple answer as to why we are only discovering the little things like this 34 years later?...
-
Apologise for the 3.27am 3.37am a mistake purely on my own typing error. I just want to know the simple answer as to why we are only discovering the little things like this 34 years later?...
Discovering what? An entry in a log written as a correction to a previous entry with the word 'approx' underneath it? Were not 'discovering anything - we're in the midst of a(nother) publicity stunt!
-
Shall we give this a chance rather than going down the old route of police " correcting mistakes ?"
-
Bonnett must have called Saxby using the phone because it's on his log (CA7) and perfectly matches the time in his pocket book. and he was at HQ
When re-examined by Mr Arlidge during Jeremy's trial, Bonnett was asked as follows about his 0335 entry for CA7:
"That is you telephoning and telling someone to go to the scene."
Bonnett replied as follows:
"No, that is getting on to the radio and contacting the vehicle by radio to send them to the scene and recording the time."
Bonnett's log doesn't indicate that he telephoned Pc Saxby at all.
-
Shall we give this a chance rather than going down the old route of police " correcting mistakes ?"
You admitted yourself that it was rubbish. I'm not stopping the CCRC looking at it, I just know it's on a hiding to nowhere.
-
When re-examined by Mr Arlidge during Jeremy's trial, Bonnett was asked as follows about his 0335 entry for CA7:
"That is you telephoning and telling someone to go to the scene."
Bonnett replied as follows:
"No, that is getting on to the radio and contacting the vehicle by radio to send them to the scene and recording the time."
Bonnett's log doesn't indicate that he telephoned Pc Saxby at all.
How is this even relevant - who telephoned? Who radioed? Who cares?
-
If both Nevill and Jeremy called the police, the supposedly reliable evidence might turn out not to be consistent.
-
If both Nevill and Jeremy called the police, the supposedly reliable evidence might turn out not to be consistent.
Neither West or Bonnet ever mentioned recieving a call from Nevill.
-
If both Nevill and Jeremy called the police, the supposedly reliable evidence might turn out not to be consistent.
Nevill didn't call the police.
-
If one can't rely on what they did state, one can't rely on what they didn't state. Their accounts aren't consistent.
-
If one can't rely on what they did state, one can't rely on what they didn't state. Their accounts aren't consistent.
Well, this can be said about Jeremy. However, where are the notes you mentioned earlier?
-
If one can't rely on what they did state, one can't rely on what they didn't state. Their accounts aren't consistent.
Their accounts are consisted.
Jeremy called the police. They dispatched the police to the scene. That is what happened.
Nit-picking reasonable inconsistencies and human error wont reveal anything because that is all it is.
-
Discovering what? An entry in a log written as a correction to a previous entry with the word 'approx' underneath it? Were not 'discovering anything - we're in the midst of a(nother) publicity stunt!
or something sillier like a miscarriage of justice
-
or something sillier like a miscarriage of justice
Whether you believe Bamber guilty or innocent, the 03:37 reference makes no sense and conflicts with what Jeremy himself has maintained - until now.
-
Whether you believe Bamber guilty or innocent, the 03:37 reference makes no sense and conflicts with what Jeremy himself has maintained - until now.
explain how please ...
-
explain how please ...
I have explained, several times in this thread.
-
Well, this can be said about Jeremy. However, where are the notes you mentioned earlier?
I was referring to the snippet showing a time amended to 03:37 that the CT have disclosed, stating that it's from a document found amongst documents relating to the Dickinson enquiry. We don't know whether the amendment was made at the time of the enquiry.
-
I was referring to the snippet showing a time amended to 03:37 that the CT have disclosed, stating that it's from a document found amongst documents relating to the Dickinson enquiry. We don't know whether the amendment was made at the time of the enquiry.
We know Jeremy was on hold for roughly ten minutes after 3:26am on Bonnets clock. And we now know he was on hold for maybe a minute more according to someone else's clock.
What is this supposed to prove? ??? ??? ???
-
I was referring to the snippet showing a time amended to 03:37 that the CT have disclosed, stating that it's from a document found amongst documents relating to the Dickinson enquiry. We don't know whether the amendment was made at the time of the enquiry.
Not only is it an amendment but is has has 'approx' written underneath.
-
That's clearly their problem.
It's rather more a perceived problem without basis that others are trying to load on them.
-
I was MORE concerned about my Dad then the time, I looked at the clock so I could have an idea of how long the paramedics would take and I'll never forget someone pronouncing my dad dead nor when they took him out of the house!
Jeremy on the other hand, offered up the time of 03:10 and 03:25, had he said, I don't recall and in his (so called) desperate state, called 999 - I might agree on the shock suggestion.
He was also able to say with some clarity what he'd watched on the television so the 'shock and horror' he is alleged to have experienced at his father's alleged call certainly didn't wipe his memory clean.
-
He was also able to say with some clarity what he'd watched on the television so the 'shock and horror' he is alleged to have experienced at his father's alleged call certainly didn't wipe his memory clean.
Possibly but people deal differently with shock. Some can be really lucid and remember the smallest detail while others may be confused.
-
Possibly but people deal differently with shock. Some can be really lucid and remember the smallest detail while others may be confused.
Possibly but people deal differently with shock. Some can be really lucid and remember the smallest detail while others may be confused.
Mmm. Jeremy, it seems, managed both ;)
-
Possibly but people deal differently with shock. Some can be really lucid and remember the smallest detail while others may be confused.
There was no reason for him to be in any kind of shock - all he'd had was a phone call.
-
Shall we give this a chance rather than going down the old route of police " correcting mistakes ?"
I'm willing to do that. I have always said that I don't think there was a call from Nevill, but I'll listen if you can come up with an explanation as to why West appeared to forget that call.
-
I'm willing to do that. I have always said that I don't think there was a call from Nevill, but I'll listen if you can come up with an explanation as to why West appeared to forget that call.
There isn't one, unless you factor in a conspiracy. The problem with that is that it would have had to have been implemented from day one. Also, Taff Jones would almost certainly have thrown such a call in the face of the relatives.
-
I'm willing to do that. I have always said that I don't think there was a call from Nevill, but I'll listen if you can come up with an explanation as to why West appeared to forget that call.
I find there to be a huge problem with what's said of West's 'motives'. Everything that's said is with the benefit of what we know NOW. On that night in 1985, NONE of it was known because as far as the police were concerned nothing had happened. Unless we're prepared to accept the lunacy of another call being deliberately withheld SHOULD 'they' decide to prosecute Jeremy, OR that they were looking for another prosecution to boost their poor record, NONE of West's alleged thoughts that night make any sort of sense.
-
There was no reason for him to be in any kind of shock - all he'd had was a phone call.
very true Caroline. I mean receiving a phone call like that in the middle of the night, Of that magnitude is just an every day routine occurrence isn't it......
-
very true Caroline. I mean receiving a phone call like that in the middle of the night, Of that magnitude is just an every day routine occurrence isn't it......
Well, it was of such magnitude that it didn't warrant Bamber dialling 999! Can't have it both ways love!
-
Well, it was of such magnitude that it didn't warrant Bamber dialling 999! Can't have it both ways love!
It is 1985 it's rural Essex. 999 was not firmly established till the late seventies. Maybe it was common practice at that era and in those type of areas still to telephone local police stations. If I remember correctly Jeremy Bamber said that when asked why he didn't phone 999 he said that he thought it wouldn't make any difference in police arrival time.
-
. . . come up with an explanation as to why West appeared to forget that call.
I would think it's routine not to delay dealing with a call by saying what's previously happened, especially when nobody (including the caller) knows what's happening at WHF.
-
It is 1985 it's rural Essex. 999 was not firmly established till the late seventies. Maybe it was common practice at that era and in those type of areas still to telephone local police stations. If I remember correctly Jeremy Bamber said that when asked why he didn't phone 999 he said that he thought it wouldn't make any difference in police arrival time.
Eh? The 999 service is the worlds OLDEST emergency call telephone service. You would have to be an idiot not to understand the difference and Jeremy isn't an idiot!
-
Eh? The 999 service is the worlds OLDEST emergency call telephone service. You would have to be an idiot not to understand the difference and Jeremy isn't an idiot!
The argument for NOT calling 999 is the weakest of ALL the innocent arguments! 'He was in shock' 'He didn't think it would make a difference' all weak arguments for something I believe most people would have done in the same situation!
-
So why didn't he call 999 if he'd done it? Can anything really be read into this?
-
The argument for NOT calling 999 is the weakest of ALL the innocent arguments! 'He was in shock' 'He didn't think it would make a difference' all weak arguments for something I believe most people would have done in the same situation!
no one unless placed in that situation can say what they would or wouldn't do.
-
no one unless placed in that situation can say what they would or wouldn't do.
I can and would have called 999! No question, I certainly wouldn't have buggered about for 26 minutes!
-
So why didn't he call 999 if he'd done it? Can anything really be read into this?
I suspect because he wanted things to unfold rather than an all guns blazing storm. He could control things better tat way.
-
So why didn't he call 999 if he'd done it? Can anything really be read into this?
Certainly it can. It goes a bit like this. When one first gets the script for a play there's a cold read-through, ie we just read the written words. At that time we're not 'into' the character we're hoping to play. By the time the play is staged, we're living the character we're playing. We feel what they're feeling. It seems to me that Jeremy was at the read through stage. Although it was technically correct, it lacked feeling, and the reason it lacked feeling was, because there was no phone call for him to draw on, he hadn't experienced the terror Nevill was likely to have felt HAD he felt compelled to call his son at that hour, and only remembered, at the last minute, when complaining about being kept waiting, that it might be a good thing to say his father sounded terrified.
-
no one unless placed in that situation can say what they would or wouldn't do.
I have been, and I did. It would be arrogant to believe myself capable of dealing with something which was beyond my ability. I'd choose to leave it to someone who knew what they were doing.
-
I have been, and I did. It would be arrogant to believe myself capable of dealing with something which was beyond my ability. I'd choose to leave it to someone who knew what they were doing.
how did Jeremy Bamber act like he was capable of dealing with it???
-
how did Jeremy Bamber act like he was capable of dealing with it???
How did he not?
-
How did he not?
how does phoning the police make one seem like they are capable of dealing with it themselves???
-
how does phoning the police make one seem like they are capable of dealing with it themselves???
There was nothing to deal with - no call from Nevill - he already knew they were dead!
-
There was nothing to deal with - no call from Nevill - he already knew they were dead!
no that's just a an opinion love.Il ask it again, by phoning the police how was Jeremy Bamber in control and capable of dealing it with by himself???
-
I suspect because he wanted things to unfold rather than an all guns blazing storm. He could control things better tat way.
Assuming Jeremy Bamber is guilty what difference would it make if there were all guns blazing? Whether it be the the full armed force or dads army in a Hillman avenger going to WHF, the same outcome inside the farm house would be discovered. How would he be able to ' control' things???
-
I can and would have called 999! No question, I certainly wouldn't have buggered about for 26 minutes!
have you been in that situation or are you just stating an opinion? I'm not a gambling man but I'm inclined to go with the latter
-
no that's just a an opinion love.Il ask it again, by phoning the police how was Jeremy Bamber in control and capable of dealing it with by himself???
Well, 'pet' if Nevill didn't make any call to Jeremy, he was controlling the WHOLE process by using the call as his alibi. It's impossible for me to argue from the standpoint of Nevill calling because I don't believe he did. It's not difficult 'pet'.
-
Assuming Jeremy Bamber is guilty what difference would it make if there were all guns blazing? Whether it be the the full armed force or dads army in a Hillman avenger going to WHF, the same outcome inside the farm house would be discovered. How would he be able to ' control' things???
Well that depends when he shot them doesn't it? Have you read much about this case at all? He told police his sister was a nutter and that she knew how to use guns. It doesn't take a genius to work out that under those circumstances, unarmed officers would be unlikely to break their way in!
-
have you been in that situation or are you just stating an opinion? I'm not a gambling man but I'm inclined to go with the latter
I don't have to be in that situation to know what I would do - it's the easy option and passed the problem to people who are trained to deal with it. If it happened to you, you would just sit there for 26 minutes and ponder your navel? ::)
-
Well, 'pet' if Nevill didn't make any call to Jeremy, he was controlling the WHOLE process by using the call as his alibi. It's impossible for me to argue from the standpoint of Nevill calling because I don't believe he did. It's not difficult 'pet'.
but Ralph did phone the police didn't he??
-
but Ralph did phone the police didn't he??
No!
-
Well that depends when he shot them doesn't it? Have you read much about this case at all? He told police his sister was a nutter and that she knew how to use guns. It doesn't take a genius to work out that under those circumstances, unarmed officers would be unlikely to break their way in!
what relevance is this? How would he be helping himself. Even if guilty it would just be delaying the inevitable. Someone at some point would access the farmhouse whether it be all guns blazing or if it was pc heartbeat and co they would call the armed response unit. He wouldn't be controlling the situation would he.
-
Well that depends when he shot them doesn't it? Have you read much about this case at all? He told police his sister was a nutter and that she knew how to use guns. It doesn't take a genius to work out that under those circumstances, unarmed officers would be unlikely to break their way in!
why would he need to tell the police that his sister knew how to use guns if he already had rang them to say his father had just phoned him to say his sister had just gone crazy and has ' the gun'
-
what relevance is this? How would he be helping himself. Even if guilty it would just be delaying the inevitable. Someone at some point would access the farmhouse whether it be all guns blazing or if it was pc heartbeat and co they would call the armed response unit. He wouldn't be controlling the situation would he.
Firstly, I have edited your post to make it readable - you deleted one of the brackets that separates my quote from yours.
From Jeremy's report, no one had been shot, IF police entered a short while after and found all dead in such a short space of time, it would lead to suspicion.
-
why would he need to tell the police that his sister knew how to use guns if he already had rang them to say his father had just phoned him to say his sister had just gone crazy and has ' the gun'
I think it's quite obvious - it pushes the notion that not only has she got the gun, she knows how to use it.
-
why would he need to tell the police that his sister knew how to use guns if he already had rang them to say his father had just phoned him to say his sister had just gone crazy and has ' the gun'
Perhaps it was because there's a dividing line between someone waving a gun about and having the ability to use one for the purpose for which it was made. Jeremy, having left them all dead, needed to impress on the police, whilst he had their full attention, that Sheila was gun competent, in order to plant the seed in their minds that she was capable of murder.
-
Firstly, I have edited your post to make it readable - you deleted one of the brackets that separates my quote from yours.
From Jeremy's report, no one had been shot, IF police entered a short while after and found all dead in such a short space of time, it would lead to suspicion.
" your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun" the phone line went dead, whose to say no one had been injured or shot??
-
I think it's quite obvious - it pushes the notion that not only has she got the gun, she knows how to use it.
she grew up in a farming household surrounded by men who habitually went off shooting game like any other adolescent growing up in a certain environment she would have picked up the basics. It's common sense and she went on shooting holidays and knew how to handle a gun
-
" your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun" the phone line went dead, whose to say no one had been injured or shot??
No one was shot, there was no phone call!
-
she grew up in a farming household surrounded by men who habitually went off shooting game like any other adolescent growing up in a certain environment she would have picked up the basics. It's common sense and she went on shooting holidays and knew how to handle a gun
She went on one and fired a shotgun into the air - once. That's it.
I live in a farming community, one of my neighbours is a an ex gamekeeper - his daughter has a farm and has never fired a gun - his son goes shooting regularly. Horses for courses - it wasn't Sheila's interest!
-
she grew up in a farming household surrounded by men who habitually went off shooting game like any other adolescent growing up in a certain environment she would have picked up the basics. It's common sense and she went on shooting holidays and knew how to handle a gun
Growing up with doesn't constitute joining in with. My friend's daughter lives on the farm owned and run by her grandparents, her late father, and now her brother. She has NEVER held a gun, neither, incidentally, has her son who lived with his grandparents until he was eight. These are generational farming people. Sheila was not. Another friend regularly went on shoots with her late husband. She once, very reluctantly, held a gun. She wouldn't have a clue how to load one.
-
Growing up with doesn't constitute joining in with. My friend's daughter lives on the farm owned and run by her grandparents, her late father, and now her brother. She has NEVER held a gun, neither, incidentally, has her son who lived with his grandparents until he was eight. These are generational farming people. Sheila was not. Another friend regularly went on shoots with her late husband. She once, very reluctantly, held a gun. She wouldn't have a clue how to load one.
It's a generalisation that suits the innocent argument. The testimony of people like Colin (who knew her well) are just totally disregarded.
-
She went on one and fired a shotgun into the air - once. That's it.
I live in a farming community, one of my neighbours is a an ex gamekeeper - his daughter has a farm and has never fired a gun - his son goes shooting regularly. Horses for courses - it wasn't Sheila's interest!
you don't have to have an interest in something but at the same time be. Competent to use it Shelia knew how to use firearms she had handled a gun on a shooting holiday
-
you don't have to have an interest in something but at the same time be. Competent to use it Shelia knew how to use firearms she had handled a gun on a shooting holiday
No, she didn't, she shot a 'shotgun' into the air once!
-
you don't have to have an interest in something but at the same time be. Competent to use it Shelia knew how to use firearms she had handled a gun on a shooting holiday
Isn't it amazing how dexterous she became with a firearm when she couldn't, accurately, get beans onto toast.
-
I would think it's routine not to delay dealing with a call by saying what's previously happened, especially when nobody (including the caller) knows what's happening at WHF.
Huh? You mean that West did have a call from Nevill but didn't mention it because he was busy dealing with Jeremy's later call? What abount afterwards when Jeremy was accused? I think West might remember he'd had a call from Nevill.
-
Well that depends when he shot them doesn't it? Have you read much about this case at all? He told police his sister was a nutter and that she knew how to use guns. It doesn't take a genius to work out that under those circumstances, unarmed officers would be unlikely to break their way in!
Why does it depend on when he shot them?
Didn't he want officers to go in and find them all? What would be the purpose of delaying that?
-
Why does it depend on when he shot them?
Didn't he want officers to go in and find them all? What would be the purpose of delaying that?
It would depend on the time he shot them!!! He SAID he received the call circa 3am, meaning they were still alive. It wouldn't have done to get the police on scene TOO soon if it was possible for them to detect they'd actually been dead for several hours. Delay was imperative.
-
It would depend on the time he shot them!!! He SAID he received the call circa 3am, meaning they were still alive. It wouldn't have done to get the police on scene TOO soon if it was possible for them to detect they'd actually been dead for several hours. Delay was imperative.
If he'd called 999, I'm not sure the police would have got there any quicker though. Do you mean that if he'd rung 999, a firearms unit would have stormed the farmhouse much earlier? There was nothing to stop the Chelmsford or Witham police from calling the firearms unit when they received the call.
-
Huh? You mean that West did have a call from Nevill but didn't mention it because he was busy dealing with Jeremy's later call? What about afterwards when Jeremy was accused? I think West might remember he'd had a call from Nevill.
West and Bonnett had at a fairly early stage been told not to mention Nevill's call, probably to help the police avoid bad publicity.
-
If he'd called 999, I'm not sure the police would have got there any quicker though. Do you mean that if he'd rung 999, a firearms unit would have stormed the farmhouse much earlier? There was nothing to stop the Chelmsford or Witham police from calling the firearms unit when they received the call.
I'm not attempting to say what would have happened. I'm attempting to say what I think Jeremy may have thought would happen. I think, back then, more than now, we may have relied, more safely, on a 999 call getting us an immediate response. Holding that thought, there's every possibility that had Jeremy called 999 immediately after Nevill's alleged call, they'd have arrived at WHF before he'd wasted another 25 minutes phoning abortive numbers, and Julie.
-
West and Bonnett had at a fairly early stage been told not to mention Nevill's call, probably to help the police avoid bad publicity.
Eh? Why would that give the police bad publicity?
-
I'm not attempting to say what would have happened. I'm attempting to say what I think Jeremy may have thought would happen. I think, back then, more than now, we may have relied, more safely, on a 999 call getting us an immediate response. Holding that thought, there's every possibility that had Jeremy called 999 immediately after Nevill's alleged call, they'd have arrived at WHF before he'd wasted another 25 minutes phoning abortive numbers, and Julie.
Hmm, I'm not buying it.
-
Hmm, I'm not buying it.
Okay. What's your explanation? I'm not talking about what YOU'D have done.
-
Okay. What's your explanation? I'm not talking about what YOU'D have done.
Perhaps it didn't really occur to him, or he didn't think it would make a difference. It might be that he wasn't sure how serious it was. After all, it was described as a possible domestic incident wasn't it?
The idea that he thought ringing 999 would mean the police would access the farm faster doesn't make much sense to me. Even if he did think that, he couldn't have known if they could tell when the family died.
In fact, I'm surprised that he phoned the police at all. The point of it all was to make them think Sheila had done it. The fact that she was found with the gun on her would surely make them think that anyway.
-
Eh? Why would that give the police bad publicity?
It was part of "managing" information while the police worked out how to conceal their many mistakes.
-
It was part of "managing" information while the police worked out how to conceal their many mistakes.
But if Nevill had rung the police, then the police didn't make a mistake - Sheila had killed them and then killed herself - as they said at first. There was no reason to suppress such a phone call from Nevill.
-
You're assuming that Sheila killed herself. What if Sheila was accidentally shot by the police?
-
Perhaps it didn't really occur to him, or he didn't think it would make a difference. It might be that he wasn't sure how serious it was. After all, it was described as a possible domestic incident wasn't it?
The idea that he thought ringing 999 would mean the police would access the farm faster doesn't make much sense to me. Even if he did think that, he couldn't have known if they could tell when the family died.
In fact, I'm surprised that he phoned the police at all. The point of it all was to make them think Sheila had done it. The fact that she was found with the gun on her would surely make them think that anyway.
You're clearly buying the phone call from Nevill, but you can't use the "He didn't think it was serious" tack when he told the police -more as an aside, and a way of reprimand for keeping him waiting, I feel- that his father had sounded "panicked"/"terrified". No, he couldn't have 'known'. He just had to do a lot of second guessing/eliminating risk to himself.
I'm surprised at your surprise that he called the police. It seems to me that this was a fine tuned plan, POSSIBLY with some basis on his belief that calls could be traced? He'd staged it like a play. It wasn't enough for him to tell police that Sheila had a history of mental illness, he had to add that she was gun competent and had handled/used most of the guns in the house. He backed up this story by leaving the gun in a position suggesting suicide.
-
You're clearly buying the phone call from Nevill, but you can't use the "He didn't think it was serious" tack when he told the police -more as an aside, and a way of reprimand for keeping him waiting, I feel- that his father had sounded "panicked"/"terrified". No, he couldn't have 'known'. He just had to do a lot of second guessing/eliminating risk to himself.
I'm surprised at your surprise that he called the police. It seems to me that this was a fine tuned plan, POSSIBLY with some basis on his belief that calls could be traced? He'd staged it like a play. It wasn't enough for him to tell police that Sheila had a history of mental illness, he had to add that she was gun competent and had handled/used most of the guns in the house. He backed up this story by leaving the gun in a position suggesting suicide.
He only said later on in the call to the police that his father sounded terrified. I don't suppose he expected to be on the phone for ten minutes or so. Some people don't call 999 - they call a doctor or they call the police station. I just don't read anything into it.
He didn't need to pretend Nevill had phoned him in order to tell the police all that stuff. He could have told them when they were found by someone else.
-
He only said later on in the call to the police that his father sounded terrified. I don't suppose he expected to be on the phone for ten minutes or so. Some people don't call 999 - they call a doctor or they call the police station. I just don't read anything into it.
He didn't need to pretend Nevill had phoned him in order to tell the police all that stuff. He could have told them when they were found by someone else.
EXACTLY!!! "He only said later on..........."!!! It seems that despite a call from his father at silly 'clock, telling him his sister had gone berserk and had a gun, his father's terror wasn't high on his list of conveyable priorities.
He certainly could have made that choice. It might have been an alternative. However, I imagine he may have believed all the phone calls he made gave him a reliable alibi.
-
EXACTLY!!! "He only said later on..........."!!! It seems that despite a call from his father at silly 'clock, telling him his sister had gone berserk and had a gun, his father's terror wasn't high on his list of conveyable priorities.
He certainly could have made that choice. It might have been an alternative. However, I imagine he may have believed all the phone calls he made gave him a reliable alibi.
Well why would he say it later on if he was guilty? I thought he wanted to delay the arrival of the police - according to some people.
The phone call didn't give him an alibi, and he must have known that. All it did was to help put the idea into the heads of the police that Sheila had done it - something they would have thought anyway after they found her with the gun laying across her.
-
Well why would he say it later on if he was guilty? I thought he wanted to delay the arrival of the police - according to some people.
The phone call didn't give him an alibi, and he must have known that. All it did was to help put the idea into the heads of the police that Sheila had done it - something they would have thought anyway after they found her with the gun laying across her.
Because he thought it was the appropriate thing to throw in? He'd already managed, very successfully, to delay the arrival of the police by waiting 25 minutes before calling them. Odd, don't you think, that he must have registered that his father had sounded panicked/terrified in order to be able to tell the police, yet he chose to wait 25 minutes before calling them?
-
Because he thought it was the appropriate thing to throw in? He'd already managed, very successfully, to delay the arrival of the police by waiting 25 minutes before calling them. Odd, don't you think, that he must have registered that his father had sounded panicked/terrified in order to be able to tell the police, yet he chose to wait 25 minutes before calling them?
Waiting 25 minutes after what? The alleged phone call from Nevill? That supposedly happened about 3.10, and Jeremy called the police at about 3.24. That's not 25 minutes.
I don't see why he would suddenly want the police to hurry up if he'd been delaying them.
-
Waiting 25 minutes after what? The alleged phone call from Nevill? That supposedly happened about 3.10, and Jeremy called the police at about 3.24. That's not 25 minutes.
I don't see why he would suddenly want the police to hurry up if he'd been delaying them.
So you wouldn't describe wanting haste as an appropriate reaction to a distress call, even if it's only the appearance of wanting haste? Irrespective of the time wasted being less, it's still too much. I can take on board that IF he'd received the call and the line went dead, he'd try to call back but surely getting no response would have increased his urgency rather than diminished it. I do find strange your ambivalence regarding his lack of any sense of urgency.
-
Jeremy's estimate of 03:10 was probably inaccurate, as he estimated that he called Julie at 03:25, which would have been shortly after he'd been unable to return Nevill's call. Julie initially thought that he'd called her at about 03:30.
-
So the police were allowed to get their times mixed, but not Jeremy ?
-
You're assuming that Sheila killed herself. What if Sheila was accidentally shot by the police?
What about it? She would have been considered an armed suspect and as such, the welfare of the attending officers would have been the first concern. She wasn’t shot by the police though.
-
Certainly it can. It goes a bit like this. When one first gets the script for a play there's a cold read-through, ie we just read the written words. At that time we're not 'into' the character we're hoping to play. By the time the play is staged, we're living the character we're playing. We feel what they're feeling. It seems to me that Jeremy was at the read through stage. Although it was technically correct, it lacked feeling, and the reason it lacked feeling was, because there was no phone call for him to draw on, he hadn't experienced the terror Nevill was likely to have felt HAD he felt compelled to call his son at that hour, and only remembered, at the last minute, when complaining about being kept waiting, that it might be a good thing to say his father sounded terrified.
It was the same with the funerals. Jeremy had to mimic Colin's grief because he felt none himself.
-
what relevance is this? How would he be helping himself. Even if guilty it would just be delaying the inevitable. Someone at some point would access the farmhouse whether it be all guns blazing or if it was pc heartbeat and co they would call the armed response unit. He wouldn't be controlling the situation would he.
Ilovebooze why did he tell police that Sheila had trained in target practice?
-
she grew up in a farming household surrounded by men who habitually went off shooting game like any other adolescent growing up in a certain environment she would have picked up the basics. It's common sense and she went on shooting holidays and knew how to handle a gun
She did not.
-
Why does it depend on when he shot them?
Didn't he want officers to go in and find them all? What would be the purpose of delaying that?
Well, had Sheila ‘just’ shot them and herself, you would expect them to still be warm. Had they been dead for sometime it would be noticeable - which would mean Nevill couldn’t have called so .....
-
Waiting 25 minutes after what? The alleged phone call from Nevill? That supposedly happened about 3.10, and Jeremy called the police at about 3.24. That's not 25 minutes.
I don't see why he would suddenly want the police to hurry up if he'd been delaying them.
The claim is now, that he called the police at 03:36!
-
Well, had Sheila ‘just’ shot them and herself, you would expect them to still be warm. Had they been dead for sometime it would be noticeable - which would mean Nevill couldn’t have called so .....
I take your point, but I still don't think that the fact he didn't call 999 means very much. He couldn't have known that Witham or Chelmsford wouldn't call out the firearms unit straightaway, or that the Witham police wouldn't try to get into the house.
-
I take your point, but I still don't think that the fact he didn't call 999 means very much. He couldn't have known that Witham or Chelmsford wouldn't call out the firearms unit straightaway, or that the Witham police wouldn't try to get into the house.
He could if he was there to influence matters. The 999 issue is very much down to interpretation but even when I thought he was innocent, I couldn't understand why he wouldn't have called the emergency services or, if he didn't want to do that, why he didn't do as his father had requested and head on over to WHF. I'd have done both!
-
I take your point, but I still don't think that the fact he didn't call 999 means very much. He couldn't have known that Witham or Chelmsford wouldn't call out the firearms unit straightaway, or that the Witham police wouldn't try to get into the house.
Why would anyone in his situation need to try to second guess what the emergency services might -or not- do? Regarding what Jeremy did, had there been no duplicity on his part, there'd have been no need to worry. Not for a moment do I think that half a dozen boys in blue would have charged the door with a rammer, they'd have tried to make contact first, If there HAD been a terrible misunderstanding and an irate Nevill had answered the door, the responsibility would have been his, not Jeremy's. I feel quite certain he could have smoothed the whole thing over in some way.
-
I'm afraid I'm not following all this any more - it's too confusing. All I can say is that I don't find it suspicious that Jeremy didn't ring 999.
-
I'm afraid I'm not following all this any more - it's too confusing. All I can say is that I don't find it suspicious that Jeremy didn't ring 999.
But why then flick through the telephone directory looking for another number..
-
I'm afraid I'm not following all this any more - it's too confusing. All I can say is that I don't find it suspicious that Jeremy didn't ring 999.
I'm confused about WHY you find it confusing. Try to imagine yourself on the receiving end of a terrified family member who has found themselves in a potentially life threatening situation. Are you going to flick through various numbers until you find a manned police station? Are you going to phone a friend? Won't you be worried out of your mind every minute you do nothing positive? OR are you going to phone 999?
-
I'm confused about WHY you find it confusing. Try to imagine yourself on the receiving end of a terrified family member who has found themselves in a potentially life threatening situation. Are you going to flick through various numbers until you find a manned police station? Are you going to phone a friend? Won't you be worried out of your mind every minute you do nothing positive? OR are you going to phone 999?
I find all the different points of view confusing.
We simply don't know how terrified Nevill allegedly sounded. He didn't actually say much did he? It seems that Jeremy rang Julie, and she told him to go back to bed. Perhaps he thought at first it wasn't that serious, then thought it might be, but not enough to ring 999. Perhaps he wasn't that bothered what Sheila was doing. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that the whole family would be shot.
It's all speculation anyway.
-
I'm afraid I'm not following all this any more - it's too confusing. All I can say is that I don't find it suspicious that Jeremy didn't ring 999.
Factor in that (according to him now), he didn't call 999 AND it took him 26 minutes not to do so. 26 minutes is a long time to contemplate and even by the original timings, 14 minutes is aso quite some time if you believe that your family are in danger!
-
I find all the different points of view confusing.
We simply don't know how terrified Nevill allegedly sounded. He didn't actually say much did he? It seems that Jeremy rang Julie, and she told him to go back to bed. Perhaps he thought at first it wasn't that serious, then thought it might be, but not enough to ring 999. Perhaps he wasn't that bothered what Sheila was doing. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that the whole family would be shot.
It's all speculation anyway.
Or is it that you're confused about what you think?
We actually DO know how terrified was Nevill.
A) He allegedly got his son out of bed circa 3am to tell him
B) We have Jeremy's word that he'd sounded panicked/terrified.
I'll grant that it's extremely difficult to decipher how Jeremy was feeling about something I don't believe happened, however, he pulled it out the bag eventually and went through the motions.
Some of the padding may be speculation. The facts aren't.
-
Factor in that (according to him now), he didn't call 999 AND it took him 26 minutes not to do so. 26 minutes is a long time to contemplate and even by the original timings, 14 minutes is aso quite some time if you believe that your family are in danger!
It wasn't 26 minutes, unless you now believe that he phoned the police at 3.37.
-
It wasn't 26 minutes, unless you now believe that he phoned the police at 3.37.
I don't believe that - but that is what he is prepared to now say in order to ask people like yourself to buy that Nevill phoned the police. Don't you find it odd that he is prepared to stretch the time of his phone call from his initial timing of 03:24/5 to 03:36 when he knows this isn't the case? He KNOWS this isn't the case because he attempted to bring a perjury case against West for logging his call at 03:36. An innocent man would stick to the facts but he's prepared to change them.
-
I don't believe that - but that is what he is prepared to now say in order to ask people like yourself to buy that Nevill phoned the police. Don't you find it odd that he is prepared to stretch the time of his phone call from his initial timing of 03:24/5 to 03:36 when he knows this isn't the case? He KNOWS this isn't the case because he attempted to bring a perjury case against West for logging his call at 03:36. An innocent man would stick to the facts but he's prepared to change them.
However, what I find even MORE disturbing, is that people who know what has been claimed before, are prepared to promote such a change without even bothering to explain the change!
-
I don't believe that - but that is what he is prepared to now say in order to ask people like yourself to buy that Nevill phoned the police. Don't you find it odd that he is prepared to stretch the time of his phone call from his initial timing of 03:24/5 to 03:36 when he knows this isn't the case? He KNOWS this isn't the case because he attempted to bring a perjury case against West for logging his call at 03:36. An innocent man would stick to the facts but he's prepared to change them.
I've never believed that Nevill phoned the police. He will get nowhere with this appeal IMO, unless there are other pieces of new evidence. The fact is that Jeremy phoned West at about 3.24. It could have been 3.22 or 3.23, but he did not leave it 25 minutes before he phoned.
I don't find it odd because he is looking for anything which he thinks could clear him. That doesn't signify either guilt or innocence.
-
I've never believed that Nevill phoned the police. He will get nowhere with this appeal IMO, unless there are other pieces of new evidence. The fact is that Jeremy phoned West at about 3.24. It could have been 3.22 or 3.23, but he did not leave it 25 minutes before he phoned.
I don't find it odd because he is looking for anything which he thinks could clear him. That doesn't signify either guilt or innocence.
Oh I think you're wrong! Very wrong! He is prepared to lie and not even make any explanation. He lied about not calling Julie first and he's lied about lots of other things. An innocent man wouldn't need to lie.
-
Factor in that (according to him now), he didn't call 999 AND it took him 26 minutes not to do so. 26 minutes is a long time to contemplate and even by the original timings, 14 minutes is aso quite some time if you believe that your family are in danger!
but according to you he had no reason to be shocked ???
-
Oh I think you're wrong! Very wrong! He is prepared to lie and not even make any explanation. He lied about not calling Julie first and he's lied about lots of other things. An innocent man wouldn't need to lie.
Innocent people do lie actually. Jeremy wants to show that Nevill called the police - that's natural. I don't see it as evidence of guilt.
-
Innocent people do lie actually. Jeremy wants to show that Nevill called the police - that's natural. I don't see it as evidence of guilt.
Innocent people are set free on evidence - not on lies! What lies did the Birmingham Six, the Gilford Four, Stefan Kiszko and the like, put forward to obtain their release? It's OK to lie in order to further your case? WOW! :o :o
-
but according to you he had no reason to be shocked ???
That's right. In REAL life -other than having massacred his family- he hadn't. In his make believe world -in which his panicked father allegedly called him to say his sister had gone berserk and had got hold of a gun- he had every reason to be shocked.
-
but according to you he had no reason to be shocked ???
He didn't and that's the point! Hence why he didn't think it through! If it were REAL, he would have acted with more urgency!
-
Innocent people are set free on evidence - not on lies! What lies did the Birmingham Six, the Gilford Four, Stefan Kiszko and the like, put forward to obtain their release? It's OK to lie in order to further your case? WOW! :o :o
Innocent people are sometimes set free because of lack of evidence, or because of technicalities. I wouldn't assume they're telling the truth about absolutely everything.
If Jeremy is innocent, what can he do to show that? He's tried the DNA thing, he's tried other things, and he's going to try everything he can. The appeal court will not buy it, but that's another issue.
-
Innocent people are sometimes set free because of lack of evidence, or because of technicalities. I wouldn't assume they're telling the truth about absolutely everything.
If Jeremy is innocent, what can he do to show that? He's tried the DNA thing, he's tried other things, and he's going to try everything he can. The appeal court will not buy it, but that's another issue.
Lack of evidence and technicalities does not an innocent person make. We're talking about innocent people lying to seek an appeal. How many have you heard of?
Of course they won't buy it - they're not stupid.
-
Lack of evidence and technicalities does not an innocent person make. We're talking about innocent people lying to seek an appeal. How many have you heard of?
Of course they won't buy it - they're not stupid.
I don't know what innocent people have lied about - how would I know that?
You keep saying that Jeremy tried to sue West or something. I haven't heard that - where did you get that from?
-
I don't know what innocent people have lied about - how would I know that?
You keep saying that Jeremy tried to sue West or something. I haven't heard that - where did you get that from?
You said innocent people lie but you can name any that have made stuff with in order to get an appeal. Because you said it, I thought you has someone in mind.
Where did I get it - from Jeremy!
-
You said innocent people lie but you can name any that have made stuff with in order to get an appeal. Because you said it, I thought you has someone in mind.
Where did I get it - from Jeremy!
Well I only have your word for that. I didn't know you were in touch with him.
-
Well I only have your word for that. I didn't know you were in touch with him.
No, I have shown NGB the document in question, you can ask him. Yes, I wrote to him for a few years when I thought he was innocent. He is one of the reasons why I no long think so.
-
Off to the pub! ;D ;D ;D
-
How bizarre.
-
lol
-
How bizarre.
People don't go to the pub in your area? Now that's bizarre. I was actually just being polite and indicating that should you reply to my post and receive no response, it's because i won't be here. ::)
-
Ilovebooze why did he tell police that Sheila had trained in target practice?
what have you just said can be interpreted in both two ways. The prosecution can interpret it as Jeremy Bamber trying to cover his arse by giving the police the idea that Shelia is competent in using guns. Or it can be argued that she did have target practice. Look at it from this perspective, all of us here were not involved with the Bamber family pre August 7th 1985, we can't just rely on relatives who only intermiddetly saw them over the years. None of us have a clue
-
what have you just said can be interpreted in both two ways. The prosecution can interpret it as Jeremy Bamber trying to cover his arse by giving the police the idea that Shelia is competent in using guns. Or it can be argued that she did have target practice. Look at it from this perspective, all of us here were not involved with the Bamber family pre August 7th 1985, we can't just rely on relatives. Relatives don't spend every waking minute with someone None of us have a clue
-
what have you just said can be interpreted in both two ways. The prosecution can interpret it as Jeremy Bamber trying to cover his arse by giving the police the idea that Shelia is competent in using guns. Or it can be argued that she did have target practice. Look at it from this perspective, all of us here were not involved with the Bamber family pre August 7th 1985, we can't just rely on relatives who only intermiddetly saw them over the years. None of us have a clue
An ex-glamour model who hankered after a rich, white knight riding a steed, cloistered behind the walls of a luxurious Regency- period residence, the walls of which bore witness to the nocturnal beating fists of this creature whenever she was overcome by one of her psychotic episodes. When stabilized by medication she was lethargic, restricted in gait, largely unaware of her attire, unkempt hair or odour emanating from her person. She would relieve the tension with the inhalation of the odd joint, supplied by her drug dealer Freddi Emani, who probably expected payment in kind. She tried to keep up appearances for the twins' stays at weekends, where she would push them high upon the swings of Paddington Recreation Ground as these six-year-olds dictated the routine they experienced with her.
When forced to stay on occasion at White House Farm she once again sensed the loss of control, this time June setting the agenda, doing the rounds of endless social engagements with people with whom she had very little in common and whom she secretly despised. So often she had cut herself with a sharp instrument in an impassioned cry for help which remained unanswered, the inscription on the bedroom wardrobe "I hate this place" confirming her true yet ineffable torment.
The idea that this soul could possibly have found the time to attend a firing range, when all she wanted out of life was to keep her health, her sanity, to paint her nails and be told she looked pretty, is absurd.
-
People don't go to the pub in your area? Now that's bizarre. I was actually just being polite and indicating that should you reply to my post and receive no response, it's because i won't be here. ::)
They do go to the pub - some of them too much. ;D
I'm interested in your reasons for thinking that Jeremy is guilty. You don't think the silencer evidence holds up, you don't appear to be basing it on Julie's statements, so I'm wondering why you think he's guilty now.
-
An ex-glamour model who hankered after a rich, white knight riding a steed, cloistered behind the walls of a luxurious Regency- period residence, the walls of which bore witness to the nocturnal beating fists of this creature whenever she was overcome by one of her psychotic episodes. When stabilized by medication she was lethargic, restricted in gait, largely unaware of her attire, unkempt hair or odour emanating from her person. She would relieve the tension with the inhalation of the odd joint, supplied by her drug dealer Freddi Emani, who probably expected payment in kind. She tried to keep up appearances for the twins' stays at weekends, where she would push them high upon the swings of Paddington Recreation Ground as these six-year-olds dictated the routine they experienced with her.
When forced to stay on occasion at White House Farm she once again sensed the loss of control, this time June setting the agenda, doing the rounds of endless social engagements with people with whom she had very little in common and whom she secretly despised. So often she had cut herself with a sharp instrument in an impassioned cry for help which remained unanswered, the inscription on the bedroom wardrobe "I hate this place" confirming her true yet ineffable torment.
The idea that this soul could possibly have found the time to attend a firing range, when all she wanted out of life was to keep her health, her sanity, to paint her nails and be told she looked pretty, is absurd.
that is absolute utter bollocks. I'm sorry what a load of fucking shite
-
They do go to the pub - some of them too much. ;D
I'm interested in your reasons for thinking that Jeremy is guilty. You don't think the silencer evidence holds up, you don't appear to be basing it on Julie's statements, so I'm wondering why you think he's guilty now.
Maybe I can speak for Caroline whilst she's down at the pub enjoying her pink gin and tonic. She wrote to him and he avoided the difficult questions, just as he has done with all his legal representation to date. He prefers mother figures like Trudi, bland and harmless, who offer unswerving approbation without any need for reciprocity on his part.
-
what have you just said can be interpreted in both two ways. The prosecution can interpret it as Jeremy Bamber trying to cover his arse by giving the police the idea that Shelia is competent in using guns. Or it can be argued that she did have target practice. Look at it from this perspective, all of us here were not involved with the Bamber family pre August 7th 1985, we can't just rely on relatives who only intermiddetly saw them over the years. None of us have a clue
You're right. We were not involved with the Bamber family before the massacre, but some of us are doing more than relying on what was said by relatives. By taking a look at Sheila's life we can get some clues.
A girl less inclined toward country pursuits it would be difficult to find. Certainly, she accompanied the family to a shoot in Scotland -I mean, given the chance, who of us wouldn't?! Brilliant time of year. Wonderful scenery. Great 'apres' shoot parties- she may well have posed with a gun. She may even, on occasion, have shot one in the air. It doesn't mean she was gun competent. It doesn't mean she could break and load. It doesn't denote an interest in either country pursuits in general or guns in particular .....................NEITHER does her chosen lifestyle. Just how much further away could she get from country life than London. No chance there for huntin', shootin', and fishin', instead she choose girly pursuits such as secretarials, hairdressing, and finally, modelling. Not that she made a success of any of them. When all else failed and she needed to earn, she turned to cleaning houses and waiting at tables rather than leaving London and returning to rural Essex where she'd have had security from the business her parents offered to set her up in, plus a house they'd have given her. She appears to have been scratching around for every penny. From where do you imagine she'd have found the money for shooting lessons if she'd even had time to think it was something she might enjoy. Given that she didn't even like her boys to play with guns, I suspect the thought never crossed her mind that she might enjoy shooting.
Then, of course, there's her well documented lack of coordination and her inability to place beans on toast -one shouldn't be surprised that she failed miserably at both secretarials and hairdressing. She'd have been hitting all the wrong keys, and God knows what she'd have done with a pair of scissors in her hands!!! Odd, that every one of the shots fired from that gun found a home, isn't it? I'd have said that the shooter knew exactly how to aim and fire a gun, and had the ability to reload with confidence when necessary. I'm also willing to bet that person wasn't Sheila.
-
that is absolute utter bollocks. I'm sorry what a load of fucking shite
You're from the David1819 school of membership on this site. I have come to respect him over the years yet you sir still have much to learn.
-
Maybe I can speak for Caroline whilst she's down at the pub enjoying her pink gin and tonic. She wrote to him and he avoided the difficult questions, just as he has done with all his legal representation to date. He prefers mother figures like Trudi, bland and harmless, who offer unswerving approbation without any need for reciprocity on his part.
OK, thank you. It sounds like a gut feeling that he's avoiding answering certain questions because he's hiding something.
-
OK, thank you. It sounds like a gut feeling that he's avoiding answering certain questions because he's hiding something.
Or possibly, after all these years of incarceration, he can't recall what he's told to whom. If it's the truth, naturally he'll have given the same answer to whomsoever has asked the question. However, if it isn't the truth............
-
Come on look at this logically for a moment. " She couldn't even plate beans on toast " if I had a pound for every time my brother and father had ridiculed me over the years for " not being able to knock the rice of skin pudding " I'd be a wealthy man. It's just the opinion of people around her. It's mockery In essence. If I recall Shelia had been on a shooting holiday. One relative recalls her handling a gun? She was also a farmers daughter. I go back to what I earlier said. None of us were privy to the bambers activities. But it's all speculation. I don't think I'm being outlandish in stating that Shelia knew how to handle guns.
-
Come on look at this logically for a moment. " She couldn't even plate beans on toast " if I had a pound for every time my brother and father had ridiculed me over the years for " not being able to knock the rice of skin pudding " I'd be a wealthy man. It's just the opinion of people around her. It's mockery In essence. If I recall Shelia had been on a shooting holiday. One relative recalls her handling a gun? She was also a farmers daughter. I go back to what I earlier said. None of us were privy to the bambers activities. But it's all speculation. I don't think I'm being outlandish in stating that Shelia knew how to handle guns.
But she didn't live there most of the time and whenever she did she couldn't wait to get away! She held a gun once in her hand in Scotland in 1978 whilst she and Colin were grouse beaters and David Boutflour helped her pull the trigger. That was it.
-
But she didn't live there most of the time and whenever she did she couldn't wait to get away! She held a gun once in her hand in Scotland in 1978 whilst she and Colin were grouse beaters and David Boutflour helped her pull the trigger. That was it.
Steve, were you and shelia acquainted pre August 7th 85?
-
Come on look at this logically for a moment. " She couldn't even plate beans on toast " if I had a pound for every time my brother and father had ridiculed me over the years for " not being able to knock the rice of skin pudding " I'd be a wealthy man. It's just the opinion of people around her. It's mockery In essence. If I recall Shelia had been on a shooting holiday. One relative recalls her handling a gun? She was also a farmers daughter. I go back to what I earlier said. None of us were privy to the bambers activities. But it's all speculation. I don't think I'm being outlandish in stating that Shelia knew how to handle guns.
No, but you're making sweeping statements and relying on generalizations. My friends, wives, daughters, and sisters to farmers, have NEVER touched guns, have never been on shoots. This doesn't mean that ALL country women dislike country pursuits, it just means that it's not a given that they do. You will have noted that I've looked at a much bigger picture, here. What I haven't bought into the picture is her illness, subsequent medication and the effects it had on her person. They would all preclude any form of dexterity.
-
You're from the David1819 school of membership on this site. I have come to respect him over the years yet you sir still have much to learn.
on the contrary Steven/Stephen I have nothing to learn. I am neither pro Jeremy Bamber or ardently a supporter of his guilt. The only person who knows the truth of that matter is the 58 year old in HMP wakefield. I'm just taking a neutral stance to the whole case
-
on the contrary Steven/Stephen I have nothing to learn. I am neither pro Jeremy Bamber or ardently a supporter of his guilt. The only person who knows the truth of that matter is the 58 year old in HMP wakefield. I'm just taking a neutral stance to the whole case
Really!!! Are you absolutely certain about your neutrality? It's highly unusual for neutrals to become that agitated about a post that they feel the need to resort to inappropriate language by way of protest. I will agree, however, that Jeremy, as I believe he claimed to a friend's mother, prior to his arrest, is the only one who knows what really happened that night.
-
Really!!! Are you absolutely certain about your neutrality? It's highly unusual for neutrals to become that agitated about a post that they feel the need to resort to inappropriate language by way of protest. I will agree, however, that Jeremy, as I believe he claimed to a friend's mother, prior to his arrest, is the only one who knows what really happened that night.
I got agitated because he posted complete bollocks.
-
I got agitated because he posted complete bollocks.
Jane take the blinkers off a second. Your boyfriend tells you he is planning to murder his family. The murder occurs. Even if you dismissed his earlier threats as ' complete bollocks " would you even want to be in the same vicinity as him, let alone accompany him to Amsterdam???
-
I got agitated because he posted complete bollocks.
Steve's and my writing styles are different, but he actually didn't SAY anything different from me, He just wrote it differently.
-
No, but you're making sweeping statements and relying on generalizations. My friends, wives, daughters, and sisters to farmers, have NEVER touched guns, have never been on shoots. This doesn't mean that ALL country women dislike country pursuits, it just means that it's not a given that they do. You will have noted that I've looked at a much bigger picture, here. What I haven't bought into the picture is her illness, subsequent medication and the effects it had on her person. They would all preclude any form of dexterity.
we've gone from " you are right " to " you are making sweeping generalisations love.....
-
we've gone from " you are right " to " you are making sweeping generalisations love.....
close relatives cannot account for everything and I do believe two of them made statements to the effect of Shelia using guns. But yes we are both just speculating
-
If you can't see the inherent contradictions in #660 then you may as well not bother to post here (which would be a shame as new members should be welcomed-we've had enough bans to last a lifetime).
-
Jane take the blinkers off a second. Your boyfriend tells you he is planning to murder his family. The murder occurs. Even if you dismissed his earlier threats as ' complete bollocks " would you even want to be in the same vicinity as him, let alone accompany him to Amsterdam???
Let me just say that when I first joined, I believed Jeremy was innocent. Indeed, for personal reasons, I was so desperate for him to be that I heard myself making excuses for him. It was at that point when my protests started feeling hollow.
Now, I've looked at Julie's relationship with Jeremy from several angles. The first -and I'll own up before Adam drops me in it!!!- involved me being disparaging about the clothes she wore to court. I may even have said that she had the beginnings of a moustache!!! You may guess, correctly that I didn't like her. Then I took a gooood, deep look at her life. I started to see a different Julie.....................
....................Undoubtedly, she was a clever girl, but her life hadn't been exactly cushioned. She was doing a second degree but was having to do casual work to fund it. It was at on such that she met Jeremy. When he showed an interest she probably thought all her Birthdays and Christmas's had come at once. I think she may have begun to envisage a different life for herself. One in which she didn't have to struggle for every penny -whilst Jeremy may have complained bitterly about being short of money, he actually had NO idea what it felt like because the family 'cushion' was always there as a safety net- and one where she was whisked off to exciting places at a moment's notice. For a while life must have been good.
Would she have believed him when he first said he wanted rid of his family? At 20 years old, I don't somehow think she'd have taken him seriously. After all, what reason did he have? He was doing very nicely............by her standards. In any case, what was she going to do? She might have gone to the police but they A) probably wouldn't have believed her, and B) there was nothing they could have done until/unless a crime had been committed. She allowed him the use of her sleeping pills, however, I can't be sure if it was an active or passive thing. What I'm certain of is that she didn't believe he'd go through with what he told her he was planning. In fact, I don't think he dotted any I's or crossed any T's until the moment he made up his mind to do it, by which time she was caught up in it and it was too late. It's likely that every time she thought of walking into a police station -and I believe she must have- she probably saw herself throwing up.
I don't know how she lived with it for as long as she did. I can only think that she still felt that as long as they were together, somehow it would all come right in the end. I make no excuses for her. She behaved very badly. She flaunted herself like a tramp. I wouldn't have wanted her teaching my children. But it wasn't she who committed the crime, HOWEVER! I'm inclined to believe she MAY have known rather more than she revealed because I find it very odd that Jeremy has never said anything derogatory of her. If he knows she has something more on him, to me, it suggests his guilt.
-
Let me just say that when I first joined, I believed Jeremy was innocent. Indeed, for personal reasons, I was so desperate for him to be that I heard myself making excuses for him. It was at that point when my protests started feeling hollow.
Now, I've looked at Julie's relationship with Jeremy from several angles. The first -and I'll own up before Adam drops me in it!!!- involved me being disparaging about the clothes she wore to court. I may even have said that she had the beginnings of a moustache!!! You may guess, correctly that I didn't like her. Then I took a gooood, deep look at her life. I started to see a different Julie.....................
....................Undoubtedly, she was a clever girl, but her life hadn't been exactly cushioned. She was doing a second degree but was having to do casual work to fund it. It was at on such that she met Jeremy. When he showed an interest she probably thought all her Birthdays and Christmas's had come at once. I think she may have begun to envisage a different life for herself. One in which she didn't have to struggle for every penny -whilst Jeremy may have complained bitterly about being short of money, he actually had NO idea what it felt like because the family 'cushion' was always there as a safety net- and one where she was whisked off to exciting places at a moment's notice. For a while life must have been good.
Would she have believed him when he first said he wanted rid of his family? At 20 years old, I don't somehow think she'd have taken him seriously. After all, what reason did he have? He was doing very nicely............by her standards. In any case, what was she going to do? She might have gone to the police but they A) probably wouldn't have believed her, and B) there was nothing they could have done until/unless a crime had been committed. She allowed him the use of her sleeping pills, however, I can't be sure if it was an active or passive thing. What I'm certain of is that she didn't believe he'd go through with what he told her he was planning. In fact, I don't think he dotted any I's or crossed any T's until the moment he made up his mind to do it, by which time she was caught up in it and it was too late. It's likely that every time she thought of walking into a police station -and I believe she must have- she probably saw herself throwing up.
I don't know how she lived with it for as long as she did. I can only think that she still felt that as long as they were together, somehow it would all come right in the end. I make no excuses for her. She behaved very badly. She flaunted herself like a tramp. I wouldn't have wanted her teaching my children. But it wasn't she who committed the crime, HOWEVER! I'm inclined to believe she MAY have known rather more than she revealed because I find it very odd that Jeremy has never said anything derogatory of her. If he knows she has something more on him, to me, it suggests his guilt.
Another incisive and original post, which shows how many of us have looked at this case under the prism of humility until the tragic truth finally hit us in the face. An old thread of mine might be apposite here. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.msg240823.html#msg240823
-
Another incisive and original post, which shows how many of us have looked at this case under the prism of humility until the tragic truth finally hit us in the face. An old thread of mine might be apposite here. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.msg240823.html#msg240823
Thanks for the reminder, Steve. It occurs to me that life must be so much simpler for those who can only see things in terms of black or white. They never have to experience the confusion of picking their way through those infinite shades of grey, and whether they're right or wrong it won't bother them. Their belief is everything. Good Night :)
-
Thanks for the reminder, Steve. It occurs to me that life must be so much simpler for those who can only see things in terms of black or white. They never have to experience the confusion of picking their way through those infinite shades of grey, and whether they're right or wrong it won't bother them. Their belief is everything. Good Night :)
One further comment I will make tonight: if it had to be far rather for humanity's sake that a tragically deranged young schizophrenic killed her children out of love than a cold, calculating apparently sane individual murdered out of pure hatred, self-interest and greed.
-
Maybe I can speak for Caroline whilst she's down at the pub enjoying her pink gin and tonic. She wrote to him and he avoided the difficult questions, just as he has done with all his legal representation to date. He prefers mother figures like Trudi, bland and harmless, who offer unswerving approbation without any need for reciprocity on his part.
Thank you Steve X
-
She would have been considered an armed suspect and as such, the welfare of the attending officers would have been the first concern.
That would no longer apply once she'd been certified dead or was thought to be dead.
She wasn't shot by the police though.
When did she die then?
-
The claim is now, that he called the police at 03:36!
That's supported by Pc West's log. In court, Pc West insisted that he'd dealt with Jeremy's call speedily. Hence Jeremy could then have driven to WHF, taking about 7 minutes to drive there.
-
That would no longer apply once she'd been certified dead or was thought to be dead.
When did she die then?
So, a doctor didn't realise that she was alive? Seriously? This has about as much weight as a chicks feather!
When Bamber shot her much earlier in the morning.
-
That's supported by Pc West's log. In court, Pc West insisted that he'd dealt with Jeremy's call speedily. Hence Jeremy could then have driven to WHF, taking about 7 minutes to drive there.
It's not supported by Bonnet's and West admitted that he probably made a mistake.
Previously Jeremy insisted that he called at 03:24 which IS consistent with Bonnet's log.
This is a ridiculous argument and anyone supporting this pathetic attempt to invent a call from Nevill will end up with egg on their face. However, even when it is rejected by the CCRC (which it will be), people will still hang onto it. Flabbergasted!!
-
That's supported by Pc West's log. In court, Pc West insisted that he'd dealt with Jeremy's call speedily. Hence Jeremy could then have driven to WHF, taking about 7 minutes to drive there.
Given your penchant for exactitude, your ability to post such ambiguities as "speedily" and "about" is truly amazing.
-
Jane take the blinkers off a second. Your boyfriend tells you he is planning to murder his family. The murder occurs. Even if you dismissed his earlier threats as ' complete bollocks " would you even want to be in the same vicinity as him, let alone accompany him to Amsterdam???
I find that completely bizarre too. If I accept that Julie is telling the truth, how does she cope with that? When Jeremy rang her and allegedly said "tonight's the night", I can see how she might not take that seriously, but then he rang her again and said something was wrong at the farm, and she told him to go back to bed!
What on earth did she think when she found out the next day that they were all dead, and she had done nothing to prevent it? She sat there giving a statement like she knew nothing, and then carried on seeing him. She even went to see the little boys who he murdered, and still said nothing. I don't get it.
-
I find that completely bizarre too. If I accept that Julie is telling the truth, how does she cope with that? When Jeremy rang her and allegedly said "tonight's the night", I can see how she might not take that seriously, but then he rang her again and said something was wrong at the farm, and she told him to go back to bed!
What on earth did she think when she found out the next day that they were all dead, and she had done nothing to prevent it? She sat there giving a statement like she knew nothing, and then carried on seeing him. She even went to see the little boys who he murdered, and still said nothing. I don't get it.
exactly any right minded person would have gone to the police with that information straight away.
-
She didn't even have to go to the police. She was driven to the farm that morning, she made a statement, she was asked questions, and she chose to omit certain details.
Did she really think it was all coincidence, and that Sheila really had done it? Why wasn't she hysterical when she found out they were all dead? Did she think about how she could have prevented it?
-
I find that completely bizarre too. If I accept that Julie is telling the truth, how does she cope with that? When Jeremy rang her and allegedly said "tonight's the night", I can see how she might not take that seriously, but then he rang her again and said something was wrong at the farm, and she told him to go back to bed!
What on earth did she think when she found out the next day that they were all dead, and she had done nothing to prevent it? She sat there giving a statement like she knew nothing, and then carried on seeing him. She even went to see the little boys who he murdered, and still said nothing. I don't get it.
Neither, I imagine, do most of us. Who, of us, would actually take it seriously if the man we were in love suddenly expressed a wish to kill his family? Who of us, haven't, at some time, thought the same of our own? Being in denial comes pretty close to where she was, I'd say. Pretend that everything's 'normal' and it will all be alright? Everything will be fine as long as we're together? She was possibly more scared of leaving him than staying with him. He was hardly likely to kill her, too, because he'd be number one suspect for the family murders. She probably ran a whole gamut of emotions. I bet it was the biggest relief of her life when she finally off loaded that dreadful secret.
-
Neither, I imagine, do most of us. Who, of us, would actually take it seriously if the man we were in love suddenly expressed a wish to kill his family? Who of us, haven't, at some time, thought the same of our own? Being in denial comes pretty close to where she was, I'd say. Pretend that everything's 'normal' and it will all be alright? Everything will be fine as long as we're together? She was possibly more scared of leaving him than staying with him. He was hardly likely to kill her, too, because he'd be number one suspect for the family murders. She probably ran a whole gamut of emotions. I bet it was the biggest relief of her life when she finally off loaded that dreadful secret.
I can understand her not taking it seriously - until it happened. I don't understand her attitude or behaviour after that. I can't understand how she could let him touch her, how she could go to the funeral and comfort him. I also don't understand why she was not prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or for assisting an offender.
I was out of the country when the murders happened, and I was still away when Jeremy was arrested and all the fall out was going on, so I didn't follow the story at the time, but I get the impression that she was treated like a heroine rather than someone who covered up for a murderer. Maxine Carr did much less than Julie and was treated like a pariah.
-
So, a doctor didn't realise that she was alive? . . . When Bamber shot her much earlier in the morning.
The doctor didn't know that, so how would he (or the police) know whether she was alive?
-
West admitted that he probably made a mistake.
No, he didn't. When pressed about this in court, he said it was possible. He didn't say "probably".
Previously Jeremy insisted that he called at 03:24
How do you know? He originally gave approximations for the various times.
-
Neither, I imagine, do most of us. Who, of us, would actually take it seriously if the man we were in love suddenly expressed a wish to kill his family? Who of us, haven't, at some time, thought the same of our own? Being in denial comes pretty close to where she was, I'd say. Pretend that everything's 'normal' and it will all be alright? Everything will be fine as long as we're together? She was possibly more scared of leaving him than staying with him. He was hardly likely to kill her, too, because he'd be number one suspect for the family murders. She probably ran a whole gamut of emotions. I bet it was the biggest relief of her life when she finally off loaded that dreadful secret.
there is no secret about it. According to Julie Jeremy had mentioned it on few occasions. To quote her own words, (we have all seen the clip at sometime or other) "He spoke with a lot of vehemence" If Jeremy Bamber rang Julie and said " tonight's the night" and then lo and behold the family get murdered that very night. She must have come to the logical obvious conclusion he was guilty. Can I honestly ask you the female members of The forum here. Would you share the same bed as man armed with this knowledge in the aftermath and continue to be at his side. Going on holiday with him etc. Forget " mixed emotions" " and being in denial" you would want to be as far away from him as possible. And would have told the first police officer you came across what you knew.
-
I can understand her not taking it seriously - until it happened. I don't understand her attitude or behaviour after that. I can't understand how she could let him touch her, how she could go to the funeral and comfort him. I also don't understand why she was not prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or for assisting an offender.
I was out of the country when the murders happened, and I was still away when Jeremy was arrested and all the fall out was going on, so I didn't follow the story at the time, but I get the impression that she was treated like a heroine rather than someone who covered up for a murderer. Maxine Carr did much less than Julie and was treated like a pariah.
Truthfully, I think it's probably beyond us to understand. In fairness, I don't believe he did "touch her" after the murders -I think it's in one of her statements?- but she'd probably outlived her usefulness to him so his need for her diminished. Besides which, he probably had big plans for a life which didn't include her. He just needed her onside for a little longer.
I really don't recall that she was treated like a heroine. She never came across as a sympathetic character. I believe there were complaints from some of the parents of the children who attended the school where she was a student teacher and she had to leave. I seem to recall there was an arrogance about her. I see it now through rather different eyes and imagine it was a protective mask.
I agree that there are distinct similarities between her and Maxine Carr. I'll never know why she wasn't prosecuted but I think some sort of deal must have been done. They were hardly going to prosecute someone who was their potential star witness. Her added value was that, unlike MC, she was an intelligent, educated girl, who was capable of doing something with her life. They weren't going to need to change her name and hairstyle at the tax payer's expense.
-
They didn't need to butter her up, and promise immunity. She went to the police and made the accusation, she made statements, they didn't need to promise her anything.
As for this "relief" she must have felt, did she feel anything else? Shame perhaps? Did she feel she could have prevented the death of those five people, including two little children? Did she say sorry to everyone for covering it up, and for supporting Jeremy? She sold her story, so where was her shame then?
-
there is no secret about it. According to Julie Jeremy had mentioned it on few occasions. To quote her own words, (we have all seen the clip at sometime or other) "He spoke with a lot of vehemence" If Jeremy Bamber rang Julie and said " tonight's the night" and then lo and behold the family get murdered that very night. She must have come to the logical obvious conclusion he was guilty. Can I honestly ask you the female members of The forum here. Would you share the same bed as man armed with this knowledge in the aftermath and continue to be at his side. Going on holiday with him etc. Forget " mixed emotions" " and being in denial" you would want to be as far away from him as possible. And would have told the first police officer you came across what you knew.
I wonder how many battered wives you've met? How many women who live in fear of their partners do you know? They COULD walk away. They COULD go to the police. Most don't. Rumour has it -and I'm not in a position to verify it- that she understood, very well, what an abusive relationship was.
-
I wonder how many battered wives you've met? How many women who live in fear of their partners do you know? They COULD walk away. They COULD go to the police. Most don't. Rumour has it -and I'm not in a position to verify it- that she understood, very well, what an abusive relationship was.
Oh please - she wasn't a battered wife. She helped him cover up a murder.
-
Truthfully, I think it's probably beyond us to understand. In fairness, I don't believe he did "touch her" after the murders -I think it's in one of her statements?- but she'd probably outlived her usefulness to him so his need for her diminished. Besides which, he probably had big plans for a life which didn't include her. He just needed her onside for a little longer.
I really don't recall that she was treated like a heroine. She never came across as a sympathetic character. I believe there were complaints from some of the parents of the children who attended the school where she was a student teacher and she had to leave. I seem to recall there was an arrogance about her. I see it now through rather different eyes and imagine it was a protective mask.
I agree that there are distinct similarities between her and Maxine Carr. I'll never know why she wasn't prosecuted but I think some sort of deal must have been done. They were hardly going to prosecute someone who was their potential star witness. Her added value was that, unlike MC, she was an intelligent, educated girl, who was capable of doing something with her life. They weren't going to need to change her name and hairstyle at the tax payer's expense.
Maxine carr was away in Grimsby the night Ian Huntley committed his crime. She provided an albi for Huntley because it was the man she loved. And because he had previously been accused of rape. And she believed him innocent and didn't want him to come under suspcion. There is a great deal of difference in my opinion. If Jeremy Bamber told Julie mugford that he planned to do away with his family earlier that very day, and then lo and behold they are killed that very night She must have concluded he was responsible. There's no logical explanation why she didn't mention this to the authorities straight away in my opinion.
-
They didn't need to butter her up, and promise immunity. She went to the police and made the accusation, she made statements, they didn't need to promise her anything.
As for this "relief" she must have felt, did she feel anything else? Shame perhaps? Did she feel she could have prevented the death of those five people, including two little children? Did she say sorry to everyone for covering it up, and for supporting Jeremy? She sold her story, so where was her shame then?
Oh, I can't imagine that it didn't cross her mind. Do YOU never experience ambivalent feelings? Why should she be any different? I've already said that I think she behaved VERY badly. In fact, she behaved like the trollop many were saying she was. Who of us haven't done things, in our younger, sillier days, which come back to haunt us now? Perhaps we feel more shame about them now, than we did at the time? I imagine she's worked very hard at leaving that person behind.
-
Oh please - she wasn't a battered wife. She helped him cover up a murder.
Batterings come in many guises.
-
Maxine carr was away in Grimsby the night Ian Huntley committed his crime. She provided an albi for Huntley because it was the man she loved. And because he had previously been accused of rape. And she believed him innocent and didn't want him to come under suspcion. There is a great deal of difference in my opinion. If Jeremy Bamber told Julie mugford that he planned to do away with his family earlier that very day, and then lo and behold they are killed that very night She must have concluded he was responsible. There's no logical explanation why she didn't mention this to the authorities straight away in my opinion.
So why was it okay for MC to protect the man she loved, but wrong for JM to do the same. Don't forget he told her he couldn't have done it and hired a hitman to do it for (the princely sum of) £2000.
-
Oh, I can't imagine that it didn't cross her mind. Do YOU never experience ambivalent feelings? Why should she be any different? I've already said that I think she behaved VERY badly. In fact, she behaved like the trollop many were saying she was. Who of us haven't done things, in our younger, sillier days, which come back to haunt us now? Perhaps we feel more shame about them now, than we did at the time? I imagine she's worked very hard at leaving that person behind.
Sillier days? We're not talking about stealing a lollipop from a shop, we're talking about the gruesome murder of five people!
-
Maxine carr was away in Grimsby the night Ian Huntley committed his crime. She provided an albi for Huntley because it was the man she loved. And because he had previously been accused of rape. And she believed him innocent and didn't want him to come under suspcion. There is a great deal of difference in my opinion. If Jeremy Bamber told Julie mugford that he planned to do away with his family earlier that very day, and then lo and behold they are killed that very night She must have concluded he was responsible. There's no logical explanation why she didn't mention this to the authorities straight away in my opinion.
I agree. The jury found Carr not guilty of assisting an offender. It was accepted that she did not know that Huntley had killed those girls. Julie did know Jeremy had done it - or claimed later that she knew.
-
Batterings come in many guises.
I'm not even going to pursue this. The very idea of Julie Mugford being a battered woman is laughable.
-
I wonder how many battered wives you've met? How many women who live in fear of their partners do you know? They COULD walk away. They COULD go to the police. Most don't. Rumour has it -and I'm not in a position to verify it- that she understood, very well, what an abusive relationship was.
she was in the midst of a murder investigation. This was not a woman chained to the kitchen sink frightened to leave the house. She was the girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber whose family had been murderded. What stopped her on the first meeting if she was armed with the knowledge of what Jeremy had told her, telling the police. How much could a threat to her could Jeremy Bamber be in the close vicinity of police officers if she had mentioned this as soon as she could. Then the police investigation would have focused on Jeremy Bamber from the start. Why didn't she ???
-
So why was it okay for MC to protect the man she loved, but wrong for JM to do the same. Don't forget he told her he couldn't have done it and hired a hitman to do it for (the princely sum of) £2000.
Ian Huntley by all accounts ( and was judged in a court of law) told Maxine carr he had not done the crime. She provided him in albi because she loved the man and believed him innocent and did not want him to come under suspcion
-
Julie protected him right until the end - until he dumped her. If he hadn't done that, she would have continued to protect him.
-
she was in the midst of a murder investigation. This was not a woman chained to the kitchen sink frightened to leave the house. She was the girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber whose family had been murderded. What stopped her on the first meeting if she was armed with the knowledge of what Jeremy had told her, telling the police. How much could a threat to her could Jeremy Bamber be in the close vicinity of police officers if she had mentioned this as soon as she could. Then the police investigation would have focused on Jeremy Bamber from the start. Why didn't she ???
Who knows why she didn't? The best answer I can give is that she was in denial and remained so until she discovered he was seeing another woman. I think it's highly likely that had he married her she may have kept her mouth shut................until he had his first affair? I've said that she probably went through a gamut of emotions -she probably went through a whole lot of thoughts, not least of which would have been how to make it come right for her.
-
Sillier days? We're not talking about stealing a lollipop from a shop, we're talking about the gruesome murder of five people!
Well, as I've never stolen a lollipop from anywhere I wouldn't know what feeling guilty of it is like. Julie didn't commit those murders, and remember, I don't think Jeremy EVER admitted that he had. He SAID he'd paid someone else. I'd suggest she really, REALLY wanted that to be true.
-
Who knows why she didn't? The best answer I can give is that she was in denial and remained so until she discovered he was seeing another woman. I think it's highly likely that had he married her she may have kept her mouth shut................until he had his first affair? I've said that she probably went through a gamut of emotions -she probably went through a whole lot of thoughts, not least of which would have been how to make it come right for her.
how can you be in denial if the person has told you what he is intending to do and then that very night it happens,????
-
Well, as I've never stolen a lollipop from anywhere I wouldn't know what feeling guilty of it is like. Julie didn't commit those murders, and remember, I don't think Jeremy EVER admitted that he had. He SAID he'd paid someone else. I'd suggest she really, REALLY wanted that to be true.
She wanted to believe that he paid someone to do it? Oh, well that's OK then as long as he didn't actually do it himself.
-
how can you be in denial if the person has told you what he is intending to do and then that very night it happens,????
And when he tells you afterwards that he had them killed?
-
Who knows why she didn't? The best answer I can give is that she was in denial and remained so until she discovered he was seeing another woman. I think it's highly likely that had he married her she may have kept her mouth shut................until he had his first affair? I've said that she probably went through a gamut of emotions -she probably went through a whole lot of thoughts, not least of which would have been how to make it come right for her.
That last bit is about right.
-
Well, as I've never stolen a lollipop from anywhere I wouldn't know what feeling guilty of it is like. Julie didn't commit those murders, and remember, I don't think Jeremy EVER admitted that he had. He SAID he'd paid someone else. I'd suggest she really, REALLY wanted that to be true.
but the police initially concluded that Shelia had gone " beserk " and committed the murders. If she was armed with info from Jeremy Bamber that he paid a mercenary to do it. Why did she not tell the police?
-
She knew Colin didn't she? How could she let him think that his ex wife had done it? He must have been full of guilt himself.
-
how can you be in denial if the person has told you what he is intending to do and then that very night it happens,????
Because somewhere deep down she suspected he may have and didn't want to?
-
but the police initially concluded that Shelia had gone " beserk " and committed the murders. If she was armed with info from Jeremy Bamber that he paid a mercenary to do it. Why did she not tell the police?
The police didn't need to conclude. Jeremy told them that his father had said it. I guess she was in a shall I/shan't I place.
-
And when he tells you afterwards that he had them killed?
exactly, take guilt or innocence out of the equation for a second. Look at it from a common sense prospective. " I have been on the tractor all day thinking , tonight's the night it is going to happen ," if Jeremy Bamber had spoke these words to his partner the night. Hours before the killings. And even if he said he had paid a mercenary. Julie would be able to contradict his later claim ( and the SIO claim ) that Shelia had committed the murders. Armed with this information the police would have been on Jeremy Bambers case from day one.
-
She knew Colin didn't she? How could she let him think that his ex wife had done it? He must have been full of guilt himself.
Julie explains why she didn't come forward earlier - in her statement(s)
-
She knew Colin didn't she? How could she let him think that his ex wife had done it? He must have been full of guilt himself.
Didn't Colin say in his book that he'd had a private conversation with her? He never revealed what had been said.
-
The police didn't need to conclude. Jeremy told them that his father had said it. I guess she was in a shall I/shan't I place.
shall I shan't I?? It's not a " who stole the shepards pie from the fridge scenario love, we are discussing five murders ....
-
shall I shan't I?? It's not a " who stole the shepards pie from the fridge scenario love, we are discussing five murders ....
We certainly are!
-
Like I said. She didn't WANT to believe he'd done it so when Jeremy said MM had done it, she didn't HAVE to believe it
-
Julie explains why she didn't come forward earlier - in her statement(s)
absolute load of bollocks. It would rip to shreds a normal humans moral compass. Even if she thought she would face legal proceedings why did she continue to sleep with him Caroline ???
-
exactly, take guilt or innocence out of the equation for a second. Look at it from a common sense prospective. " I have been on the tractor all day thinking , tonight's the night it is going to happen ," if Jeremy Bamber had spoke these words to his partner the night. Hours before the killings. And even if he said he had paid a mercenary. Julie would be able to contradict his later claim ( and the SIO claim ) that Shelia had committed the murders. Armed with this information the police would have been on Jeremy Bambers case from day one.
By the time Julie arrived, Jeremy had stuffed them full of Sheila's insanity and gun competency. It was a feasible enough story. It fitted in with the tableau in WHF.
-
By the time Julie arrived, Jeremy had stuffed them full of Sheila's insanity and gun competency. It was a feasible enough story. It fitted in with the tableau in WHF.
this is laughable. If a person told you some hours previously that they planned to do their family in. And then lo and behold that does occur. Would you not be just the tiniest bit suspicious of them ?
-
this is laughable. If a person told you some hours previously that they planned to do their family in. And then lo and behold that does occur. Would you not be just the tiniest bit suspicious of them ?
It would certainly seem coincidental...................but then, I'm not a 20 year old who's in love with a man who will give me a better life than the one I've previously had.
-
Like I said. She didn't WANT to believe he'd done it so when Jeremy said MM had done it, she didn't HAVE to believe it
this is bollocks love, I'm sorry for coming across as rude. It would be believable if a person denied it from the outset the scenario your putting forward. For example he is claiming innocence, people are saying he is gulity" but if we go by Julie mugfords own words... Jeremy Bamber that very day had told her of his plan to do his family in. What denial could she be in. She had been told of his intentions !!!
-
this is bollocks love, I'm sorry for coming across as rude. It would be believable if a person denied it from the outset the scenario your putting forward. For example he is claiming innocence, people are saying he is gulity" but if we go by Julie mugfords own words... Jeremy Bamber that very day had told her of his plan to do his family in. What denial could she be in. She had been told of his intentions !!!
You must find great comfort in your, oh so clear cut world. No shades of grey, just black or white. Bet you've never feel conflicted. We all have choice. Julie chose not to accept what he told her. In common parlance, she stuck her fingers in her ears and sang the lala song.
-
You must find great comfort in your, oh so clear cut world. No shades of grey, just black or white. Bet you've never feel conflicted. We all have choice. Julie chose not to accept what he told her. In common parlance, she stuck her fingers in her ears and sang the lala song.
five murders in one family don't occur on a regular daily basis. If your partner phoned you hours before and told you of his murderous intenisions, and then hours later it subsequently occured... What logical conclusion would you draw from that??
-
You must find great comfort in your, oh so clear cut world. No shades of grey, just black or white. Bet you've never feel conflicted. We all have choice. Julie chose not to accept what he told her. In common parlance, she stuck her fingers in her ears and sang the lala song.
without meaning to sound arragont. You are clutching at straws my dear
-
without meaning to sound arragont. You are clutching at straws my dear
You'd best make sure you can spell it before you accuse me of it, eh, duckie? I could only be said to be clutching at straws if I were trying to exonerate her. I'm not. I'm trying to understand. It's not enough for me to say she's guilty and leave it at that. There are reasons behind every action.
-
You'd best make sure you can spell it before you accuse me of it, eh, duckie? I could only be said to be clutching at straws if I were trying to exonerate her. I'm not. I'm trying to understand. It's not enough for me to say she's guilty and leave it at that. There are reasons behind every action.
a simple typing error on my behalf whilst eating a Chinese meal and on a phone is not going to change the fact of why Julie didn't inform on Jeremy Bamber at the earliest opportunity cockle...
-
a simple typing error on my behalf whilst eating a Chinese meal and on a phone is not going to change the fact of why Julie didn't inform on Jeremy Bamber at the earliest opportunity cockle...
Did you bother reading the statement?
-
absolute load of bollocks. It would rip to shreds a normal humans moral compass. Even if she thought she would face legal proceedings why did she continue to sleep with him Caroline ???
Strange, isn't it? I'd have thought that slaughtering one's family took greater precedence over what "shreds a normal human's moral compass". It seems that Julie's crime is deemed to be more serious than Jeremy's.
-
It was.
-
JM wouldn't have got away with her performance today.
-
JM wouldn't have got away with her performance today.
Neither would Bamber.
-
Neither would Bamber.
He certainly would if others hadn't !
-
He certainly would if others hadn't !
He would have gotten away with it? :o
-
He would have gotten away with it? :o
Put in another way, he wouldn't have been charged with the murders.
-
Put in another way, he wouldn't have been charged with the murders.
Meaning he's have got away with it.
-
Meaning he's have got away with it.
:o :o :o :o
-
:o :o :o :o
Scary thought, eh? Still we're only JUST past fright night.
-
I suppose the silencer evidence might have been less compelling if they had been able to do DNA testing in those days.
-
I suppose the silencer evidence might have been less compelling if they had been able to do DNA testing in those days.
Not if Sheila’s blood was planted inside it.
-
It would certainly seem coincidental...................but then, I'm not a 20 year old who's in love with a man who will give me a better life than the one I've previously had.
even if that person had murdered five people? That's laughable. If what Julie mugford says is true that Jeremy Bamber had told her of his murderous plans. Then why didn't she alert the police as soon as? That to me and any normal sane individual is extremely suspcious
-
Did you bother reading the statement?
I did indeed. And i think it's a load of bollocks
-
even if that person had murdered five people? That's laughable. If what Julie mugford says is true that Jeremy Bamber had told her of his murderous plans. Then why didn't she alert the police as soon as? That to me and any normal sane individual is extremely suspcious
Mmm, and idling away 20+ minutes before alerting the police is to me, and any normal sane individual, extremely suspicious.
-
even if that person had murdered five people? That's laughable. If what Julie mugford says is true that Jeremy Bamber had told her of his murderous plans. Then why didn't she alert the police as soon as? That to me and any normal sane individual is extremely suspcious
Jane spent 28 years believing Jeremy innocent. Then changed her mind for the pettiest of reasons.
She knows Julie was full of crap. Ultimately you are wasting your time debating her. ;)
-
Jane spent 28 years believing Jeremy innocent. Then changed her mind for the pettiest of reasons.
She knows Julie was full of crap. Ultimately you are wasting your time debating her. ;)
she was trying to explain her actions away. I was just pointing out they are ludicrous.
-
Mmm, and idling away 20+ minutes before alerting the police is to me, and any normal sane individual, extremely suspicious.
can you conclusively prove this???
-
can you conclusively prove this???
" my daughter aged 26 years old my sister aged 27 years old"
-
Jane spent 28 years believing Jeremy innocent. Then changed her mind for the pettiest of reasons.
She knows Julie was full of crap. Ultimately you are wasting your time debating her. ;)
Never miss an opportunity to have a dig, do you?
What was it that Jeremy told Julie? Wasn't there something about her being charged with being an accomplice if she said anything? I imagine she'd have been pretty desperate to save her own skin. and for the record, I think she probably knows more about it than she revealed -whether or not she believed it when she was told is another matter- it COULD be said that Jeremy might have something on her? Unfortunately for him, if he says anything, he drops himself right in it.
-
Never miss an opportunity to have a dig, do you?
What was it that Jeremy told Julie? Wasn't there something about her being charged with being an accomplice if she said anything? I imagine she'd have been pretty desperate to save her own skin. and for the record, I think she probably knows more about it than she revealed -whether or not she believed it when she was told is another matter- it COULD be said that Jeremy might have something on her? Unfortunately for him, if he says anything, he drops himself right in it.
save her own skin? That's laughable she had done nothing wrong. According to Julie's statements Jeremy had mentioned " with quite a lot of vehemence " his plans to do away with his family. She brushed these " threats" off she didn't take him seriously. Il ask again Jane if your partner tells you earlier in the day that has been on the tractor all day planning to annihilate his family. And then hours later 5 of them are found murdered. What would stop you informing the police? What did she have to fear. She wasn't a part of a conspiracy...
-
even if that person had murdered five people? That's laughable. If what Julie mugford says is true that Jeremy Bamber had told her of his murderous plans. Then why didn't she alert the police as soon as? That to me and any normal sane individual is extremely suspcious
She didn't want him to go to prison.
-
save her own skin? That's laughable she had done nothing wrong. According to Julie's statements Jeremy had mentioned " with quite a lot of vehemence " his plans to do away with his family. She brushed these " threats" off she didn't take him seriously. Il ask again Jane if your partner tells you earlier in the day that has been on the tractor all day planning to annihilate his family. And then hours later 5 of them are found murdered. What would stop you informing the police? What did she have to fear. She wasn't a part of a conspiracy...
It's of no importance what I, you, or anyone else, think we might, or would, have done. WE are not Julie. WE can have no idea of what it felt like to be her. WE weren't in a relationship with Jeremy.
-
can you conclusively prove this???
If Jeremy called at the time that is being promoted NOW then there is a 26 minute time lapse and NO explanation! No one here has to prove anything, the logs do that for you!
-
" my daughter aged 26 years old my sister aged 27 years old"
Well, it was West who wrote 'sister' and Bonnet who wrote 'daughter' and no one is claiming Bonnet received a call from Nevill! Did both Nevill and Jeremy forget Sheila's married name?
-
save her own skin? That's laughable she had done nothing wrong. According to Julie's statements Jeremy had mentioned " with quite a lot of vehemence " his plans to do away with his family. She brushed these " threats" off she didn't take him seriously. Il ask again Jane if your partner tells you earlier in the day that has been on the tractor all day planning to annihilate his family. And then hours later 5 of them are found murdered. What would stop you informing the police? What did she have to fear. She wasn't a part of a conspiracy...
We already know Julie lied about everything.
According to NGB there is now proof she made her deal with the NOTW pre-trial. Something she denied under oath.
-
We already know Julie lied about everything.
According to NGB there is now proof she made her deal with the NOTW pre-trial. Something she denied under oath.
It's on record that her solicitor advised her to take a deal from one national newspaper to get all the other vultures off her back. Really is this the best you can do..
-
We already know Julie lied about everything.
According to NGB there is now proof she made her deal with the NOTW pre-trial. Something she denied under oath.
Well now, I think I'd find that easier to accept if NGB were to say it. I believe that Jeremy also had arranged a deal with a newspaper for when he got off? Story, book, film? The whole kit and kaboodle, undoubtedly. Either way, it might make her equally as devious as him, but doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
-
It's on record that her solicitor advised her to take a deal from one national newspaper to get all the other vultures off her back. Really is this the best you can do..
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
-
There is a lot more to that post I can now add also.
-
I still want to know why Julie mugford slept in the same bed as Jeremy Bamber, in the aftermath of August 7th1985 when she was armed with the knowledge that he was planning to kill certain members of his immediate family ladies. I still have not received a logical, sensible answer...... ???
-
I still want to know why Julie mugford slept in the same bed as Jeremy Bamber, in the aftermath of August 7th1985 when she was armed with the knowledge that he was planning to kill certain members of his immediate family ladies. I still have not received a logical, sensible answer...... ???
She's a hybristophiliac? ;D
-
I still want to know why Julie mugford slept in the same bed as Jeremy Bamber, in the aftermath of August 7th1985 when she was armed with the knowledge that he was planning to kill certain members of his immediate family ladies. I still have not received a logical, sensible answer...... ???
If you don't believe you've received any logical, sensible answers, from us, as to why she continued to sleep with him -incidentally, she claims there was no sex after the murders- perhaps you have one of your own you'd like to share with us.
-
Well, it was West who wrote 'sister' and Bonnet who wrote 'daughter' and no one is claiming Bonnet received a call from Nevill! Did both Nevill and Jeremy forget Sheila's married name?
I will say it again " my daughter is 26 years old my sister is 27 years old" the funny thing is she had turned 28 in June or July ( I can't be specific if it is June 18th or July 18th) I think it's the latter. In any event, if the same person made two calls they would say the same age. Why does the police have shelias age at both 26 and 27???
-
I still want to know why Julie mugford slept in the same bed as Jeremy Bamber, in the aftermath of August 7th1985 when she was armed with the knowledge that he was planning to kill certain members of his immediate family ladies. I still have not received a logical, sensible answer...... ???
Probably because none of us are Julie Mugford. There is no one here who can answer why she did anything. If you want to know why she did something, you need to ask her or read her statements. Any suggestion provided by anyone who believes Bamber guilty will always be rebuked as 'illogical' and could only ever be an opinion - and you're only interested in FACTS right?
-
I will say it again " my daughter is 26 years old my sister is 27 years old" the funny thing is she had turned 28 in June or July ( I can't be specific if it is June 18th or July 18th) I think it's the latter. In any event, if the same person made two calls they would say the same age. Why does the police have shelias age at both 26 and 27???
Because Bamber wasn't sure how old she was!
-
I will say it again " my daughter is 26 years old my sister is 27 years old" the funny thing is she had turned 28 in June or July ( I can't be specific if it is June 18th or July 18th) I think it's the latter. In any event, if the same person made two calls they would say the same age. Why does the police have shelias age at both 26 and 27???
The police log with her age at 26 is from West to Bonnet.
The police log with her age at 27 is from Jeremy to West that was probably written over a month later.
All the discrepancies can be put down to Wests poor record keeping.
Another possibility is that someone said he age was 26 or 27 but only one figure got written down.
-
The police log with her age at 26 is from West to Bonnet.
The police log with her age at 27 is from Jeremy to West that was probably written over a month later.
All the discrepancies can be put down to Wests poor record keeping.
Another possibility is that someone said he age was 26 or 27 but only one figure got written down.
Where's that from?
-
Where's that from?
My own deduction.
-
I still want to know why Julie mugford slept in the same bed as Jeremy Bamber, in the aftermath of August 7th1985 when she was armed with the knowledge that he was planning to kill certain members of his immediate family ladies. I still have not received a logical, sensible answer...... ???
We don't know for sure that they were intimate. She wanted to leave but he said he needed her. He was taking valium tablets washed down with alcohol. She pressed him about the murders, whereupon he made up the hitman story on the spot, hence the inaccuracies which David1819 has pounced upon.
-
West admits he completed the C1 form/log after talking to Jeremy! It's in his first statement dated 9th Aug 1985 so he must have written the time he stared writing the log, not the time he spoke to Jeremy.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6845.msg317551.html#msg317551
-
Woohoooo!! The reason that they didn't know West wrote the C1 form AFTER speaking to Jeremy is because his 9th of August statement wasn't at trial!
That sorts that out! Jeremy couldn't have called at 03:36!
-
West admits he completed the C1 form/log after talking to Jeremy! It's in his first statement dated 9th Aug 1985 so he must have written the time he stared writing the log, not the time he spoke to Jeremy.
Yes but his 9th Aug statement has the correct time he received the call (before 3:26am)
My theory is that he did write 3:26am on the call log but wrote everything down so badly and illegible he had to re-do it from memory a month later.
Its already been pointed out on red that there are two versions of Wests 3:36am log. Hence I don't believe either are the origional log.
-
Because Bamber wasn't sure how old she was!
neither was her father then. How do the police get two ages of 27 and 26 ....???
-
Yes but his 9th Aug statement has the correct time he received the call (before 3:26am)
My theory is that he did write 3:26am on the call log but wrote everything down so badly and illegible he had to re-do it from memory a month later.
Its already been pointed out on red that there are two versions of Wests 3:36am log. Hence I don't believe either are the origional log.
Yes, because he has consulted with the control room by the time he made the statement and corrected the time. I have seen the logs you're referring to and have copes, they ALL state 03:36.
What I have posted isn't a theory, he admits to completing the C1 form AFTER speaking to Bamber and THAT is significant!
-
Woohoooo!! The reason that they didn't know West wrote the C1 form AFTER speaking to Jeremy is because his 9th of August statement wasn't at trial!
That sorts that out! Jeremy couldn't have called at 03:36!
Yes it was.
-
We don't know for sure that they were intimate. She wanted to leave but he said he needed her. He was taking valium tablets washed down with alcohol. She pressed him about the murders, whereupon he made up the hitman story on the spot, hence the inaccuracies which David1819 has pounced upon.
Steven if we go by Julie's statements he had told her he had been planning it all day. Why did Julie not inform the police at the earliest opportunity. This is not a scenario where someone is protesting innocence and the spouse/partner is on the fence in decline et Al. " It wasn't me honey they're talking bollocks. If we are to believe Julie Jeremy was planning to do it. And then it happend. Why no mention to Essex police from the immediate outset???
-
Yes it was.
So it was, but he was never asked about completing the C! form at the end and that is what he stated! That's obviously why there is an initial difference in time.
-
If you don't believe you've received any logical, sensible answers, from us, as to why she continued to sleep with him -incidentally, she claims there was no sex after the murders- perhaps you have one of your own you'd like to share with us.
yeah no worries, Jeremy Bamber fucked her off for another woman and she had an axe to grind
-
Probably because none of us are Julie Mugford. There is no one here who can answer why she did anything. If you want to know why she did something, you need to ask her or read her statements. Any suggestion provided by anyone who believes Bamber guilty will always be rebuked as 'illogical' and could only ever be an opinion - and you're only interested in FACTS right?
because you know Julie is talking a load of shite.
-
yeah no worries, Jeremy Bamber fucked her off for another woman and she had an axe to grind
So if she just wanted to get back at Bamber, why did she blame the murders on MacDonald?
-
Woohoooo!! The reason that they didn't know West wrote the C1 form AFTER speaking to Jeremy is because his 9th of August statement wasn't at trial!
That sorts that out! Jeremy couldn't have called at 03:36!
" daughter aged 26 has gone beserk" " my sister aged 27 im still waiting....
-
So it was, but he was never asked about completing the C! form at the end and that is what he stated! That's obviously why there is an initial difference in time.
If he could remember the time on the 9th of august, then he would have remembered the time just after the call had happened.
West told Bonnet that Sheila was aged 26 Yet Wests phone log states 27.
I just get impression his phone log was so illegible and embarrasing they made him do it again.
-
because you know Julie is talking a load of shite.
Calm down love! I don't believe everything Julie said - but I believe Bamber told her he was going to kill his family!
-
If he could remember the time on the 9th of august, then he would have remembered the time just after the call had happened.
West told Bonnet that Sheila was aged 26 Yet Wests phone log states 27.
I just get impression his phone log was so illegible and embarrasing they made him do it again.
At that venture he didn't realise the time was important and he would have gotten the time from the control room NOT by memory when he complied his statement. He admits to having been told his time was incorrect by the control room so he must have liaised.
-
So if she just wanted to get back at Bamber, why did she blame the murders on MacDonald?
it would still land Bamber in the shit Caroline. Whether he pulled the trigger or not. This is laughable !!!
-
Calm down love! I don't believe everything Julie said - but I believe Bamber told her he was going to kill his family!
why did she not report it then until after Jeremy Bamber fucked her off??? Let alone, still be in his vicinity and indentify the bodies that she knew he had killed ???
-
it would still land Bamber in the shit Caroline. Whether he pulled the trigger or not. This is laughable !!!
So keep laughing - it's good for the soul. No good firing questions at people when you know you'll never accept the answer. Waste of time and energy.
-
why did she not report it then until after Jeremy Bamber fucked her off??? Let alone, still be in his vicinity and indentify the bodies that she knew he had killed ???
This is boring, I don't know why Julie did what she did and to be fair, I don't care - I'm just glad she finally nailed him!
-
The police log with her age at 26 is from West to Bonnet.
The police log with her age at 27 is from Jeremy to West that was probably written over a month later.
All the discrepancies can be put down to Wests poor record keeping.
Another possibility is that someone said he age was 26 or 27 but only one figure got written down.
let's say for example only Jeremy Bamber made the call and said she was 26. If a despatcher received that information about her age he would not be mistaken in it
How many times do you reckon even by 1985 standards you get a call on the early hours of a midweek day of that magnitude? This wasn't a routine burglary stolen car thing there is no way that copper got those ages mixed up. He was told by two different people
-
So keep laughing - it's good for the soul. No good firing questions at people when you know you'll never accept the answer. Waste of time and energy.
as I said before I take a neutral stance. Jeremy Bamber maintains his innocence after 34 years. If you believe him guilty why are you here? I am just asking questions that I see fit...
-
let's say for example only Jeremy Bamber made the call and said she was 26. If a despatcher received that information about her age he would not be mistaken in it
How many times do you reckon even by 1985 standards you get a call on the early hours of a midweek day of that magnitude? This wasn't a routine burglary stolen car thing there is no way that copper got those ages mixed up. He was told by two different people
No, he wasn't! If Bamber had said 26/27 West could have had either number in mind. As he didn't fill C1 form until after the call from Jeremy, it would be easy to write either age down.
-
At that venture he didn't realise the time was important and he would have gotten the time from the control room NOT by memory when he complied his statement. He admits to having been told his time was incorrect by the control room so he must have liaised.
But he has two statements with contradictory times.
-
This is boring, I don't know why Julie did what she did and to be fair, I don't care - I'm just glad she finally nailed him!
it's not boring love, it translates to you don't have a fucking prayer in providing me with a sensible answer to back up your claims
-
No, he wasn't! If Bamber had said 26/27 West could have had either number in mind. As he didn't fill C1 form until after the call from Jeremy, it would be easy to write either age down.
Jeremy Bamber said his sister was 27. Where did 26 come from ....
-
it's not boring love, it translates to you don't have a fucking prayer in providing me with a sensible answer to back up your claims
Someone has a potty mouth! ;D ;D ;D
No one has a prayer of providing you with an answer for why someone else did what they did - no one other than Julie Mugford could answer you. What claims am I making in respect to Julie Mugford?
-
Someone has a potty mouth! ;D ;D ;D
No one has a prayer of providing you with an answer for why someone else did what they did - no one other than Julie Mugford could answer you. What claims am I making in respect to Julie Mugford?
justifying her actions
-
But he has two statements with contradictory times.
Well, I don't think there is any getting away from the impression that he wasn't the brightest tack but, I think it's important that we now know he wrote the C1 form AFTER the call from Jeremy. He must have jotted info down on a pad and then copied it to the form - clearly, he didn't note important things down, like the time.
-
justifying her actions
Where?
-
There is no way that copper got his ages mixed up there was two phonecalls
-
Where?
why did you post her statements if you wasnt meaning to justify Caroline??
-
There is no way that copper got his ages mixed up there was two phonecalls
And there is no way Nevill Bamber called the police.
-
And there is no way Nevill Bamber called the police.
" my daughter is 27 my sister is 26"
-
" my daughter is 27 my sister is 26"
And yet she was actually 28, not long had a birthday so her dad was hardly likely to get it wrong. Bamber on the other hand ..... she's 26/27 - Neither log had her correct name because Bamber couldn't remember that she was called Caffell. Again, not something her dad would (coincidently) get wrong (too).
-
On the same log
"Message PASSED to CD (control desk - ie. Bonnett), by the SON of MR BAMBER"
-
There is no way that copper got his ages mixed up there was two phonecalls
Short of being psychic, how do you expect "that copper" -incidentally, it sounds like you have little respect for police- to get right what the caller got wrong? Do you think Jeremy kept a Birthday book to reference family birthdays? I can't think of anything more natural, when being asked for/giving someone's age, than hedging one's bets slightly, unless of course, it's a mother talking about the age of her new baby. She'll probably have it right to the minute. So, given that he accepted that 26/27 was correct, it was of no consequence what wrote and what he passed on, ONE of the ages would be right. As it happens, neither were. She was 28. Perhaps you're suggesting West should have known that? Sheila's age wasn't the only thing Jeremy got wrong, was it? He didn't give her name correctly, either.
-
So it's now expected that everyone who's wakened at an unearthly hour in the morning gathers themselves together in a split second ,to normality.?
Of course we all leap out of bed every morning as soon as day breaks, don't we ? It's a recognised thing that everyone does so without thought and are immediately ready to face the day.
Ever tried getting young adults out of bed even after the alarm has gone off ??
-
So it's now expected that everyone who's wakened at an unearthly hour in the morning gathers themselves together in a split second ,to normality.?
Of course we all leap out of bed every morning as soon as day breaks, don't we ? It's a recognised thing that everyone does so without thought and are immediately ready to face the day.
Ever tried getting young adults out of bed even after the alarm has gone off ??
I'd agree if we were talking about adolescents, but this particular "young adult" was old enough to vote, to fight for his country, to marry, and indeed had already had a spell of playing "husband" and "daddy".
-
I'd agree if we were talking about adolescents, but this particular "young adult" was old enough to vote, to fight for his country, to marry, and indeed had already had a spell of playing "husband" and "daddy".
It still doesn't make them any more capable of leaping up out of bed and immediately putting their brains into gear. I wouldn't have said that JB was an " alert " type of person at the best of times.
-
He'd happily jumped into a relationship containing small children without thought or the implications involved. He wasn't a mature character and certainly not ready nor prepared to settle down, least of all with a ready-made family. It can't realistically be imagined at that age, in a man anyway.
JB was a normal 24 year old who didn't want to be tied down. Nothing wrong with that.
-
It still doesn't make them any more capable of leaping up out of bed and immediately putting their brains into gear. I wouldn't have said that JB was an " alert " type of person at the best of times.
And I'd say that when you get an emergency call at that hour of the morning you snap your brain into gear. He could have done just what Nevill allegedly asked of him and driven straight over there BEFORE he realized he was still in his underwear.
-
And I'd say that when you get an emergency call at that hour of the morning you snap your brain into gear. He could have done just what Nevill allegedly asked of him and driven straight over there BEFORE he realized he was still in his underwear.
So you're the only person who'd be alert enough to throw on clothes and be out of the door in 5 minutes ? Lucky you !
-
He'd happily jumped into a relationship containing small children without thought or the implications involved. He wasn't a mature character and certainly not ready nor prepared to settle down, least of all with a ready-made family. It can't realistically be imagined at that age, in a man anyway.
JB was a normal 24 year old who didn't want to be tied down. Nothing wrong with that.
Whether he was emotionally ready isn't the question. He must have believed he was ready to settle down or he wouldn't have done it. NONE of us knows what the unknown to us is about until it becomes known, ie it's pretty useless talking to a 30 year old about what it feels like to be 60. They CAN'T understand, and won't until they get there.
-
So you're the only person who'd be alert enough to throw on clothes and be out of the door in 5 minutes ? Lucky you !
Certainly, I've driven to my parents' house around 3am wearing just a nightdress. You think that's unusual? You think I'm the only one? Dream on.
-
Whether he was emotionally ready isn't the question. He must have believed he was ready to settle down or he wouldn't have done it. NONE of us knows what the unknown to us is about until it becomes known, ie it's pretty useless talking to a 30 year old about what it feels like to be 60. They CAN'T understand, and won't until they get there.
What do you call " settling down ?" How long was he with the woman ? Not that long I suspect. He was flitting about from one to the other in a world of flattery ( older woman ) and fantasy because he wasn't settled at all he only thought he was. He'd have gone along like that as young men do, but sadly was never given the chance.
-
What do you call " settling down ?" How long was he with the woman ? Not that long I suspect. He was flitting about from one to the other in a world of flattery ( older woman ) and fantasy because he wasn't settled at all he only thought he was. He'd have gone along like that as young men do, but sadly was never given the chance.
"How long" is irrelevant. I'm willing to bet, that when he moved in with her, he believed this was "IT" and probably wasn't playing the field. That he BELIEVED it was real at the time is what's important.
-
"How long" is irrelevant. I'm willing to bet, that when he moved in with her, he believed this was "IT" and probably wasn't playing the field. That he BELIEVED it was real at the time is what's important.
At 24 and thinking " this is it ?" Get real. Many who were older felt the same but more often than not were in for a rude awakening and some realised when it was too late. It goes on today among those over 60 who don't know their own minds.
-
He'd happily jumped into a relationship containing small children without thought or the implications involved. He wasn't a mature character and certainly not ready nor prepared to settle down, least of all with a ready-made family. It can't realistically be imagined at that age, in a man anyway.
JB was a normal 24 year old who didn't want to be tied down. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree with most of this, except it was June and Nevill who broke up the relationship with Suzette under the threat of disinheritance. Can you see how a plan begins to germinate in his mind..
-
At 24 and thinking " this is it ?" Get real. Many who were older felt the same but more often than not were in for a rude awakening and some realised when it was too late. It goes on today among those over 60 who don't know their own minds.
So no one gets married under the age of 24? I think it's you who needs to get real and stop thinking about Jeremy as a little boy - he was a grown MAN!
-
At 24 and thinking " this is it ?" Get real. Many who were older felt the same but more often than not were in for a rude awakening and some realised when it was too late. It goes on today among those over 60 who don't know their own minds.
For God's sake stop thinking for Jeremy, Lookout. Allow him some space for his own thoughts instead of claiming you know everything about him. I wonder if June was the same? It's usually only 24 year olds who still allow their parents to tell them how to live their lives, and adhere to it, who are emotionally unready for the next step. We ALL have to learn for ourselves whether we were right or wrong.
-
I agree with most of this, except it was June and Nevill who broke up the relationship with Suzette under the threat of disinheritance. Can you see how a plan begins to germinate in his mind..
Steve, there's nothing wrong in backing out of a relationship with inheritance in mind, but it didn't mean that he wanted to help himself before either parent's time was up. JB was beginning to come to his senses and following his head instead of his heart----well his father's head as JB's was half-empty.
-
Steve, there's nothing wrong in backing out of a relationship with inheritance in mind, but it didn't mean that he wanted to help himself before either parent's time was up. JB was beginning to come to his senses and following his head instead of his heart----well his father's head as JB's was half-empty.
Perhaps you'd care to explain, what, of Jeremy's behaviours, has led you to the conclusion that "JB was beginning to come to his senses"? It was actually "following his head instead of his heart" that caused the problems. Young men don't screw around with their hearts, they do it with their heads. It probably also follows that if he was thinking with Nevill's head it was the wrong direction for him.
-
Steve, there's nothing wrong in backing out of a relationship with inheritance in mind, but it didn't mean that he wanted to help himself before either parent's time was up. JB was beginning to come to his senses and following his head instead of his heart----well his father's head as JB's was half-empty.
Yes, that's right - he had inheritance in mind and he did indeed follow his fathers head, when he shot him four times and battered his skull in.
-
Steve, there's nothing wrong in backing out of a relationship with inheritance in mind, but it didn't mean that he wanted to help himself before either parent's time was up. JB was beginning to come to his senses and following his head instead of his heart----well his father's head as JB's was half-empty.
I think it shook him up badly and he was on the rebound when he met Julie. She served the purpose of steadying his nerve and inflating his self-esteem, doormat as she was. Remember this crime was all about the power that accompanied money: the feet up on Nevill's desk post-murders signified from whom the power had passed and who was now firmly in charge.
-
Yes, that's right - he had inheritance in mind and he did indeed follow his fathers head, when he shot him four times and battered his skull in.
Now there's a bloodthirsty answer if ever I saw one. I'd be worried if I thought like that !
-
Now there's a bloodthirsty answer if ever I saw one. I'd be worried if I thought like that !
Well, I guess that's what the court thought.
-
Well, I guess that's what the court thought.
And the public when AE took her children to the bedroom where twins had been murdered.
-
And the public when AE took her children to the bedroom where twins had been murdered.
At least children did inhabit that farmhouse again. I'm sure Daniel and Nicholas would have approved.
-
And there is no way Nevill Bamber called the police.
then how did the copper get both ages of 26 and 27?
-
And yet she was actually 28, not long had a birthday so her dad was hardly likely to get it wrong. Bamber on the other hand ..... she's 26/27 - Neither log had her correct name because Bamber couldn't remember that she was called Caffell. Again, not something her dad would (coincidently) get wrong (too).
my sister is married I often refer to her still by my own surname when it's put to me. What's the relevance??
-
then how did the copper get both ages of 26 and 27?
Already been answered.
-
Already been answered.
" cd 1990 daughter has gone beserk and has got hold of one on MY guns" I'm going to place empathise on the word MY. How do we get " MY guns and a" refered by the SON of nevill Bamber Caroline??? If it's the same log.
-
" cd 1990 daughter has gone beserk and has got hold of one on MY guns" I'm going to place empathise on the word MY. How do we get " MY guns and a" refered by the SON of nevill Bamber Caroline??? If it's the same log.
If you bothered to read past posts on this topic, you will see it has been done to death!! However - Wests log contains Jeremy's details and Bonnett wrote down Nevill's details as this was the form that contained the potential victims details and an account of the issue. Bonnett makes it CLEAR! that he is documenting information from Cd 1990 which is West's call sign and that the information received was from the SON (Jeremy) of Mr Bamber! The Jury saw the log, it wasn't withheld and neither was West's = although the CT will have you believe it was.
-
" cd 1990 daughter has gone beserk and has got hold of one on MY guns" I'm going to place empathise on the word MY. How do we get " MY guns and a" refered by the SON of nevill Bamber Caroline??? If it's the same log.
D'you know. I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea for you to do a bit of role play. Just imagine for a moment that you're West and "Brrr Brrr" the phone rings. A voice, who you eventually ascertain to be Jeremy Bamber tells you that he's received a call from his father, Nevill Bamber, telling, of his sister, "She's gone berserk and got hold of a gun" and the line went dead. Jeremy Bamber then goes on to tell you his sister's age and name along with his father's address and telephone number. NOW, you need to relay the message to someone who can get help out to them. I challenge you to try, without taking half an hour to do it.
-
If you bothered to read past posts on this topic, you will see it has been done to death!! However - Wests log contains Jeremy's details and Bonnett wrote down Nevill's details as this was the form that contained the potential victims details and an account of the issue. Bonnett makes it CLEAR! that he is documenting information from Cd 1990 which is West's call sign and that the information received was from the SON (Jeremy) of Mr Bamber! The Jury saw the log, it wasn't withheld and neither was West's = although the CT will have you believe it was.
its been done to death by people like yourself and Me who were nothing to do with August 7th 1985 and have nothing to offer on the subject but our own opinions. Why were two ages mentioned?? Why does the log both refer to the " on the information of the son of nevill Bamber" and also states " MY daughter has gone beserk," why do we have my daughter aged 26 my sister aged 27. I'm not even championing Jeremy Bambers innocence here. That's the most laughable aspect. I'm just highlighting things that cause concern as to why two phonecalls did probably occur. Put all things into perspective. We had a silencer Essex police couldn't find discovered by relatives we had a girlfriend who was about a truthful as habitual thief on the superdrug run. We have police logs that belong on two point four children. I have no idea if Jeremy Bamber is innocent or gulity. All i can state is that in my opinion is that he deserves a retrial. The trial of October 1986 was a farce and a shame to British justice
-
D'you know. I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea for you to do a bit of role play. Just imagine for a moment that you're West and "Brrr Brrr" the phone rings. A voice, who you eventually ascertain to be Jeremy Bamber tells you that he's received a call from his father, Nevill Bamber, telling, of his sister, "She's gone berserk and got hold of a gun" and the line went dead. Jeremy Bamber then goes on to tell you his sister's age and name along with his father's address and telephone number. NOW, you need to relay the message to someone who can get help out to them. I challenge you to try, without taking half an hour to do it.
ok we will do role play. If only one individual speaks to you. How do you get the following phrases " acting on the information and " my daughter " furthermore you still haven't answered my Julie question. Where is my logical answer I asked for 24 hours ago???
-
If you bothered to read past posts on this topic, you will see it has been done to death!! However - Wests log contains Jeremy's details and Bonnett wrote down Nevill's details as this was the form that contained the potential victims details and an account of the issue. Bonnett makes it CLEAR! that he is documenting information from Cd 1990 which is West's call sign and that the information received was from the SON (Jeremy) of Mr Bamber! The Jury saw the log, it wasn't withheld and neither was West's = although the CT will have you believe it was.
absolute bollocks if only one person made a call that night there would be ONLY a reference to a " Mr Jeremy Bamber 9 head street goldhanger" you can't deny that " MY daughter has got hold of one of MY guns and not get to the conclusion of a second party. Stop being ludicrous
-
its been done to death by people like yourself and Me who were nothing to do with August 7th 1985 and have nothing to offer on the subject but our own opinions. Why were two ages mentioned?? Why does the log both refer to the " on the information of the son of nevill Bamber" and also states " MY daughter has gone beserk," why do we have my daughter aged 26 my sister aged 27. I'm not even championing Jeremy Bambers innocence here. That's the most laughable aspect. I'm just highlighting things that cause concern as to why two phonecalls did probably occur. Put all things into perspective. We had a silencer Essex police couldn't find discovered by relatives we had a girlfriend who was about a truthful as habitual thief on the superdrug run. We have police logs that belong on two point four children. I have no idea if Jeremy Bamber is innocent or gulity. All i can state is that in my opinion is that he deserves a retrial. The trial of October 1986 was a farce and a shame to British justice
Not just by the likes of you and I, he's had TWO appeal and numerous submissions to the CCRC - which has ALL failed because there is nothing that shows he's innocent. It's your opinion that he should have a retrial - but if new evidence worth it's salt comes to light (not holding my breath), then he would deserve one.
By the way, Essex police weren't looking for a silencer - why would they be when they thought it was four murders and a suicide and no reason to think a silencer was used?
For someone not championing Bambers innocence, you're doing a VERY GOOD impression! The two men who wrote the logs at NO TIME mention a call from Nevill Bamber and just because YOU (and other conspiracy theorists) don't like the way they were written - well, bad grammar and sloppy habits doesn't make Bamber innocent. There were two phone calls - one from Jeremy Bamber to PC West and the other from PC West to Bonnett.
-
ok we will do role play. If only one individual speaks to you. How do you get the following phrases " acting on the information and " my daughter " furthermore you still haven't answered my Julie question. Where is my logical answer I asked for 24 hours ago???
Where does it state 'acting on the information'?
-
absolute bollocks if only one person made a call that night there would be ONLY a reference to a " Mr Jeremy Bamber 9 head street goldhanger" you can't deny that " MY daughter has got hold of one of MY guns and not get to the conclusion of a second party. Stop being ludicrous
Why would there be only one reference when Bamber was reporting an incident supposedly for his father? Pointless them turning up to 9 Head Street. You're the one being ludicrous!! Of course there was a second party - HIS DAD! Hence why they needed his details!
-
Where does it state 'acting on the information'?
well you say nevill Bamber never made a call. So the first point Essex police were even aware of the massacre was a phone call from Jeremy Bamber. Otherwise why would have they even attended whf .....
-
ok we will do role play. If only one individual speaks to you. How do you get the following phrases " acting on the information and " my daughter " furthermore you still haven't answered my Julie question. Where is my logical answer I asked for 24 hours ago???
A rough guess says it was a bit like Chinese whispers with West changing it from the third person to the first person for ease and speed of conveyance. Police aren't required to have a degree in English Language. How many times do members post stuff here that it's hard to make head or tail of? How many times do they put other interpretations onto something?
For an alleged neutral, you do a damn fine job of defending Jeremy, Julie in particular taking a bashing. I think the best you can do, if you want to know what may have motivated her, is to read her statements, empty your head of your own 'stuff' and see if you can get inside her head.
-
Not just by the likes of you and I, he's had TWO appeal and numerous submissions to the CCRC - which has ALL failed because there is nothing that shows he's innocent. It's your opinion that he should have a retrial - but if new evidence worth it's salt comes to light (not holding my breath), then he would deserve one.
By the way, Essex police weren't looking for a silencer - why would they be when they thought it was four murders and a suicide and no reason to think a silencer was used?
For someone not championing Bambers innocence, you're doing a VERY GOOD impression! The two men who wrote the logs at NO TIME mention a call from Nevill Bamber and just because YOU (and other conspiracy theorists) don't like the way they were written - well, bad grammar and sloppy habits doesn't make Bamber innocent. There were two phone calls - one from Jeremy Bamber to PC West and the other from PC West to Bonnett.
Caroline love, take the blinkers off for a second. These are man of the world south London boy dectectives in their forties fifties... Do you honestly think they initially took 24 year old posh boy Bambers word for merit at the first instance in August 85???? They combed the place. Why wasn't the silencer discovered within six hours???
-
well you say nevill Bamber never made a call. So the first point Essex police were even aware of the massacre was a phone call from Jeremy Bamber. Otherwise why would have they even attended whf .....
And? That was when they were first made aware - when Jeremy called ...... But OK - lets (as you say) role play. West gets a call from Nevill Bamber, but instead of writing the details down himself, he phones Bonnett and pretends that the call he translating, comes from Mr Bambers son - even though Jeremy hasn't call yet so he wouldn't even know that Nevill had a son. Not only that, when he actually gets a call from Jeremy (some coincidence) he doesn't tell him that his dad already called and that he's sent help. Not only that, he doesn't write anywhere on HIS form or log that Nevill called and he doesn't mention it to his superior officer or even in his statement? The one person who could have solved the whole case - just sits on it?
-
Why would there be only one reference when Bamber was reporting an incident supposedly for his father? Pointless them turning up to 9 Head Street. You're the one being ludicrous!! Of course there was a second party - HIS DAD! Hence why they needed his details!
why was MY daughter recorded then??? "My father has just called come quick your sister has gone crazy and has the gun" " my daughter has gone crazy and has hold of one of my guns. I don't have a degree in sociology. But if I had a career as a despatcher in 1985 on a quiet Tuesday night i would bet id have spoken to two different people... How can you not logically come to that conclusion.
-
well you say nevill Bamber never made a call. So the first point Essex police were even aware of the massacre was a phone call from Jeremy Bamber. Otherwise why would have they even attended whf .....
By George!!! I DO believe he's got it. It still needs a bit of a tweak, though. Jeremy didn't report a massacre, he only reported an alleged phone call from his father. He DID give them Nevill's home address. It would have been a bit of a waste if they'd turned up in Head Street
-
Caroline love, take the blinkers off for a second. These are man of the world south London boy dectectives in their forties fifties... Do you honestly think they initially took 24 year old posh boy Bambers word for merit at the first instance in August 85???? They combed the place. Why wasn't the silencer discovered within six hours???
Listen chucky egg! The only time I wore blinkers is when I thought Bamber might be innocent. You're not thinking this thing through petal - WHY would they be looking for a silencer? At that point they had no idea that a silencer was relevant! It's really not that difficult!
-
why was MY daughter recorded then??? "My father has just called come quick your sister has gone crazy and has the gun" " my daughter has gone crazy and has hold of one of my guns. I don't have a degree in sociology. But if I had a career as a despatcher in 1985 on a quiet Tuesday night i would bet id have spoken to two different people... How can you not logically come to that conclusion.
The very simple answer is that West changed from the third person to the first. You're clearly hell bent on repeating certain questions so you'd best be prepared for getting the same answers. Though they're unlikely to be the ones you want.
-
And? That was when they were first made aware - when Jeremy called ...... But OK - lets (as you say) role play. West gets a call from Nevill Bamber, but instead of writing the details down himself, he phones Bonnett and pretends that the call he translating, comes from Mr Bambers son - even though Jeremy hasn't call yet so he wouldn't even know that Nevill had a son. Not only that, when he actually gets a call from Jeremy (some coincidence) he doesn't tell him that his dad already called and that he's sent help. Not only that, he doesn't write anywhere on HIS form or log that Nevill called and he doesn't mention it to his superior officer or even in his statement? The one person who could have solved the whole case - just sits on it?
you can place as much spin on it as you want. Just take a breather and read the dialogue with a common sense approach. In 1985 on a August night early hours of the morning would you expect such a ," ruckus" as a everyday occurence. That copper didn't get his details mixed there were two different people and two phonecalls
-
Listen chucky egg! The only time I wore blinkers is when I thought Bamber might be innocent. You're not thinking this thing through petal - WHY would they be looking for a silencer? At that point they had no idea that a silencer was relevant! It's really not that difficult!
Lets role play again.
You're one of the police officers that discover 4 bodies all clearly murdered by gun shots. Then a 5th body with a gun laying across them is also found you all quickly conclude 4 murders and a suicide. Now at which point do you suggest they go and look for a silencer?
-
By George!!! I DO believe he's got it. It still needs a bit of a tweak, though. Jeremy didn't report a massacre, he only reported an alleged phone call from his father. He DID give them Nevill's home address. It would have been a bit of a waste if they'd turned up in Head Street
Neville never reported a massacre " beserk can mean many things" meaning Shelia has had a psychotic episode and there are children here. "It could be interpreted he was worried for his wife and children's safety
-
you can place as much spin on it as you want. Just take a breather and read the dialogue with a common sense approach. In 1985 on a August night early hours of the morning would you expect such a ," ruckus" as a everyday occurence. That copper didn't get his details mixed there were two different people and two phonecalls
I have read the dialogue hundreds of times but you're the one who needs to take a breather and see that you're sucked into the conspiracy theory. There is no ruckus mentioned just that someone has hold of a gun and yes, there were indeed two phone calls - one from JEREMY Bamber to West and the other from West to Bonnett.
-
you can place as much spin on it as you want. Just take a breather and read the dialogue with a common sense approach. In 1985 on a August night early hours of the morning would you expect such a ," ruckus" as a everyday occurence. That copper didn't get his details mixed there were two different people and two phonecalls
Ha! You've hit the nail on the head!!! That's exactly the laissez faire attitude Jeremy applied to it.
-
Neville never reported a massacre " beserk can mean many things" meaning Shelia has had a psychotic episode and there are children here. "It could be interpreted he was worried for his wife and children's safety
The word berserk was what Bonnett chose to use instead of 'crazy', he uses it again in his log to describe the dogs!
-
Neville never reported a massacre " beserk can mean many things" meaning Shelia has had a psychotic episode and there are children here. "It could be interpreted he was worried for his wife and children's safety
well you say nevill Bamber never made a call. So the first point Essex police were even aware of the massacre was a phone call from Jeremy Bamber. Otherwise why would have they even attended whf .....
You're perfectly correct in that Nevill never reported a massacre -difficult when he was a victim- or phoned anyone. Jeremy told the police his father had phoned but he didn't say anything about a massacre, which rather suggests that police knew nothing of a massacre until they broke into the farmhouse.
-
Lets role play again.
You're one of the police officers that discover 4 bodies all clearly murdered by gun shots. Then a 5th body with a gun laying across them is also found you all quickly conclude 4 murders and a suicide. Now at which point do you suggest they go and look for a silencer?
ok I will roll play. Im s DS J ones. I don't buy Jeremy's " dying swan act of being sick " fegining grief" I take an instant dislike to him from the offset. Would I order a cursory search or wouldn't I would I stumble across a silencer in a cupboard even if I wasnt looking for it I think I would wouldn't I????
-
ok I will roll play. Im s DS ones. I don't buy Jeremy's " dying swan act of being sick " fegining grief" I take an instant dislike to him from the offset. Would I order a cursory search or wouldn't I would I stumble across a silencer in a cupboard even if I wasnt looking for it I think I would wouldn't I????
Well, you must be Jones who has second sight because at that venture 'mystic Jones' knew nothing about a silencer ;D ;D ;D.
-
Well, you must be Jones who has second sight because at that venture 'mystic Jones' knew nothing about a silencer ;D ;D ;D.
So, Jones finding a silencer (although he didn't know there was one and had no reason to believe one was used or any evidence to show that he did find one). Does what with it - at this point?
-
do you understand a coppers nark? From DS Jones own words he thought Jeremy was full of shit from the get go. He would have actioned a search of that house from the outset why wasn't the silencer found then
your honestly telling me hardened dectectives take a posh boys word at face value and then bereaved releatives make a discovery days later. They were all over Bamber from the get go secretley
-
Why wasn't the silencer discovered on day one??
-
do you understand a coppers nark? From DS Jones own words he thought Jeremy was full of shit from the get go. He would have actioned a search of that house from the outset why wasn't the silencer found then
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BLOODY LOOKING FOR ONE! There were other guns in the house, they didn't take them - why? Because the weapon was laying across the assumed perpetrators body! Why look for another weapon or part of a weapon? Bamber had already told them he left the rifle out and there it was - nicely placed. They had no reason to look for a silencer none at all!
-
your honestly telling me hardened dectectives take a posh boys word at face value and then bereaved releatives make a discovery days later. They were all over Bamber from the get go secretley
Taff Jones (the head of the investigation) did indeed take his word for it. I really don't need to tell you anything, the forum is full of information, read it. That's why it's there.
-
Why wasn't the silencer discovered on day one??
More than answered.
-
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BLOODY LOOKING FOR ONE! There were other guns in the house, they didn't take them - why? Because the weapon was laying across the assumed perpetrators body! Why look for another weapon or part of a weapon? Bamber had already told them he left the rifle out and there it was - nicely placed. They had no reason to look for a silencer none at all!
it's bullshit there's no conspiracy theory about it. You think they took Jeremy Bambers word at face value and just fucked off for tea. The taff Jones story about going to play golf is just a third party headline. Even if they weren't looking for a silencer, a cursory glance would have come across one. Why wasn't this mentioned on August 7th??? Even if the police had bought Jeremy's every word they still would say " let's have a look around sir. Jesus Christ get in the real world
-
You attein my opinion the silencer was found that very night even if not meant to, and even if it wasn't been sought for. A cursory glance would have discovered it.
-
it's bullshit there's no conspiracy theory about it. You think they took Jeremy Bambers word at face value and just fucked off for tea. The taff Jones story about going to play golf is just a third party headline. Even if they weren't looking for a silencer, a cursory glance would have come across one. Why wasn't this mentioned on August 7th??? Even if the police had bought Jeremy's every word they still would say " let's have a look around sir. Jesus Christ get in the real world
Jesus - CTFD! Of course they looked around but weren't looking for a weapon - they had the weapon! You think they should have looked into the future and thought 'look a silencer, we'll need that to frame Bamber later'! ::)
-
By the way, before you post on the open forum, you're supposed to introduce yourself in the foyer!
-
it's bullshit there's no conspiracy theory about it. You think they took Jeremy Bambers word at face value and just fucked off for tea. The taff Jones story about going to play golf is just a third party headline. Even if they weren't looking for a silencer, a cursory glance would have come across one. Why wasn't this mentioned on August 7th??? Even if the police had bought Jeremy's every word they still would say " let's have a look around sir. Jesus Christ get in the real world
A cursory glance!!!! They didn't just open that cupboard and there, conveniently in front of them, lay the silencer. Do you know what sort of cupboard it was? It was one of those under-stair spaces to which a door had been added. It was wedge-shaped. Said silencer was tucked neatly into the thin end, as far from the opening as possible. On top of which WHY would they be looking for a silencer? Jeremy had given them chapter and verse on Sheila and what he thought she was capable of, they go in and lo and behold, there lays Sheila with a gun across her, along with four other victims. WHERE would a silencer fit into four murders and a suicide?
-
your honestly telling me hardened dectectives take a posh boys word at face value and then bereaved releatives make a discovery days later. They were all over Bamber from the get go secretley
Initially, there was nothing to suggest he wasn't telling the truth. HE wasn't even responsible for what, allegedly, had prompted his call. His FATHER had outlined what was the problem. Jeremy only passed on what his father had allegedly told him. Having got the police to the scene, Jeremy spent the next hour or so, reiterating and embroidering what his father had, allegedly said -I believe, at one point, saying Sheila had only just come out of a psych unit and was about to go back there, furthering this with stories about how it was being discussed that her children might be taken into some form of care, not possible, of course as their father had custody of them, but he didn't let that stand in the way. Then there was the major point of her being gun competent and having fired all the guns in the house!!!- when they eventually broke in, they found exactly what Jeremy had suggested they'd find, but bear in mind Jeremy was only backing up what he said his father had told him. Surely, if suspicion fell anywhere, it would fall on Nevill?
-
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BLOODY LOOKING FOR ONE! There were other guns in the house, they didn't take them - why? Because the weapon was laying across the assumed perpetrators body! Why look for another weapon or part of a weapon? Bamber had already told them he left the rifle out and there it was - nicely placed. They had no reason to look for a silencer none at all!
there's a difference between LOOKING FOR and DISCOVERING if they conducted a search than why wasn't the silencer found straight away??
-
A cursory glance!!!! They didn't just open that cupboard and there, conveniently in front of them, lay the silencer. Do you know what sort of cupboard it was? It was one of those under-stair spaces to which a door had been added. It was wedge-shaped. Said silencer was tucked neatly into the thin end, as far from the opening as possible. On top of which WHY would they be looking for a silencer? Jeremy had given them chapter and verse on Sheila and what he thought she was capable of, they go in and lo and behold, there lays Sheila with a gun across her, along with four other victims. WHERE would a silencer fit into four murders and a suicide?
When I said cursory glance you obviously didn't get the sarcasm with it. This was a major crime scene. EVERY nook and cranny in that house should have been HEAVILY scrutinzed. It's standard practice. Why wasn't it discovered ???
-
When I said cursory glance you obviously didn't get the sarcasm with it. This was a major crime scene. EVERY nook and cranny in that house should have been HEAVILY scrutinzed. It's standard practice. Why wasn't it discovered ???
They had already established what happened. There was nothing more to scrutinise. Two days later it was all being cleaned up.
-
When I said cursory glance you obviously didn't get the sarcasm with it. This was a major crime scene. EVERY nook and cranny in that house should have been HEAVILY scrutinzed. It's standard practice. Why wasn't it discovered ???
I got it and ignored it. What were they looking for when the initial thoughts were that it was 4 murders and a suicide? It's standard practice when you haven't got a perpetrator - they has one!
-
The police initially missed the keys to Halbachs car in Steven Avery’s trailer.
The police initially missed the 20 bodies hidden in John Wayne Gaceys crawlspace.
Not finding something at first is not unprecedented. The only difference with Bamber and the examples above is that the police did find it in the end.
-
The police initially missed the keys to Halbachs car in Steven Avery’s trailer.
The police initially missed the 20 bodies hidden in John Wayne Gaceys crawlspace.
Not finding something at first is not unprecedented. The only difference with Bamber and the examples above is that the police did find it in the end.
Given that they thought the case was cut and dried, there was no need for an extensive search.
-
Neville never reported a massacre " beserk can mean many things" meaning Shelia has had a psychotic episode and there are children here. "It could be interpreted he was worried for his wife and children's safety
Ilovebooze you have to ask yourself why P C West covered up a call from Nevill when it would have confirmed his boss's suspicion, DCI Taff Jones, that the whole incident was "a domestic" and that Sheila had been the perpetrator.
-
your honestly telling me hardened dectectives take a posh boys word at face value and then bereaved releatives make a discovery days later. They were all over Bamber from the get go secretley
Yes because of the expanse of the building, the fact that Jeremy was well-spoken, calm and the son of Witham farming royalty, Nevill and June Bamber.
-
it's bullshit there's no conspiracy theory about it. You think they took Jeremy Bambers word at face value and just fucked off for tea. The taff Jones story about going to play golf is just a third party headline. Even if they weren't looking for a silencer, a cursory glance would have come across one. Why wasn't this mentioned on August 7th??? Even if the police had bought Jeremy's every word they still would say " let's have a look around sir. Jesus Christ get in the real world
It was a big house, the silencer had been placed at the back of a dark gun cupboard, they were probably distracted by the five bodies..
-
I got it and ignored it. What were they looking for when the initial thoughts were that it was 4 murders and a suicide? It's standard practice when you haven't got a perpetrator - they has one!
it's standard practice to search every nook and cranny of every MAJOR CRIME SCENE. Yes Jeremy Bambers account was the starting point but your seriously telling me that Essex police did not discover that silencer??? Come on, it wasn't secured beneath the floorboards.
-
They had already established what happened. There was nothing more to scrutinise. Two days later it was all being cleaned up.
already established what happened??? Are you for real? They had a starting point. Jeremy Bambers account to them. You go into a crimescene of this magnitude with an open mind. To quote DS Jones " he seemed to be trying to force himself to be sick it didn't ring true to me" a full search would have been yeilded and in my opinion it is crazy how a silencer was not found in the EARLIEST stages with BLOOD on it.
-
It was a big house, the silencer had been placed at the back of a dark gun cupboard, they were probably distracted by the five bodies..
Steve stop wearing blinkers it was in a cupboard it later formed a main plank of the prosecutions case. " Discovered by realtives" as I will reteriate. This was a MAJOR CRIME SCENE. Why wasn't that silencer stained with blood discovered from the get go. I put empathise on DISCOVERED
-
already established what happened??? Are you for real? They had a starting point. Jeremy Bambers account to them. You go into a crimescene of this magnitude with an open mind. To quote DS Jones " he seemed to be trying to force himself to be sick it didn't ring true to me" a full search would have been yeilded and in my opinion it is crazy how a silencer was not found in the EARLIEST stages with BLOOD on it.
Exactly, in YOUR OPINION! You can't see to grasp that they had no reason to be centred on a silencer, even if they found one! How many major crime scenes have you 'gone into'? Something you're clearly not taking into account, had they found the silencer in the manner you're suggesting and wanted to bring suspicion against Bamber from day one (those hardened coppers what don't no posh boy gov'ner), then why not use it from day one and admit to finding it?
-
Ilovebooze you have to ask yourself why P C West covered up a call from Nevill when it would have confirmed his boss's suspicion, DCI Taff Jones, that the whole incident was "a domestic" and that Sheila had been the perpetrator.
how do you come to the conclusion he covered it up??. Why did he get two different ages in his log in such a short space of time?? As I've said previously, if you get a call from someone in the midweek and when you get a call from them of such seriousness you don't forget minor details. How was my the ages of 27 and 26 recorded and " your sister " my daughter " recorded???
-
Exactly, in YOUR OPINION! You can't see to grasp that they had no reason to be centred on a silencer, even if they found one! How many major crime scenes have you 'gone into'? Something you're clearly not taking into account, had they found the silencer in the manner you're suggesting and wanted to bring suspicion against Bamber from day one (those hardened coppers what don't no posh boy gov'ner), then why not use it from day one and admit to finding it?
" cuse me guvnor just been eating mi sandwiches discovad a silencer it's got blood on it u rekon it could mean something ???? Oh my God this is laughable
-
" cuse me guvnor just been eating mi sandwiches discovad a silencer it's got blood on it u rekon it could mean something ???? Oh my God this is laughable
Yeah you're right, your attempt at hardened Essex detective speak is pretty dire but you tried and that's the main thing.
So (again) How many major crime scenes have you 'gone into'?
-
Yeah you're right, your attempt at hardened Essex detective speak is pretty dire but you tried and that's the main thing.
So (again) How many major crime scenes have you 'gone into'?
how many have you??
-
how many have you??
You're the one telling us what standard police procedure is at major crime scenes like you've been there!
This was 1985, they thought it was cut and dried - To put it in your terms - they fucked up! However, they managed to get there in the end!
-
You're the one telling us what standard police procedure is at major crime scenes like you've been there!
This was 1985, they thought it was cut and dried - To put it in your terms - they fucked up! However, they managed to get there in the end!
well i don't think it's to accept a 24 year old farmers starting account point. without " having a gander " darling
-
What's the argument? :-\
-
well i don't think it's to accept a 24 year old farmers starting account point. without " having a gander " darling
Well, actually I agree, and had they not done so, Bamber might have been caught a lot sooner. Pity Taff didn't see it that way! ............................... Pet!
-
Well, actually I agree, and had they not done so, Bamber might have been caught a lot sooner. Pity Taff didn't see it that way! ............................... Pet!
just a bleeding shame the BENERFICARIES discovered it wasn't it.
-
just a bleeding shame the BENERFICARIES discovered it wasn't it.
Surely their input to catch and help convict a mass murderer should be applauded?
-
What's the argument? :-\
Oh, where do I begin H ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well, we're not for 'fucking real' because we maintain that Nevill didn't call the police and that there was no reason for the police to be looking for a silencer.
Lots of condescension and no introduction in the foyer - just another day ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Surely their input to catch and help convict a mass murderer should be applauded?
To qualify that, Jeremy hasn't had the opportunity to murder anybody else for the last 30 odd years.
Which is good, right?
-
To qualify that, Jeremy hasn't had the opportunity to murder anybody else for the last 30 odd years.
Which is good, right?
Most people would say so!
-
Oh, where do I begin H ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well, we're not for 'fucking real' because we maintain that Nevill didn't call the police and that there was no reason for the police to be looking for a silencer.
Lots of condescension and no introduction in the foyer - just another day ;D ;D ;D ;D
No change here then. ::)
I hope everyone is well.
-
No change here then. ::)
I hope everyone is well.
Yes thanks :) And with you!
-
Yes thanks :) And with you!
Yeah I'm always good. Thank you. :)
Just popped in for a nose.
-
Isn't there a new tv drama about the case coming out soon? Thought it was this year?
-
Isn't there a new tv drama about the case coming out soon? Thought it was this year?
It's been put back to early next year.
-
It's been put back to early next year.
Oh okay, should be interesting here when it airs.
A catalyst maybe.
-
Oh okay, should be interesting here when it airs.
A catalyst maybe.
how long has this sexual tension been going on between you two? Anyhow, I still await logical, sensible answers to the questions I've posted Caroline. Cheerio
-
Oh okay, should be interesting here when it airs.
A catalyst maybe.
Yes, good cast. I know that Carol Ann Lee has had some input and her book gives a pretty good account. Don't think the CT will be looking forward to it!
-
how long has this sexual tension been going on between you two? Anyhow, I still await logical, sensible answers to the questions I've posted Caroline. Cheerio
Wow! You're like just soooooo witty (well it rhymes with witty anyway). I'll be laughing at that one all night ::). I'm still waiting for you to ask a logical and sensible question boozy woozy! TTFN 8)
-
I am not going to bite, unless offered a sensible answer. You've got 24 hours
And then you self destruct?
-
And then you self destruct?
you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal
-
Yes, good cast. I know that Carol Ann Lee has had some input and her book gives a pretty good account. Don't think the CT will be looking forward to it!
I'm quite looking forward to it, should be interesting.
-
you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal
What are your questions? List them out in bullet points without emotive prose.
-
you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal
Well, you;re making yourself look stupid because not only have I answered you, both Jane and David have answered you too. It's not for me to find an answer that suits you and I wouldn't waste my time trying. You're the one who stared taking the piss with your condescending attitude and phrases like 'are you for fucking real'. I don't need to try and be controversial, I've been a member here a long time, you're the newby who thinks he can try it on and flout the rules.
-
What are your questions? List them out in bullet points without emotive prose.
I can guarantee - you won't manage to give an answer that suits him.
-
I can guarantee - you won't manage to give an answer that suits him.
Oh I'm not one to simply please. :P
He registered in 2015 according to his/her profile. :-\
-
Oh I'm not one to simply please. :P
He registered in 2015 according to his/her profile. :-\
Oh, OK cheers, I wasn't interested enough to read it. :))
-
well i don't think it's to accept a 24 year old farmers starting account point. without " having a gander " darling
But Jeremy was only relaying what his father, a well respected magistrate, regular church goer, piller of the community, member of the Conservative party and local employer, had allegedly told him.
-
But Jeremy was only relaying what his father, a well respected magistrate, regular church goer, piller of the community, member of the Conservative party and local employer, had allegedly told him.
yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.
-
yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.
The benefit of hindsight: I'm sure you never made a mistake in your life.
-
yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.
But why would they look for something they had no reason to believe existed? It could justifiably be reasoned that a silencer hadn't been part of the murders as the 'suicide' who appeared to have been responsible was hardly likely to have used it on the victims, then gone to great lengths to hide it before committing suicide. Having the luxury of hindsight makes everything so much more clear, don't you think?
-
But why would they look for something they had no reason to believe existed? It could justifiably be reasoned that a silencer hadn't been part of the murders as the 'suicide' who appeared to have been responsible was hardly likely to have used it on the victims, then gone to great lengths to hide it before committing suicide. Having the luxury of hindsight makes everything so much more clear, don't you think?
Jane it's not a case of hindsight. Regardless of what Jeremy Bamber had told them. This was a major crime scene. Regardless of what was initially relayed or believed. There should have been in my opinion ( and who knows maybe there was) a search of which within that silencer was discovered.
-
The benefit of hindsight: I'm sure you never made a mistake in your life.
Steve it's simple common sense logic. I've never disputed the police weren't looking for that silencer. But it should have been discovered. It was in a cupboard mate, not concealed by any stretch of the imagination
-
Steve it's simple common sense logic. I've never disputed the police weren't looking for that silencer. But it should have been discovered. It was in a cupboard mate, not concealed by any stretch of the imagination
I will just go ahead and say it. It is very suspicious that silencer wasn't found by the police
-
The police took photographs of the victims, but some were held back until years later. Two of the photographs show Sheila's right arm in different positions. Hence Sheila's arm was moved by someone other than Jeremy. How? Her body should have been in rigor mortis.
We know that Sheila was shot twice. Yet the police still assumed suicide. Such a suicide isn't impossible, but it suggests that suicide shouldn't be taken for granted. Perhaps there were special circumstances, such as the second shot having been accidentally caused by the police. A non-fatal first shot (a possibility admitted at trial) could explain why rigor mortis had not occurred.
-
The police took photographs of the victims, but some were held back until years later. Two of the photographs show Sheila's right arm in different positions. Hence Sheila's arm was moved by someone other than Jeremy. How? Her body should have been in rigor mortis.
We know that Sheila was shot twice. Yet the police still assumed suicide. Such a suicide isn't impossible, but it suggests that suicide shouldn't be taken for granted. Perhaps there were special circumstances, such as the second shot having been accidentally caused by the police. A non-fatal first shot (a possibility admitted at trial) could explain why rigor mortis had not occurred.
It was never claimed to be a non fatal shot. Just that it was not instantly fatal.
IMO you would not live longer than 20 seconds after that.
-
The silencer business makes no sense to me. Let's say that Jeremy shot Sheila with the silencer attached, and then he tried to put the gun in her hands to suggest she killed herself. That's when he realised that she couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached.
What was he to do? He could take the silencer off and put it on the floor. That's what Sheila would have done. Oh, but then he thinks Sheila's blood might be on it or in it, so he can't do that. He comes up with a bright idea - he can put it back in the cupboard as if it had never been used. Suddenly, the idea that there might be blood on it doesn't matter. A day or two later he lets the relatives have a key to the house where he knows there's a silencer in a cupboard with Sheila's blood on it or in it.
Does that make sense?
-
Something I find very interesting is how Jeremy Bambers initial story of his sister committing the massacre was not blown apart from the get go. When it was it was subsequently discovered that his sister had been shot twice. Even if she did shoot herself twice ( and it's been proven it is possible) why was that element of doubt not there from the get go
-
Something I find very interesting is how Jeremy Bambers initial story of his sister committing the massacre was not blown apart from the get go. When it was it was subsequently discovered that his sister had been shot twice. Even if she did shoot herself twice ( and it's been proven it is possible) why was that element of doubt not there from the get go
Yes, I agree. I think it depends on when it was discovered she had been shot twice. If it was immediately obvious when they found the body, that would surely raise a lot of doubt. If it was only discovered at the post mortem, and the examiner said that the shot was not immediately fatal, that would not necessarily raise questions.
-
The silencer business makes no sense to me. Let's say that Jeremy shot Sheila with the silencer attached, and then he tried to put the gun in her hands to suggest she killed herself. That's when he realised that she couldn't have reached the trigger with the silencer attached.
What was he to do? He could take the silencer off and put it on the floor. That's what Sheila would have done. Oh, but then he thinks Sheila's blood might be on it or in it, so he can't do that. He comes up with a bright idea - he can put it back in the cupboard as if it had never been used. Suddenly, the idea that there might be blood on it doesn't matter. A day or two later he lets the relatives have a key to the house where he knows there's a silencer in a cupboard with Sheila's blood on it or in it.
Does that make sense?
I think that if Jeremy Bamber had used the gun with the silencer he would have made sure it had disappeared and had never been found again. Not just popped it back into a cupboard.
-
I think that if Jeremy Bamber had used the gun with the silencer he would have made sure it had disappeared and had never been found again. Not just popped it back into a cupboard.
So do I! Some might say he wasn't thinking straight at that point, or that he assumed nobody would find the silencer, and both those are possible, but I would have thought it was fundamental that the silencer disappeared along with the evidence.
-
The other possibility is that Jeremy decided to use the silencer so that others weren't alerted to the gunshots, and that he always planned to remove it from the gun at the end. He have might have decided to do that because he thought that Sheila wouldn't have bothered to go and find the silencer before going on her supposed rampage.
In that case, it might not have occurred to him that there might be blood on or in the silencer, but is that likely?
-
So do I! Some might say he wasn't thinking straight at that point, or that he assumed nobody would find the silencer, and both those are possible, but I would have thought it was fundamental that the silencer disappeared along with the evidence.
Such has long been the contention of many here. I can only think that, until that point, things had gone swimmingly. Okay, there'd been a bit of a hiccough in the kitchen, but they were all dead. The next kill was the REALLY important one. The whole validity of the whole scenario rested on getting it right. It mattered where the bullet went. Then he blows it!!!! It COULD all have been for nothing. I'd say, certainly, at that moment, he wasn't thinking straight.
-
Such has long been the contention of many here. I can only think that, until that point, things had gone swimmingly. Okay, there'd been a bit of a hiccough in the kitchen, but they were all dead. The next kill was the REALLY important one. The whole validity of the whole scenario rested on getting it right. It mattered where the bullet went. Then he blows it!!!! It COULD all have been for nothing. I'd say, certainly, at that moment, he wasn't thinking straight.
That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.
-
That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.
Jeremy Bamber is not a stupid individual. If he had used that gun with a silencer. That silencer would have not even come into contention. Because he would have disposed of it. I find it very difficult at the same time to believe the police couldn't visualize from the outset of seeing shelia that she had been shot twice and not immediately become suspicious of Bamber. Thirdly, as you rightly point out how did Jeremy Bamber manage to position Shelia caffell to undertake the two shot scenario. Even if she had been incapacitated by one shot. She would have been fighting like a wildcat. Jeremy Bamber had no marks on him. It beggars belief
-
That's another thing. How on earth do you plan for someone to lie down or sit down so you can shoot them in exactly the right place to make it look like suicide? I mean, it would take a great deal of effort to get the right angle - and all the time he's relying on Sheila lying still or sitting still.
Which is my own reason for why the first shot was off target. My guess is, that because this kill was SO important, he was more concerned, than with the others, about getting it right. He could have positioned her/got her to position herself, perhaps taking too long? and at the last moment, she moved. It would only have taken a very slight movement for the angle to be wrong.
-
Jeremy Bamber is not a stupid individual. If he had used that gun with a silencer. That silencer would have not even come into contention. Because he would have disposed of it. I find it very difficult at the same time to believe the police couldn't visualize from the outset of seeing shelia that she had been shot twice and not immediately become suspicious of Bamber. Thirdly, as you rightly point out how did Jeremy Bamber manage to position Shelia caffell to undertake the two shot scenario. Even if she had been incapacitated by one shot. She would have been fighting like a wildcat. Jeremy Bamber had no marks on him. It beggars belief
It's very clear to me that Sheila did not move much after that first shot, and then she was indeed shot where she was found. She might have tried to sit up a little, but that's all. That means that Jeremy would have had to make her sit down or lie down in her parents' bedroom in that particular place, whilst all the time trying to position the gun, and she just let him!
I just don't see how he could plan that. To my mind, the best plan would have been to shoot her in bed when she was unaware of what was happening, and then try to arrange the body so it looked like she lay down on her bed and shot herself.
-
Which is my own reason for why the first shot was off target. My guess is, that because this kill was SO important, he was more concerned, than with the others, about getting it right. He could have positioned her/got her to position herself, perhaps taking too long? and at the last moment, she moved. It would only have taken a very slight movement for the angle to be wrong.
But why would she just let him position her? Even if she did, he couldn't possibly have known that she would just let him do what he wanted when he planned it all.
If it had been a handgun I could have understood it, but it wasn't.
-
Jeremy Bamber is not a stupid individual. If he had used that gun with a silencer. That silencer would have not even come into contention. Because he would have disposed of it. I find it very difficult at the same time to believe the police couldn't visualize from the outset of seeing shelia that she had been shot twice and not immediately become suspicious of Bamber. Thirdly, as you rightly point out how did Jeremy Bamber manage to position Shelia caffell to undertake the two shot scenario. Even if she had been incapacitated by one shot. She would have been fighting like a wildcat. Jeremy Bamber had no marks on him. It beggars belief
It's very easy to say what we think happened from a physical distance of 30+ years and a psychological distance which is incalculable. Jeremy certainly wasn't stupid, but because, it's a reasonable assumption, I'm willing to bet that, at that moment, the first shot having failed to kill her, he was completely thrown. What he may have done, had it been successful, would have been blown out of the water. It came down to plan B, but he probably hadn't planned a plan B.
Re the police and their reaction to the two shots. They probably didn't react at the time -but it may, or not, be of interest to you, that my friend's late husband interviewed Jeremy at his cottage later that day and was in no doubt about his guilt. I doubt he was the only one- because generally, we believe those 'facts' we're tutored to believe.
Why do you appear to think Jeremy positioned Sheila for "a two shot scenario". Whilst two shot suicides are possible, they're certainly not usual. As for her "fighting like a wild cat"? Perhaps you should read what effects her injected medication was having on her. I'm not certain how you come to the conclusion that Jeremy had no marks on him. Whilst clothing could protect from most, there's the possibility that there were some which weren't visible.
-
But why would she just let him position her? Even if she did, he couldn't possibly have known that she would just let him do what he wanted when he planned it all.
If it had been a handgun I could have understood it, but it wasn't.
Well, naturally, neither you nor I would allow it without struggle, but neither of us are Sheila. My contention has always been that she was depressed -that's apart from the debilitating effects of her meds- and it's not impossible that she simply gave up. Depression is like a trough. At the bottom, the depressive lacks the mental energy required to kill themselves or anyone else. Sheila appears to have been close to that point. Who's to say Jeremy didn't tell her that she'd get the blame for it, anyway?
-
Well, naturally, neither you nor I would allow it without struggle, but neither of us are Sheila. My contention has always been that she was depressed -that's apart from the debilitating effects of her meds- and it's not impossible that she simply gave up. Depression is like a trough. At the bottom, the depressive lacks the mental energy required to kill themselves or anyone else. Sheila appears to have been close to that point. Who's to say Jeremy didn't tell her that she'd get the blame for it, anyway?
That is all possible, but Jeremy couldn't possibly have known that she would give up or that she wouldn't fight him. Remember he'd allegedly been planning this for a long time. It was just too risky.
-
It's very easy to say what we think happened from a physical distance of 30+ years and a psychological distance which is incalculable. Jeremy certainly wasn't stupid, but because, it's a reasonable assumption, I'm willing to bet that, at that moment, the first shot having failed to kill her, he was completely thrown. What he may have done, had it been successful, would have been blown out of the water. It came down to plan B, but he probably hadn't planned a plan B.
Re the police and their reaction to the two shots. They probably didn't react at the time -but it may, or not, be of interest to you, that my friend's late husband interviewed Jeremy at his cottage later that day and was in no doubt about his guilt. I doubt he was the only one- because generally, we believe those 'facts' we're tutored to believe.
Why do you appear to think Jeremy positioned Sheila for "a two shot scenario". Whilst two shot suicides are possible, they're certainly not usual. As for her "fighting like a wild cat"? Perhaps you should read what effects her injected medication was having on her. I'm not certain how you come to the conclusion that Jeremy had no marks on him. Whilst clothing could protect from most, there's the possibility that there were some which weren't visible.
it's just my opinion. But even let's say Shelia was heavily medicated and Jeremy was trying to position her to kill her. Even if she was overpowered. She would have put up some sort of fight or resistance. Whether it be clawing. Kicking, biting or whatever. I also believe that she would have marked his face. As that's a logical place to strike back when your under attack. As far as I'm aware Jeremy Bamber did not possess any visible marks or bruises on his face when in contact with the police at the first stage 7.8.85?? And I don't recall any officer making a remark or a statement to visualising any facial injury to him. Again it's speculation. But it's a viable scenario
-
That is all possible, but Jeremy couldn't possibly have known that she would give up or that she wouldn't fight him. Remember he'd allegedly been planning this for a long time. It was just too risky.
You're right. He couldn't. None of us can 100% control what another does when they still have a window of choice, however small, but if he wanted it to appear that she'd committed suicide, what were HIS alternatives?
-
That is all possible, but Jeremy couldn't possibly have known that she would give up or that she wouldn't fight him. Remember he'd allegedly been planning this for a long time. It was just too risky.
I believe she would have definately fought. It's a natural human reaction. Even if heavily medicated. I find it surprising that Bamber didn't have an injury upon him ( face region) for an officer to prompt the question " how did you do that "
-
You're right. He couldn't. None of us can 100% control what another does when they still have a window of choice, however small, but if he wanted it to appear that she'd committed suicide, what were HIS alternatives?
As I said, to shoot her first in bed before she knew what was happening, and then position the bed sheets and the gun afterwards.
This big plan of his depended solely on being able to shoot Sheila without her putting up a struggle, and he simply could not have planned for that unless she was asleep at the time.
-
it's just my opinion. But even let's say Shelia was heavily medicated and Jeremy was trying to position her to kill her. Even if she was overpowered. She would have put up some sort of fight or resistance. Whether it be clawing. Kicking, biting or whatever. I also believe that she would have marked his face. As that's a logical place to strike back when your under attack. As far as I'm aware Jeremy Bamber did not possess any visible marks or bruises on his face when in contact with the police at the first stage 7.8.85?? And I don't recall any officer making a remark or a statement to visualising any facial injury to him. Again it's speculation. But it's a viable scenario
By all accounts -but one- of Sheila's behaviours, that day, she was totally devoid of resistance or fight. Any last remaining vestige of it COULD have been dispelled by Jeremy telling her that she was going to be blamed for the massacre because it could never be proved he'd been there -you could strip this down to be less credible but you haven't got a gun pointing at you, and speaking of guns being pointed at you, my guess is that Sheila wasn't allowed to get anywhere near his face. He let the gun give the instructions, which makes correct your observation re his lack of facial marks.
-
As I said, to shoot her first in bed before she knew what was happening, and then position the bed sheets and the gun afterwards.
This big plan of his depended solely on being able to shoot Sheila without her putting up a struggle, and he simply could not have planned for that unless she was asleep at the time.
You're thinking with Kaldin's mind, rather than with Jeremy's. It was a "family" thing, the suggestion being that she'd lost it because her parents were threatening to take her children away. Much easier to emphasize this is to place her "en famille".
-
By all accounts -but one- of Sheila's behaviours, that day, she was totally devoid of resistance or fight. Any last remaining vestige of it COULD have been dispelled by Jeremy telling her that she was going to be blamed for the massacre because it could never be proved he'd been there -you could strip this down to be less credible but you haven't got a gun pointing at you, and speaking of guns being pointed at you, my guess is that Sheila wasn't allowed to get anywhere near his face. He let the gun give the instructions, which makes correct your observation re his lack of facial marks.
if the gun was giving all the instructions and Jeremy had total control. Why two shots? If she was so resistant and terrified of what he had said and was totally under his control he would have been able to shoot her where he wanted and in so for which ensured the first shot was near enough fatal. I believe that two shots indicates that there would have been a struggle.
-
I believe she would have definately fought. It's a natural human reaction. Even if heavily medicated. I find it surprising that Bamber didn't have an injury upon him ( face region) for an officer to prompt the question " how did you do that "
You sound as if you're trying to write a script that you find acceptable?
-
You're thinking with Kaldin's mind, rather than with Jeremy's. It was a "family" thing, the suggestion being that she'd lost it because her parents were threatening to take her children away. Much easier to emphasize this is to place her "en famille".
I'm thinking with anyone's mind. I just don't think he could count on her being quiet enough to let him shoot her in the neck. Perhaps in his mind it didn't occur to him that she would fight, but he'd have to be pretty stupid not to consider that.
I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, I'm saying that nobody in their right mind would rely on someone not fighting back.
-
if the gun was giving all the instructions and Jeremy had total control. Why two shots? If she was so resistant and terrified of what he had said and was totally under his control he would have been able to shoot her where he wanted and in so for which ensured the first shot was near enough fatal. I believe that two shots indicates that there would have been a struggle.
You clearly haven't read what I said. I reiterate. It's not possible to have 100% control of another person whilst the still have a window, however small, of personal choice. Moving, at that particular moment, MAY have been the last choice Sheila got to make. Without it, it's likely Jeremy would have been home and dry.
-
I don't read anything into there being two shots. Jeremy may well have thought that he had the right position - after all, it wasn't far off. What happened then though? Was she awake and groaning? There had to be a reason for him to shoot her again immediately rather than wait to see if she would die.
-
I don't read anything into there being two shots. Jeremy may well have thought that he had the right position - after all, it wasn't far off. What happened then though? Was she awake and groaning? There had to be a reason for him to shoot her again immediately rather than wait to see if she would die.
I find that strange. I'm perfectly convinced that it wasn't part of the plan. I'm equally convinced that it didn't occur to him that he MIGHT have to shoot her twice. No, it wasn't FAR off but a miss, however near, is always as good as a mile. He MAY have experienced a moment of real panic. He couldn't have known, that it would become fatal, just not immediately so. But how long is a piece of string. In that moment, might he have envisaged her getting to a phone and raising the alarm? Might he have seen her making a full recovery? I doubt that even he could have stood by watching her die slowly.
-
You sound as if you're trying to write a script that you find acceptable?
you are totally wrong
-
I find that strange. I'm perfectly convinced that it wasn't part of the plan. I'm equally convinced that it didn't occur to him that he MIGHT have to shoot her twice. No, it wasn't FAR off but a miss, however near, is always as good as a mile. He MAY have experienced a moment of real panic. He couldn't have known, that it would become fatal, just not immediately so. But how long is a piece of string. In that moment, might he have envisaged her getting to a phone and raising the alarm? Might he have seen her making a full recovery? I doubt that even he could have stood by watching her die slowly.
It's strange that there were two bullets left isn't it?
I also don't think he thought he would have to shoot her twice, but then he'd never shot anyone before that night, so he probably didn't know exactly where to shoot her. That's why I don't read anything into it. The same applies if she shot herself. She wouldn't know where exactly to position the gun.
-
You clearly haven't read what I said. I reiterate. It's not possible to have 100% control of another person whilst the still have a window, however small, of personal choice. Moving, at that particular moment, MAY have been the last choice Sheila got to make. Without it, it's likely Jeremy would have been home and dry.
a gun pointed at her? In a confused state? The domineering confident Jeremy bamber telling her she was going to get blamed for this so she might as well just do as he said. She would have been helpless. Petrified. I think he'd have been easily able to deliver one fatal shot.
-
a gun pointed at her? In a confused state? The domineering confident Jeremy bamber telling her she was going to get blamed for this so she might as well just do as he said. She would have been helpless. Petrified. I think he'd have been easily able to deliver one fatal shot.
I'm guessing, from how you write -think?- that there's no room in your life for any grey areas? I keep reading that "he/she/they WOULD/WOULDN'T have................." No wiggle room. No space for human error. No allowances. One expert witness makes the claim that Sheila COULD have moved after the first shot -although to be fair, he didn't say how far or how fast, and he didn't state which limbs she'd have used, OR whether it simply meant she could have moved her head slightly- Jeremy supporters have had her running up and down stairs and playing hide and seek with police on the back of this claim.
-
I think it would have been more important if Sheila couldn't have moved at all after the first shot - ie, if she had been unconscious. In that case she wouldn't have been able to fire the second shot. However, she was theoretically able to fire both shots, as was Jeremy (apparently), so is it relevant?
-
I'm guessing, from how you write -think?- that there's no room in your life for any grey areas? I keep reading that "he/she/they WOULD/WOULDN'T have................." No wiggle room. No space for human error. No allowances. One expert witness makes the claim that Sheila COULD have moved after the first shot -although to be fair, he didn't say how far or how fast, and he didn't state which limbs she'd have used, OR whether it simply meant she could have moved her head slightly- Jeremy supporters have had her running up and down stairs and playing hide and seek with police on the back of this claim.
I'm not saying Shelia played hide and seek. I don't champion jeremy Bambers innocence.
-
I'm not saying Shelia played hide and seek. I don't champion jeremy Bambers innocence.
I didn't say YOU were. You have a very strange way of NOT championing JB's innocence. I doubt that anyone here, supporter or detractor, believes the investigation came high on the list of Essex Police's finest achievements, but their introduction to it was remarkably well thought through at the time, even though we can pick holes in it now. VERY cleverly, Jeremy had the information come from his well known and very well respected father, shifting away his own responsibility. All he had to do was embroider what his father had said, and making up anything, which suited his purpose, being said during the last meal he attended. Whilst individual members of the police clearly believed him guilty, it took a while for "top brass" to follow suit. Every day which passed was a day in Jeremy's favour because any evidence with might have been collected in the search you say SHOULD have been done, became lost or thrown away because they weren't thought to be necessary to the investigation.
-
I didn't say YOU were. You have a very strange way of NOT championing JB's innocence. I doubt that anyone here, supporter or detractor, believes the investigation came high on the list of Essex Police's finest achievements, but their introduction to it was remarkably well thought through at the time, even though we can pick holes in it now. VERY cleverly, Jeremy had the information come from his well known and very well respected father, shifting away his own responsibility. All he had to do was embroider what his father had said, and making up anything, which suited his purpose, being said during the last meal he attended. Whilst individual members of the police clearly believed him guilty, it took a while for "top brass" to follow suit. Every day which passed was a day in Jeremy's favour because any evidence with might have been collected in the search you say SHOULD have been done, became lost or thrown away because they weren't thought to be necessary to the investigation.
we've done this before. Say you are a police officer. And it doesn't matter if your conducting a thorough detailed search or whether you are just having " a nosey" what's one of the first places you would look in???
-
we've done this before. Say you are a police officer. And it doesn't matter if your conducting a thorough detailed search or whether you are just having " a nosey" what's one if the first places you would look in???
I don't imagine, even if the instruction had been "to have a nosy", that an understair wedge, which had nothing to do with where the murders occurred, would have been high on the list of priorities. There's also the point that it would have required a little more than a "nosy" to locate the silencer. I think there were probably more pressing things to do.
-
It's strange that there were two bullets left isn't it?
I also don't think he thought he would have to shoot her twice, but then he'd never shot anyone before that night, so he probably didn't know exactly where to shoot her. That's why I don't read anything into it. The same applies if she shot herself. She wouldn't know where exactly to position the gun.
Kaldin, Jeremy wasn't that thick to realise that two bullets to the neck wouldn't have equated to suicide ?
-
Kaldin, Jeremy wasn't that thick to realise that two bullets to the neck wouldn't have equated to suicide ?
I have no problem with two shots equating to suicide. I'm just commenting on the fact there were two bullets left - just enough to finish the job.
-
Kaldin, Jeremy wasn't that thick to realise that two bullets to the neck wouldn't have equated to suicide ?
Then he'd have, very quickly, had to come up with an alternative scenario. Not easy, given how long the first had been planned for. Thinking on his feet at that juncture -and making the right choice, given how long it took him to get round to calling the police- would have been beyond him.
-
I have no problem with two shots equating to suicide. I'm just commenting on the fact there were two bullets left - just enough to finish the job.
If there were no bullets left prior, she would have simply reloaded the gun. If there was only one bullet left prior she would have bled to death quickly from just the first shot.
-
Then he'd have, very quickly, had to come up with an alternative scenario. Not easy, given how long the first had been planned for. Thinking on his feet at that juncture -and making the right choice, given how long it took him to get round to calling the police- would have been beyond him.
Considering the " thoughts " behind all this, it makes it nigh on impossible for him to have committed any crime let alone the murders of five people.
-
If there were no bullets left prior, she would have simply reloaded the gun. If there was only one bullet left prior she would have bled to death quickly from just the first shot.
Are you really suggesting, that with a bullet through her neck which had shattered two vertebrae she'd have been capable of executing such a task, especially as there's no proof of her knowing how.
-
Considering the " thoughts " behind all this, it makes it nigh on impossible for him to have committed any crime let alone the murders of five people.
You may not understand the difference but just because he wasn't academic doesn't make him stupid. Some of the cleverest people aren't academic.
-
Are you really suggesting, that with a bullet through her neck which had shattered two vertebrae she'd have been capable of executing such a task, especially as there's no proof of her knowing how.
What task are you referring to?
-
What task are you referring to?
Of reloading the gun? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
-
Of reloading the gun? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
I didn’t say she would reload the gun after the first shot. I said we would have bled to death.
-
I didn’t say she would reload the gun after the first shot. I said we would have bled to death.
Ooh! Would WE? ;D Yes, she eventually would have, but as I said, how long is a piece of string? I doubt that Jeremy wanted her to suffer. He simply required her to be dead.
-
I have no problem with two shots equating to suicide. I'm just commenting on the fact there were two bullets left - just enough to finish the job.
How do you know there were two left and that Sheila was the last to die? There may have been more left and just fired at random into one (or more) of the other victims.
-
Considering the " thoughts " behind all this, it makes it nigh on impossible for him to have committed any crime let alone the murders of five people.
How?
-
I don't imagine, even if the instruction had been "to have a nosy", that an understair wedge, which had nothing to do with where the murders occurred, would have been high on the list of priorities. There's also the point that it would have required a little more than a "nosy" to locate the silencer. I think there were probably more pressing things to do.
With respect, that is not what I asked. Il ask if again, if you're a police officer and you are conducting a search. Whether it be casual or high magnitude. What's the first place you'd look in? Or one the first places....
-
How do you know there were two left and that Sheila was the last to die? There may have been more left and just fired at random into one (or more) of the other victims.
It could only have been June - not any of the others.
-
How?
You'll have to look at Jane's post to fathom that out.
-
Then he'd have, very quickly, had to come up with an alternative scenario. Not easy, given how long the first had been planned for. Thinking on his feet at that juncture -and making the right choice, given how long it took him to get round to calling the police- would have been beyond him.
From where, in the above, can you possibly deduce that I suggested him incapable of planning and carrying out murder? Those "thoughts" you mentioned are your own, aren't they?
-
It could only have been June - not any of the others.
Why not?
-
Why not?
If it was Jeremy, why would he go downstairs again, fire one or more bullet into Nevill, and then go back upstairs to plant the rifle on Sheila? Likewise, why would he go back into the twins' room and fire one more random shot at one of them? IMO, the twins were shot at the same time using one magazine.
Indeed, why would he kill Sheila, and then fire one or more bullets into June? He would only do that if June was still alive at that point.
-
If it was Jeremy, why would he go downstairs again, fire one or more bullet into Nevill, and then go back upstairs to plant the rifle on Sheila? Likewise, why would he go back into the twins' room and fire one more random shot at one of them? IMO, the twins were shot at the same time using one magazine.
Indeed, why would he kill Sheila, and then fire one or more bullets into June? He would only do that if June was still alive at that point.
No one here can answer why, it simply remains a possibility.
-
With respect, that is not what I asked. Il ask if again, if you're a police officer and you are conducting a search. Whether it be casual or high magnitude. What's the first place you'd look in? Or one the first places....
Well, naturally, it depends on what, if anything, they were told to look for. Those who went in initially, weren't forensics, I believe? I truly don't believe they were looking for anything, other than possible survivors, when they first went in. Jeremy had solved the case for them. Also, what can't be ruled out, is that those men, even the seasoned police officers, walked in on a scene that they'd only ever experienced in theory. I can't imagine they weren't affected in some way.
-
No one here can answer why, it simply remains a possibility.
It's not a reasonable possibility IMO.
-
It's not a reasonable possibility IMO.
Well, that simply remains your opinion. Personally, I believe the twins were basically executed with one shot each and later more shots were fired to make it look random. Any staging of the scene would have to be done after everyone was dead and as such (and in my opinion) it's a completely reasonable possibility. It's certainly a 'possibility' and not a fact that there was just two shots left in the rifle.
-
Well, that simply remains your opinion. Personally, I believe the twins were basically executed with one shot each and later more shots were fired to make it look random. Any staging of the scene would have to be done after everyone was dead and as such (and in my opinion) it's a completely reasonable possibility. It's certainly a 'possibility' and not a fact that there was just two shots left in the rifle.
I don't agree at all. They were clearly shot at the same time - eight bullets - IMO.
Really, I think you're dredging up silly possibilities that have no bearing on reality. There is no reason for Jeremy to go and shoot anyone again, apart from June. It doesn't matter anyway - it was just a comment.
-
Well, that simply remains your opinion. Personally, I believe the twins were basically executed with one shot each and later more shots were fired to make it look random. Any staging of the scene would have to be done after everyone was dead and as such (and in my opinion) it's a completely reasonable possibility. It's certainly a 'possibility' and not a fact that there was just two shots left in the rifle.
There'd have been a larger show of blood everywhere than there was if a " staging "had taken place.
When you consider how many shots were fired at June, there appeared to have been very little blood beneath her ?
-
There'd have been a larger show of blood everywhere than there was if a " staging "had taken place.
When you consider how many shots were fired at June, there appeared to have been very little blood beneath her ?
No there wouldn't, if you shoot someone when they're already dead, there would be less blood, no heart beat to pump it out so you're kinda of proving my comment.
-
No there wouldn't, if you shoot someone when they're already dead, there would be less blood, no heart beat to pump it out so you're kinda of proving my comment.
Surplus from wounds already there as there's nothing to stem the flows-----no clotting mechanism.
-
If Jeremy Bamber is guilty I do believe any initial plan would have been kicked to the curb, changed when the initial struggle with nevill had finished. He had not been expecting it. It would have shook him up and thrown him 360 degrees
-
If Jeremy Bamber is guilty I do believe any initial plan would have been kicked to the curb, changed when the initial struggle with nevill had finished. He had not been expecting it. It would have shook him up and thrown him 360 degrees
Well it's not impossible that he planned to shoot them all as they slept. It would have been much less harrowing for him than the confrontation with Nevill.
-
Surplus from wounds already there as there's nothing to stem the flows-----no clotting mechanism.
Whether shot before or after death, the number of gun shots wouldn't change - blood still clots after death but with no heart beat to pump out the blood, your suggestion that there would be MORE blood is just inaccurate.
-
I don't agree at all. They were clearly shot at the same time - eight bullets - IMO.
Really, I think you're dredging up silly possibilities that have no bearing on reality. There is no reason for Jeremy to go and shoot anyone again, apart from June. It doesn't matter anyway - it was just a comment.
I think you're arguing for arguing sake - there is no 'clearly' about it.
The reason for the extra shots is for staging purposes. We all have our own opinions of what happened and I believe the twins died first - receiving one shot initially.
Your original comment was that there was only two shots at the end which seems coincidental, however, that isn't the only possibility.
-
I think you're arguing for arguing sake - there is no 'clearly' about it.
The reason for the extra shots is for staging purposes. We all have our own opinions of what happened and I believe the twins died first - receiving one shot initially.
Your original comment was that there was only two shots at the end which seems coincidental, however, that isn't the only possibility.
I think it's you who's arguing for your own sake. You picked up on a minor point and made a big deal out of it, suggesting that Jeremy might have gone around shooting the others again - for no apparent reason.
-
I think you're arguing for arguing sake - there is no 'clearly' about it.
The reason for the extra shots is for staging purposes. We all have our own opinions of what happened and I believe the twins died first - receiving one shot initially.
Your original comment was that there was only two shots at the end which seems coincidental, however, that isn't the only possibility.
how do you come to the conclusion the twins died first??
-
I think it's you who's arguing for your own sake. You picked up on a minor point and made a big deal out of it, suggesting that Jeremy might have gone around shooting the others again - for no apparent reason.
I have given a reason and it wasn't a minor point - the point you 'seem' to be making is that it odd there being just two shots left and doesn't have to have been the case at all.
-
I have given a reason and it wasn't a minor point - the point you 'seem' to be making is that it odd there being just two shots left and doesn't have to have been the case at all.
But your theory that anyone but June would have been shot again after Sheila was shot is absurd IMO. I think you're just being awkward for the sake of it.
-
how do you come to the conclusion the twins died first??
Because there was no evidence that they awoke - one still having his thumb in his mouth. With all the commotion of that night, I find it unlikely that they wouldn't have woken up, unless they couldn't.
-
But your theory that anyone but June would have been shot again after Sheila was shot is absurd IMO. I think you're just being awkward for the sake of it.
Calm down! I didn't say it WASN'T June, just that it didn't have to be JUST June.
-
Because there was no evidence that they awoke - one still having his thumb in his mouth. With all the commotion of that night, I find it unlikely that they wouldn't have woken up, unless they couldn't.
Why didn't June wake up when the twins were shot then? She was shot in bed.
-
Calm down! I didn't say it WASN'T June, just that it didn't have to be JUST June.
Any other possibility is unreasonable! You must know that, so stop being so awkward.
-
Any other possibility is unreasonable! You must know that, so stop being so awkward.
Seriously, I'm NOT being awkward and it's not unreasonable at all. Please tell me how other possibilities are impossible other than your own opinion?
-
Surplus from wounds already there as there's nothing to stem the flows-----no clotting mechanism.
Given how you've laboured the point that, post mortem, blood stops flowing because it's no longer being pumped, the above sounds very much like splitting hairs.
-
Seriously, I'm NOT being awkward and it's not unreasonable at all. Please tell me how other possibilities are impossible other than your own opinion?
I already explained it to you!
-
I already explained it to you!
Well, nothing you have said makes other possibilities impossible. But just to prove I'm not having a go at you nor am I being awkward (although there is no reason why I would), read the following written ages ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8397.msg400155.html#msg400155
-
Because there was no evidence that they awoke - one still having his thumb in his mouth. With all the commotion of that night, I find it unlikely that they wouldn't have woken up, unless they couldn't.
so how does Jeremy get past Bamber senior to do this.....
-
so how does Jeremy get past Bamber senior to do this.....
How does he have to get passed Nevill?
-
How does he have to get passed Nevill?
poses the largest threat to him
-
Why didn't June wake up when the twins were shot then? She was shot in bed.
She may have done, but not enough time to react. Most of June's shots were down the left side of her body, if Bamber appeared through the adjoining door, he would have been on her left.
-
poses the largest threat to him
I don't have time to write a full scenario - I've written it before but the twins were in their own room. He wouldn't have to pass Nevill.
-
She may have done, but not enough time to react. Most of June's shots were down the left side of her body, if Bamber appeared through the adjoining door, he would have been on her left.
Most of them were down the right side of her body actually. I wonder if she was lying on her left side in bed when she was first shot.
-
I don't have time to write a full scenario - I've written it before but the twins were in their own room. He wouldn't have to pass Nevill.
Didn't you say you thought Nevill was shot as he was coming up the stairs, or was that someone else?
-
Most of them were down the right side of her body actually. I wonder if she was lying on her left side in bed when she was first shot.
Sorry, I meant the right side.
-
Didn't you say you thought Nevill was shot as he was coming up the stairs, or was that someone else?
Up or down - I think he was shot on the stairs.
-
Up or down - I think he was shot on the stairs.
Either way, the side that was closest to the adjoining door.
-
I don't have time to write a full scenario - I've written it before but the twins were in their own room. He wouldn't have to pass Nevill.
i don't expect you to write a full scenario. I just asked asked why you thought they were killed first. When it's more than likely Neville heard Bamber and confronted him where a violent struggle took place
-
i don't expect you to write a full scenario. I just asked asked why you thought they were killed first. When it's more than likely Neville heard Bamber and confronted him where a violent struggle took place
And I answered you. Who was killed first depends on what you think happened, which would require a longer answer.
-
And I answered you. Who was killed first depends on what you think happened, which would require a longer answer.
why was Neville found downstairs??
-
why was Neville found downstairs??
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10036.msg458455.html#msg458455
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10036.msg458455.html#msg458455
but wouldn't it be much more plausible if Jeremy Bamber was guilty that he would have waited till the early hours when all the family were asleep. And was startled by nevill who had been awoken by June ( she was by all accounts a notoriously light sleeper) after Jeremy entered WHF the farmhouse. Nevill goes downstairs to investigate which commences the father, son violent struggle
-
but wouldn't it be much more plausible if Jeremy Bamber was guilty that he would have waited till the early hours when all the family were asleep. And was startled by nevill who had been awoken by June ( she was by all accounts a notoriously light sleeper) after Jeremy entered WHF the farmhouse. Nevill goes downstairs to investigate which commences the father, son violent struggle
Why not go there on a legitimate basis and wait until they are separated. Nevill walked the dogs and took a shower before bed. Bamber knew this so he just had to wait until he was temporarily out of the way.
-
but wouldn't it be much more plausible if Jeremy Bamber was guilty that he would have waited till the early hours when all the family were asleep. And was startled by nevill who had been awoken by June ( she was by all accounts a notoriously light sleeper) after Jeremy entered WHF the farmhouse. Nevill goes downstairs to investigate which commences the father, son violent struggle
That would make sense but for all the cartridges found in the bedroom (and one on the landing). It would make so much more sense if Nevill had been shot eight times in the kitchen, but he wasn't.
-
Why not go there on a legitimate basis and wait until they are separated. Nevill walked the dogs and took a shower before bed. Bamber knew this so he just had to wait until he was temporarily out of the way.
so you are suggesting that nevill was out walking Bruce and crispy whilst Jeremy murdered the family? And that it was when he was returning for a shower back at the farmhouse Jeremy ambushed him and killed him??
-
so you are suggesting that nevill was out walking Bruce and crispy whilst Jeremy murdered the family? And that it was when he was returning for a shower back at the farmhouse Jeremy ambushed him and killed him??
I think it's a possibility, yes. Easier to separate them.
-
Up or down - I think he was shot on the stairs.
I don't think he was shot from behind, so if he was shot going downstairs, the killer must have been downstairs at the time.
-
I think it's a possibility, yes. Easier to separate them.
Then why was Nevill in his pyjamas?? Surely that would indicate he was awoken from his sleep???
-
I don't think he was shot from behind, so if he was shot going downstairs, the killer must have been downstairs at the time.
Oh, hang on though. The stairs turned so the killer could have shot Nevill in his front even if the killer was on the landing.
-
Then why was Nevill in his pyjamas?? Surely that would indicate he was awoken from his sleep???
Why? His clothes were downstairs, he could have changed into them after the shower.
-
Oh, hang on though. The stairs turned so the killer could have shot Nevill in his front even if the killer was on the landing.
Yes or he could have been shot first coming up the stairs and as he turned to flee.
-
Yes or he could have been shot first coming up the stairs and as he turned to flee.
Well there was a cartridge on the landing, so the gun was fired from there. However, there were a further 12 cartridges in the main bedroom, so Nevill was also shot either in the bedroom or just outside the door of the bedroom.
-
Why? His clothes were downstairs, he could have changed into them after the shower.
but if he was returning to WHF for a shower after taking the dogs out he wouldn't have had chance for one would he? Jeremy was laying in wait....
-
Well there was a cartridge on the landing, so the gun was fired from there. However, there were a further 12 cartridges in the main bedroom, so Nevill was also shot either in the bedroom or just outside the door of the bedroom.
Yes, I agree, point being, I don't think he was in the bedroom when the shooting started.
-
but if he was returning to WHF for a shower after taking the dogs out he wouldn't have had chance for one would he? Jeremy was laying in wait....
Why not? The point is that I think he waited until Nevill was in the shower. The shower would mask the sound of the shots and any shouting but the main thing is that Nevill would be out of the way.
-
Why not? The point is that I think he waited until Nevill was in the shower. The shower would mask the sound of the shots and any shouting but the main thing is that Nevill would be out of the way.
So you think that Nevill was never in the bed that night?
There were a pair of socks on the floor on his side of the bed, but they might have been there from the night before. There was also an indent on his pillow, but again that could be there from the night before.
-
So you think that Nevill was never in the bed that night?
There were a pair of socks on the floor on his side of the bed, but they might have been there from the night before. There was also an indent on his pillow, but again that could be there from the night before.
He was found at the scene wearing his pyjamas.
-
Why not? The point is that I think he waited until Nevill was in the shower. The shower would mask the sound of the shots and any shouting but the main thing is that Nevill would be out of the way.
the fact is though nevill was in his bedwear. Did Jeremy allow him to change into his pyjamas before murdering him??? It's much more plausible and believable that nevill went to bed that night Caroline love. Unless Jeremy forced him at gunpoint to dress in his bedwear before killing him and tearing his pyjama top..
-
He was found at the scene wearing his pyjamas.
I think Caroline's idea is that he had a shower and changed into his PJs in the shower room before going upstairs.
-
I think Caroline's idea is that he had a shower and changed into his PJs in the shower room before going upstairs.
no if you look earlier back she had the idea he'd took crispy and Bruce for an evening stroll before coming back for a shower. Scroll up
-
It seems unlikely to me that Nevill would put his PJs in the downstairs shower room before going out with the dogs.
-
Poor Nevill hadn't got the time to put on his pyjamas properly. He couldn't have had his jacket on when burns were found down the back of his neck or on his arm as the jacket didn't show any sign of burn holes.
His pyjama bottoms were rolled down to his ankles when he was discovered by police. So Nevill had been in the process of putting on his night clothes when he was attacked-----which would have been enough to have sent him off-balance at only being half-dressed/undressed.
-
no if you look earlier back she had the idea he'd took crispy and Bruce for an evening stroll before coming back for a shower. Scroll up
In the days prior to en suite bathrooms, at the Bamber's social level, it's not out of the question that gentlemen would allow their wives the privacy of an upstairs bathroom whilst they used the downstairs shower room.
-
Steve it's simple common sense logic. I've never disputed the police weren't looking for that silencer. But it should have been discovered. It was in a cupboard mate, not concealed by any stretch of the imagination
It was a big gun cupboard at the recess, probably in darkness. Remember the police had been presented with a fait accompli and were probably just going through the motions of searching a large, imposing Georgian building.
-
Poor Nevill hadn't got the time to put on his pyjamas properly. He couldn't have had his jacket on when burns were found down the back of his neck or on his arm as the jacket didn't show any sign of burn holes.
His pyjama bottoms were rolled down to his ankles when he was discovered by police. So Nevill had been in the process of putting on his night clothes when he was attacked-----which would have been enough to have sent him off-balance at only being half-dressed/undressed.
Are you saying he had time to put the jacket on after his neck had been burned?
-
Poor Nevill hadn't got the time to put on his pyjamas properly. He couldn't have had his jacket on when burns were found down the back of his neck or on his arm as the jacket didn't show any sign of burn holes.
His pyjama bottoms were rolled down to his ankles when he was discovered by police. So Nevill had been in the process of putting on his night clothes when he was attacked-----which would have been enough to have sent him off-balance at only being half-dressed/undressed.
That can't have happened. He would have had to go downstairs with his PJ bottoms around his ankles. I think they fell down during the struggle in the kitchen.
-
I think that if Jeremy Bamber had used the gun with the silencer he would have made sure it had disappeared and had never been found again. Not just popped it back into a cupboard.
He knew he would have Ann Eaton to reckon with, which is why he was flattering her for months prior to the murders. Her husband Peter was a gun dealer so Jeremy surmised that the silencer would be missed.
-
it's just my opinion. But even let's say Shelia was heavily medicated and Jeremy was trying to position her to kill her. Even if she was overpowered. She would have put up some sort of fight or resistance. Whether it be clawing. Kicking, biting or whatever. I also believe that she would have marked his face. As that's a logical place to strike back when your under attack. As far as I'm aware Jeremy Bamber did not possess any visible marks or bruises on his face when in contact with the police at the first stage 7.8.85?? And I don't recall any officer making a remark or a statement to visualising any facial injury to him. Again it's speculation. But it's a viable scenario
She wasn't in a fit state, poor love. Several witnesses noticed her fragility that last day.
-
He knew he would have Ann Eaton to reckon with, which is why he was flattering her for months prior to the murders. Her husband Peter was a gun dealer so Jeremy surmised that the silencer would be missed.
he was buttering her up because they had plans for the caravan Park. If he had got rid of the silencer. What would he have to fear? It would have never been discovered with blood by the relatives ( or properly as it " should" have been by the initial search teams in August of 1985. In essence it's existence would have never been known of.
-
He knew he would have Ann Eaton to reckon with, which is why he was flattering her for months prior to the murders. Her husband Peter was a gun dealer so Jeremy surmised that the silencer would be missed.
Why would Peter Eaton or Ann need to know the silencer was missing? Jeremy didn't have to let them have access to the house.
-
why was Neville found downstairs??
It had to be made to appear that he had made a telephone call, so more likely in the kitchen. Jean Boutell the housekeeper said that it had been "musical phones" that last week, which suited Jeremy's purposes on the unsuspecting couple who became bereft of a telephone in the master bedroom. I think Nevill played into his son's hands by getting past him after the initial few rounds, with Jeremy shooting him from a distance from the stairs when Nevill was in the hallway, hence the bloodied wallpaper in that area.
-
Let's not change the prior subject caroline. Why was Nevill found in his bedwear when you submit he was ambushed by junior prior to taking a shower back at whf???
-
but wouldn't it be much more plausible if Jeremy Bamber was guilty that he would have waited till the early hours when all the family were asleep. And was startled by nevill who had been awoken by June ( she was by all accounts a notoriously light sleeper) after Jeremy entered WHF the farmhouse. Nevill goes downstairs to investigate which commences the father, son violent struggle
He may have left a window ajar before departing for Bourtree Cottage. He had to kill the twins first to prevent them from waking any of the adults. Sheer diablerie.
-
That can't have happened. He would have had to go downstairs with his PJ bottoms around his ankles. I think they fell down during the struggle in the kitchen.
Where was his jacket during that time ?
-
Where was his jacket during that time ?
What jacket lookout?
-
he was buttering her up because they had plans for the caravan Park. If he had got rid of the silencer. What would he have to fear? It would have never been discovered with blood by the relatives ( or properly as it " should" have been by the initial search teams in August of 1985. In essence it's existence would have never been known of.
But how would he know he would have more influence on that particular area of the business in the near future?
-
It had to be made to appear that he had made a telephone call, so more likely in the kitchen. Jean Boutell the housekeeper said that it had been "musical phones" that last week, which suited Jeremy's purposes on the unsuspecting couple who became bereft of a telephone in the master bedroom. I think Nevill played into his son's hands by getting past him after the initial few rounds, with Jeremy shooting him from a distance from the stairs when Nevill was in the hallway, hence the bloodied wallpaper in that area.
Do you know where the telephone usually was in the bedroom? Nevill's side or June's side?
-
I can think of only one reason why Jeremy didn't get rid of the silencer. He might have thought that they could tell the bullets had passed through a silencer. However, there's absolutely no reason he would have put it back in the cupboard because he'd have to explain why Sheila would have put it there before she shot herself, and he certainly wouldn't put it back in there without cleaning it.
-
What jacket lookout?
His pyjama jacket. He couldn't have had that on, but someone must have put it on after he'd died ? Because there was no blood-staining, no burn holes where his arm was injured.
-
His pyjama jacket. He couldn't have had that on, but someone must have put it on after he'd died ? Because there was no blood-staining, no burn holes where his arm was injured.
Vanezis said there was blood staining on the PJ jacket. The burns were on Nevill's back, but they are a mystery to me.
-
It had to be made to appear that he had made a telephone call, so more likely in the kitchen. Jean Boutell the housekeeper said that it had been "musical phones" that last week, which suited Jeremy's purposes on the unsuspecting couple who became bereft of a telephone in the master bedroom. I think Nevill played into his son's hands by getting past him after the initial few rounds, with Jeremy shooting him from a distance from the stairs when Nevill was in the hallway, hence the bloodied wallpaper in that area.
but even though he made a phonecall in the kitchen it doesn't mean that it had to be staged he was killed their. If we go by the account of what Jeremy told west " then the phone hung up" what could dispute that the he could have been killed in any other area of the house
-
Vanezis said there was blood staining on the PJ jacket. The burns were on Nevill's back, but they are a mystery to me.
I don't remember either seeing or reading about blood on the jacket but I do remember there being a broken button and a clean tear in it which was shaped like a small flap rather than a vicious rip.
He didn't have the jacket on during the shooting. If there was blood on it it would have got there by contact after he'd died.
-
He may have left a window ajar before departing for Bourtree Cottage. He had to kill the twins first to prevent them from waking any of the adults. Sheer diablerie.
this was his childhood home Steve, he probably could have envisaged many nook and crannysm does not add an iota of evidence it happened. It's much more likely if we presume Bamber is guilty he thought viciously with his father after been surprised and discovered. If it did happen that is
-
I don't remember either seeing or reading about blood on the jacket but I do remember there being a broken button and a clean tear in it which was shaped like a small flap rather than a vicious rip.
He didn't have the jacket on during the shooting. If there was blood on it it would have got there by contact after he'd died.
It's in the report of Dr Vanezis.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919
-
but even though he made a phonecall in the kitchen it doesn't mean that it had to be staged he was killed their. If we go by the account of what Jeremy told west " then the phone hung up" what could dispute that the he could have been killed in any other area of the house
Why shouldn't he be in the kitchen? He was upstairs at some point, and then he went downstairs. I suppose he could have gone into the sitting room or dining room, or anywhere. Perhaps he thought he could phone for help from the kitchen.
-
but even though he made a phonecall in the kitchen it doesn't mean that it had to be staged he was killed their. If we go by the account of what Jeremy told west " then the phone hung up" what could dispute that the he could have been killed in any other area of the house
If we go off Julie's statement there was apparently a blue telephone in the office with a last number redial facility. I think his original plan was to use this telephone to call his cottage at Goldhanger, which would "prove" he had indeed received a telephone call in the middle of the night..
-
this was his childhood home Steve, he probably could have envisaged many nook and crannysm does not add an iota of evidence it happened. It's much more likely if we presume Bamber is guilty he thought viciously with his father after been surprised and discovered. If it did happen that is
Well I agree with that scenario.
-
But how would he know he would have more influence on that particular area of the business in the near future?
where did the near future come from?? According to AE his exact words were " this will be ours one day" couldn't that be interpreted as much into the future. Either way doesn't prove murder
-
Why shouldn't he be in the kitchen? He was upstairs at some point, and then he went downstairs. I suppose he could have gone into the sitting room or dining room, or anywhere. Perhaps he thought he could phone for help from the kitchen.
All this movement does seem to rule out Sheila somewhat..
-
All this movement does seem to rule out Sheila somewhat..
Not necessarily. Nevill could have gone to the kitchen twice - once to call Jeremy, then he went upstairs where he was shot, and then he could have gone back down to the kitchen.
-
Why shouldn't he be in the kitchen? He was upstairs at some point, and then he went downstairs. I suppose he could have gone into the sitting room or dining room, or anywhere. Perhaps he thought he could phone for help from the kitchen.
kaldin answer me these two questions please a) how many houses were there in Whf b) what locations were they C what phone did Jeremy want to interpret nevill called from
-
Because if he called from the kitchen. If jb was guilty he'd want the police to believe he had been murdered as soon as he terminated the phonecall to jb
-
where did the near future come from?? According to AE his exact words were " this will be ours one day" couldn't that be interpreted as much into the future. Either way doesn't prove murder
No it was far more specific-something on the lines of we'll be running the caravan park together in two years, upon which Ann said June had no plans to retire.
-
kaldin answer me these two questions please a) how many houses were there in Whf b) what locations were they C what phone did Jeremy want to interpret nevill called from
Houses?
Re the phone, either Jeremy wanted everyone to think Nevill called him from the kitchen phone, or Nevill did indeed call Jeremy from the kitchen phone - before the shooting started.
-
Because if he called from the kitchen. If jb was guilty he'd want the police to believe he had been murdered as soon as he terminated the phonecall to jb
Probably, but that was scuppered because Nevill couldn't have spoken, and there would have been blood on the phone.
-
Houses?
Re the phone, either Jeremy wanted everyone to think Nevill called him from the kitchen phone, or Nevill did indeed call Jeremy from the kitchen phone - before the shooting started.
typing error on my behalf how many phones I meant
-
typing error on my behalf how many phones I meant
Oh right. ;D
I think there were normally four. A cream one in the main bedroom, a fawn one in the kitchen, one in the office, and a cordless phone.
The cream bedroom phone had apparently been moved to the kitchen, so there was no phone in the bedroom that night.
-
The cordless phone wasn't there either - it had been collected for repair. Allegedly, the fawn kitchen phone was found later under some magazines.
-
Probably, but that was scuppered because Nevill couldn't have spoken, and there would have been blood on the phone.
not nessecarily because Nevill never indicated Shelia had started shooting killing people. He said " she's gone crazy and has the gun" that could just mean she has hold of the gun and is in a temper tantrum. So at that point there is no reason for blood to be on the phone. She could have been just going ape shit and maybe thought Jeremy could help. To those who say Jeremy and Shelia wernt close. Did you spend your childhood in close vicinity to them??
-
not nessecarily because Nevill never indicated Shelia had started shooting killing people. He said " she's gone crazy and has the gun" that could just mean she has hold of the gun and is in a temper tantrum. So at that point there is no reason for blood to be on the phone. She could have been just going ape shit and maybe thought Jeremy could help. To those who say Jeremy and Shelia wernt close. Did you spend your childhood in close vicinity to them??
I agree, which is why I said that if Nevill called Jeremy, it was before the shooting started. Nevill couldn't have called Jeremy after he was shot though because he couldn't speak and he presumably had blood on his hands.
-
I agree, which is why I said that if Nevill called Jeremy, it was before the shooting started. Nevill couldn't have called Jeremy after he was shot though because he couldn't speak and he presumably had blood on his hands.
exactly.
-
exactly.
Congratulations!!! You're concurring with the conclusion that many of us arrived at eons ago.
-
In the days prior to en suite bathrooms, at the Bamber's social level, it's not out of the question that gentlemen would allow their wives the privacy of an upstairs bathroom whilst they used the downstairs shower room.
but was it practice back in 1985 to take your dogs out for a walk clad in your pyjamas?? Or more feasible you'd be wearing pyjamas in bed???
-
no if you look earlier back she had the idea he'd took crispy and Bruce for an evening stroll before coming back for a shower. Scroll up
This is exactly why I hate doing this, because people take everything you say literally! It was Nevill's usual routine to take the dogs for a walk then have a shower. He most likely took his PJ's into the bathroom with him - leaving Bamber on his own and time to kill the others.
-
This is exactly why I hate doing this, because people take everything you say literally! It was Nevill's usual routine to take the dogs for a walk then have a shower. He most likely took his PJ's into the bathroom with him - leaving Bamber on his own and time to kill the others.
How do you know that was Nevill's usual routine?
-
I answered the PJ question before you asked it again.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg459203.html#msg459203
-
How do you know that was Nevill's usual routine?
Because it has been reported by others.
-
Because it has been reported by others.
Which others?
-
but was it practice back in 1985 to take your dogs out for a walk clad in your pyjamas?? Or more feasible you'd be wearing pyjamas in bed???
No one said he was wearing pyjamas - I clearly stated that his clothes were downstairs and that he most likely changed into them after having a shower.
-
Which others?
Have you read the statements on the forum?
-
Have you read the statements on the forum?
Yes. Which others?
-
No one said he was wearing pyjamas - I clearly stated that his clothes were downstairs and that he most likely changed into them after having a shower.
he was found in pyjamas love or definately bedwear. He couldn't have returned and had a shower and changed before Jeremy murdered him according to your scenario
-
I don't know what Nevill was doing before he was shot, but I do think it's possible that he was shot as he approached the bedroom. Some of the cartridges in the bedroom appear to have been found near the door, with a further one on the landing. Two of those shots were at close range, and two were from further away than two feet.
-
but was it practice back in 1985 to take your dogs out for a walk clad in your pyjamas?? Or more feasible you'd be wearing pyjamas in bed???
I have no proof of whether he did or didn't, but neither is there any valid reason why he shouldn't. His property was private and large.
-
Interestingly, the two shots to Nevill's face - his lip and his jaw - went downwards, which suggests that he was lower down than the shooter at the time. These shots presumably did not happen in the kitchen, so what were the relative positions of the shooter and Nevill when these shots were made?
-
Congratulations!!! You're concurring with the conclusion that many of us arrived at eons ago.
God those straws need clutching
-
All this movement does seem to rule out Sheila somewhat..
do tell...
-
I suggest that Nevill was maybe shot just as he came up the last couple of stairs, which were very close to the bedroom door. That would account for the two shots to his face having a downward track - he was lower than the shooter at that point.
Of course, that could be nonsense. He could have been on his knees in the bedroom at the time.
-
This is exactly why I hate doing this, because people take everything you say literally! It was Nevill's usual routine to take the dogs for a walk then have a shower. He most likely took his PJ's into the bathroom with him - leaving Bamber on his own and time to kill the others.
no Caroline don't cross words. You were clear that nevill took the dogs out before returning and then presumably showering. It was your scenario, you put it forward and I shot it down don't make out otherwise
-
Yes. Which others?
David Boutflour stated "Each evening he would walk both dogs, Crispy and Bruce, around the front lawn before bed. After walking the dogs, Nevill had a shower in the downstairs bathroom every night as a matter of course. It was his normal practice afterwards to pour himself a gin and tonic, then relax in the lounge with a cigarette."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 159). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
David Boutflour stated "Each evening he would walk both dogs, Crispy and Bruce, around the front lawn before bed. After walking the dogs, Nevill had a shower in the downstairs bathroom every night as a matter of course. It was his normal practice afterwards to pour himself a gin and tonic, then relax in the lounge with a cigarette."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 159). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Thank you. I'm not sure how David Boutflour would know so much. However, if Nevill had a gin and tonic in the lounge after his shower, why didn't Jeremy shoot him there?
-
he was found in pyjamas love or definately bedwear. He couldn't have returned and had a shower and changed before Jeremy murdered him according to your scenario
I'm not sure why it is you can't grasp that he obviously CHANGED into his pyjamas after having a shower. I haven't written a full scenario this evening so how do you know what it does or doesn't entail? There is nothing I have said that doesn't allow Nevill to change into his pyjamas. But just to clarify!
As usual;
He walks the dogs
Goes to the shower - WITH PYJAMAS IN HAND
Has a shower
E voila!
-
Interestingly, the two shots to Nevill's face - his lip and his jaw - went downwards, which suggests that he was lower down than the shooter at the time. These shots presumably did not happen in the kitchen, so what were the relative positions of the shooter and Nevill when these shots were made?
I believe he had to have been on the stairs.
-
Thank you. I'm not sure how David Boutflour would know so much. However, if Nevill had a gin and tonic in the lounge after his shower, why didn't Jeremy shoot him there?
There's a lot of the rhetoric in many of the questions being asked. I really don't know quite where you think the answers will come from.
-
no Caroline don't cross words. You were clear that nevill took the dogs out before returning and then presumably showering. It was your scenario, you put it forward and I shot it down don't make out otherwise
You couldn't shoot ducks in a bucket. Kaldin knew exactly what I meant but you seem t have a bit of an agenda.
-
Thank you. I'm not sure how David Boutflour would know so much. However, if Nevill had a gin and tonic in the lounge after his shower, why didn't Jeremy shoot him there?
They were family and his Mother and June were close. He had no reason to lie about what Nevill did before going to bed - it's not like he used it to strengthen his case against Jeremy.
-
You couldn't shoot ducks in a bucket. Kaldin knew exactly what I meant but you seem t have a bit of an agenda.
you lost
-
David Boutflour stated "Each evening he would walk both dogs, Crispy and Bruce, around the front lawn before bed. After walking the dogs, Nevill had a shower in the downstairs bathroom every night as a matter of course. It was his normal practice afterwards to pour himself a gin and tonic, then relax in the lounge with a cigarette."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 159). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
no Caroline, you put forward a scenario which you believed and I shot it down didn't I 😂😂
-
you lost
Only in your imagination - have another drink mate! You're the only one who couldn't grasp what was being said - that's your issue. Perhaps you've had too many!
-
no Caroline, you put forward a scenario which you believed and I shot you down didn't I 😂😂
No you don't have the capacity to understand - Kaldin knew. But then it seems you're here to troll - particularly me but don't worry, it's not gone unnoticed.
-
I'm not sure why it is you can't grasp that he obviously CHANGED into his pyjamas after having a shower. I haven't written a full scenario this evening so how do you know what it does or doesn't entail? There is nothing I have said that doesn't allow Nevill to change into his pyjamas. But just to clarify!
As usual;
He walks the dogs
Goes to the shower - WITH PYJAMAS IN HAND
Has a shower
E voila!
no no no darling I asked you if you believed that nevill returned to the farmhouse after taking the dogs out PRIOR to taking a shower. Then I stated nevill was found wearing pyjamas......
-
Only in your imagination - have another drink mate! You're the only one who couldn't grasp what was being said - that's your issue. Perhaps you've had too many!
no :) :) :)
-
no no no darling I asked you if you believed that nevill returned to the farmhouse after taking the dogs out PRIOR to taking a shower. Then I stated nevill was found wearing pyjamas......
And? Then I stated that he changed into them after having a shower. His clothes were downstairs, so he must have changed after having a shower. The bit you seem to be having problems with, without someone spelling it out for you - is that he took them into the shower WITH HIM. Kaldin was easily able to understand that - you were not. Once again, you're making yourself look stupid and being condescending.
I was willing to debate the case like an adult and forget the passed week or so - for which you have already been told to change your attitude. However, seems you're not able to help yourself. Never mind - you're not the first and won't be the last.
-
no :) :) :)
Yeah ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
And? Then I sated that he
changed into them after having a shower. His clothes were downstairs, so he must have changed after having a shower. The bit you seem to be having problems with, without someone spelling it out for you - is that he took them into the shower WITH HIM. Kaldin was easily able to understand that - you were not. Once again, you're making yourself look stupid and being condescending.
I was willing to debate the case like an adult and forget the passed week or so - for which you have already been told to change your attitude. However, seems you're not able to help yourself. Never mind - you're not the first and won't be the last.
but how did he change Caroline before he returned and took a shower. Your own words condemn you. I've been working I'm going to bed night ( scroll up for reference ) I knew what you was going to say and I lured you into it. Face I goodnight
-
do tell...
The shooter scampered up and downstairs, the shooter aimed twenty-five times and never missed, the shooter reloaded..
-
but how did he change Caroline before he returned and took a shower. Your own words condemn you. I've been working I'm going to bed night ( scroll up for reference ) I knew what you was going to say and I lured you into it. Face I goodnight
How did he change before he returned from where?
You didn't lead me into anything - funny how Kaldin knew exactly what I meant - it's only you who didn't understand. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think Caroline's idea is that he had a shower and changed into his PJs in the shower room before going upstairs.
Thank you Kaldin!
-
Reply 1015 " returning for a shower"
-
And? Then I stated that he changed into them after having a shower. His clothes were downstairs, so he must have changed after having a shower. The bit you seem to be having problems with, without someone spelling it out for you - is that he took them into the shower WITH HIM. Kaldin was easily able to understand that - you were not. Once again, you're making yourself look stupid and being condescending.
I was willing to debate the case like an adult and forget the passed week or so - for which you have already been told to change your attitude. However, seems you're not able to help yourself. Never mind - you're not the first and won't be the last.
but how would have have TIME to take a shower if Jeremy Bamber was laying in wait to kill him???
-
There's a lot of the rhetoric in many of the questions being asked. I really don't know quite where you think the answers will come from.
They're just questions which I'm asking myself I suppose, but someone else might come up with an interesting answer.
-
They were family and his Mother and June were close. He had no reason to lie about what Nevill did before going to bed - it's not like he used it to strengthen his case against Jeremy.
I'm not saying he's lying. I hadn't considered the possibility that Nevill had been out with the dogs. I'm just wondering if having this gin and tonic was a regular habit or an occasional one. I'm sure I wouldn't know what a relative does every night.
-
Thank you Kaldin!
but by her own admission she believed that Jeremy had been at the farmhouse. And waited for nevill to go out with the dogs.
-
I'm not saying he's lying. I hadn't considered the possibility that Nevill had been out with the dogs. I'm just wondering if having this gin and tonic was a regular habit or an occasional one. I'm sure I wouldn't know what a relative does every night.
Mmm. I hear what you're saying. I get a bee in my bonnet about sweeping statements being made, ie "he/she ALWAYS does/says................" (though I suspect there may be times when I'm guilty of it). We're left with, then, he had a G&T on occasions, OR, there were occasions when he DIDN'T have a G&T. Personally, based on what his friends have told me about him, I'd go for the former. I certainly wouldn't know what a relative does every night but relatives often say. It can simply come up in conversation, so if Nevill has said that he always has a snifter before retiring/turning in for the night, his words were only being repeated...........................which leaves you no clearer about "always" than you were when you posted!
-
but by her own admission she believed that Jeremy had been at the farmhouse. And waited for nevill to go out with the dogs.
Why, in your opinion, is such not possible? It's a large house. He could have hidden anywhere. I imagine he knew Nevill's habits.
-
but by her own admission she believed that Jeremy had been at the farmhouse. And waited for nevill to go out with the dogs.
I think for the sake of harmony on the forum, I going to put you on ignore. You are clearly here to cause problems but you won't be using me to do so. I written a scenario, which is on the forum if you have the capacity to search for it. Other than that, I won't be answering any more of your posts.
-
I'm not saying he's lying. I hadn't considered the possibility that Nevill had been out with the dogs. I'm just wondering if having this gin and tonic was a regular habit or an occasional one. I'm sure I wouldn't know what a relative does every night.
Well, me either, but I don't live that close to any of my relatives. However, Nevill finished work late that night so his routine may have altered. I think he would still have walked the dogs and obviously had the shower (given the nature of his work).
-
Why, in your opinion, is such not possible? It's a large house. He could have hidden anywhere. I imagine he knew Nevill's habits.
No, Jane, I don't think Jeremy hid anywhere - I think he came back to WHF and he waited for an opportunity for Nevill to be out of the way but at no time have I suggested he hid anywhere. I think the shower was the best opportunity.
-
I think for the sake of harmony on the forum, I going to put you on ignore. You are clearly here to cause problems but you won't be using me to do so. I written a scenario, which is on the forum if you have the capacity to search for it. Other than that, I won't be answering any more of your posts.
how by disputing your scenarios am I here to cause problems? It's a forum where other people have opinions. You have disputed mine. I haven't caused a scene.
-
how by disputing your scenarios am I here to cause problems? It's a forum where other people have opinions. You have disputed mine. I haven't caused a scene.
You don't just 'dispute' - disputing is fair enough. I really don't care if people agree or disagree. When you initially asked the question, I clearly stated that I wasn't going to write a scenario, which you said you weren't asking for. I wrote down a brief post, you asked about PJ's, I answered you. But that wasn't good enough out came the 'love's' and 'darlings' then rubbish about how you had caught me out, although others had understood perfectly well and read between the lines of my brief post.
I just can't be bothered to deal with yet another 'one of you'. I like posting here and although I have my spats from time to time, it is with people who have at least earned their place as part of the community and have added something to the discussion. Of course new people make a welcome change but in the short time you have been posting, you have already been pulled up about your attitude and I certainly see no improvement - not just to me either. I just have no interest in the kind of argument you presented last night - it goes no where, it doesn't advance anything and quite frankly, it didn't make the slightest bit of sense from the off. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah -should be kept in the playground!
There are plenty of other people for you to debate with - if they can be bothered but you seem more concerned with digging at the poster rather than having a serious discussion and like I said, I just can't be bothered - it's time wasted.
-
You don't just 'dispute' - disputing is fair enough. I really don't care if people agree or disagree. When you initially asked the question, I clearly stated that I wasn't going to write a scenario, which you said you weren't asking for. I wrote down a brief post, you asked about PJ's, I answered you. But that wasn't good enough out came the 'love's' and 'darlings' then rubbish about how you had caught me out, although others had understood perfectly well and read between the lines of my brief post.
I just can't be bothered to deal with yet another 'one of you'. I like posting here and although I have my spats from time to time, it is with people who have at least earned their place as part of the community and have added something to the discussion. Of course new people make a welcome change but in the short time you have been posting, you have already been pulled up about your attitude and I certainly see no improvement - not just to me either. I just have no interest in the kind of argument you presented last night - it goes no where, it doesn't advance anything and quite frankly, it didn't make the slightest bit of sense from the off. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah -should be kept in the playground!
There are plenty of other people for you to debate with - if they can be bothered but you seem more concerned with digging at the poster rather than having a serious discussion and like I said, I just can't be bothered - it's time wasted.
i am from south Yorkshire. It's how we speak around here. I am not trying to demean you , and certainly not in a patronizing way. If I have offended you in anyway then I apologise. It's just my natural person coming out in me. I did get a bit over the top last night and I apologise for it. But I do feel you are making a mountain of a mole Hill. It's pure banter. Balls in your court. And I'm perfectly capable of having a sensible debate
-
The shooter scampered up and downstairs, the shooter aimed twenty-five times and never missed, the shooter reloaded..
I am speaking from " if Jeremy Bamber is gulity perspective. I haven't ruled nothing out
-
i am from south Yorkshire. It's how we speak around here. I am not trying to demean you , and certainly not in a patronizing way. If I have offended you in anyway then I apologise. It's just my natural person coming out in me. I did get a bit over the top last night and I apologise for it. But I do feel you are making a mountain of a mole Hill. It's pure banter. Balls in your court. And I'm perfectly capable of having a sensible debate
Just read this, I'm quite a bit further north than you and I am used to plain speaking - yours though, came over as patronising. I'm not offended but have had to defend my position on here more times than I care to remember and that's fine when the 'banter' is about the case, what pisses me off is when people get personal and that's how you seemed to come over. However, perhaps I'm paranoid because of past experiences here. I accept your apology - lets starts again!
-
Just read this, I'm quite a bit further north than you and I am used to plain speaking - yours though, came over as patronising. I'm not offended but have had to defend my position on here more times than I care to remember and that's fine when the 'banter' is about the case, what pisses me off is when people get personal and that's how you seemed to come over. However, perhaps I'm paranoid because of past experiences here. I accept your apology - lets starts again!
no problem darling ;D
-
I'm sure that if JB had been the shooter he'd have gone for his fathers legs to immobilise him first and foremost as any quick-thinking person would have done with a tall hefty-built man. As it was the shots were very haphazard but at the same time were " meaningful " when it came to the overkill of the children. Only a very sick person would have carried out these killings-----not even one pretending to be sick.
-
I'm sure that if JB had been the shooter he'd have gone for his fathers legs to immobilise him first and foremost as any quick-thinking person would have done with a tall hefty-built man. As it was the shots were very haphazard but at the same time were " meaningful " when it came to the overkill of the children. Only a very sick person would have carried out these killings-----not even one pretending to be sick.
You got that right!
-
Erm, psychopaths do a lot of pretending don't they ? I said sick and not pretending to be. Sick as in extremely mentally ill, one whose condition had deteriorated ( Nevill's words when he took ? his daughter to the clinic for the last time )
-
There were more psychopathic pointers in Sheila than when Jeremy was tested.
-
I'm sure that if JB had been the shooter he'd have gone for his fathers legs to immobilise him first and foremost as any quick-thinking person would have done with a tall hefty-built man. As it was the shots were very haphazard but at the same time were " meaningful " when it came to the overkill of the children. Only a very sick person would have carried out these killings-----not even one pretending to be sick.
If his first shot at Neville was on the stairs, he’s already in a commanding position Lookout, being above the victim gives him the advantage. Like Caroline said, he could have already shot the others first while Neville was out with the dogs or showering?
-
I'm sure that if JB had been the shooter he'd have gone for his fathers legs to immobilise him first and foremost as any quick-thinking person would have done with a tall hefty-built man. As it was the shots were very haphazard but at the same time were " meaningful " when it came to the overkill of the children. Only a very sick person would have carried out these killings-----not even one pretending to be sick.
And yet you believe that Sheila overpowered this tall hefty-built man easily with no leg shots?
-
There were more psychopathic pointers in Sheila than when Jeremy was tested.
You're getting psychopathy mixed up with mental illness again, Lookout! ::)
-
You're getting psychopathy mixed up with mental illness again, Lookout! ::)
Dr. Hare had several tests that he’d perform on potential psychopaths. In one test, Dr. Hare would flip through pleasant images on a projector: a duck on a lake, a happy family, a snowy landscape. He would then insert an extremely grotesque image from a crime scene or grisly car accident. Regular people would recoil in disgust. Psychopaths would not.
Think of Jeremy’s reaction to this news, how would a normal person react? How would a murdering psychopath react?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5830
-
There were more psychopathic pointers in Sheila than when Jeremy was tested.
Really? Such as?
-
If his first shot at Neville was on the stairs, he’s already in a commanding position Lookout, being above the victim gives him the advantage. Like Caroline said, he could have already shot the others first while Neville was out with the dogs or showering?
Same goes for Sheila as the shooter ? Except the shot on the stairs wasn't his legs.
Neville wasn't the last one shot though was he ? More like the first.
-
Same goes for Sheila as the shooter ? Except the shot on the stairs wasn't his legs.
Neville wasn't the last one shot though was he ? More like the first.
I think that’s always been debatable Lookout, the sequence of deaths?
-
Same goes for Sheila as the shooter ? Except the shot on the stairs wasn't his legs.
Neville wasn't the last one shot though was he ? More like the first.
Really? So what was June doing then?
-
You're getting psychopathy mixed up with mental illness again, Lookout! ::)
No I'm not. Psycopathy comes under mental health the same as any other misfiring of the brains wiring system does.
-
Really? So what was June doing then?
June couldn't have done much herself as she wasn't a well woman with the worry about Sheila and the twins.
-
No I'm not. Psycopathy comes under mental health the same as any other misfiring of the brains wiring system does.
Since when did being a psychopath mean that someone was mentally ill? Personality disorder falls more under the auspices of psychotherapists than psychiatrists. There is no pill to cure psychopathy.
-
June couldn't have done much herself as she wasn't a well woman with the worry about Sheila and the twins.
But June was probably one of the busiest women in the village, Lookout. Her life was one of devotion, be it to the church, the community, or her family.
-
Since when did being a psychopath mean that someone was mentally ill? Personality disorder falls more under the auspices of psychotherapists than psychiatrists. There is no pill to cure psychopathy.
To my knowledge there's no pill to cure any mental illness as depending on how a person is stricken with what , it's a case of trial and error with medication to make for an easier life. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but there's no known cure.
It's been proven with past experiments that psychopath's brains are wired differently to the norm. It is a deformity in the make-up of cells within the brain.
-
To my knowledge there's no pill to cure any mental illness as depending on how a person is stricken with what , it's a case of trial and error with medication to make for an easier life. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but there's no known cure.
It's been proven with past experiments that psychopath's brains are wired differently to the norm. It is a deformity in the make-up of cells within the brain.
Whilst some psychopaths may be regarded as 'sick', the majority live lives similar to the rest of us. They are not unwell, ergo, they can't be made well. Whilst no pill, nor courses of ECT can cure broken relationships, there are pills capable of blurring the symptoms of such. There are many diseases which can't be cured by pills, but they can be controlled. Psychopathy ISN'T such.......................unless the psychopath suffers with something which CAN be relieved by medication.
-
Whilst some psychopaths may be regarded as 'sick', the majority live lives similar to the rest of us. They are not unwell, ergo, they can't be made well. Whilst no pill, nor courses of ECT can cure broken relationships, there are pills capable of blurring the symptoms of such. There are many diseases which can't be cured by pills, but they can be controlled. Psychopathy ISN'T such.......................unless the psychopath suffers with something which CAN be relieved by medication.
Laughing gas, maybe ? Seeing that they're void of emotion.
I prefer getting to the root of problems before masking them with something that could be neither use nor ornament.
-
Laughing gas, maybe ? Seeing that they're void of emotion.
I prefer getting to the root of problems before masking them with something that could be neither use nor ornament.
Well, I'm delighted beyond words to read that you're supportive of talking therapies of chemical ones. However you won't get very far with a psychopath. They'll suss out what the therapist wants to hear them say and run with it. Perfect clients. A good thing most therapists know that there's no such animal.
-
Laughing gas, maybe ? Seeing that they're void of emotion.
I prefer getting to the root of problems before masking them with something that could be neither use nor ornament.
They aren't void of emotion, they have no empathy - which is different.
How do you get down the root problem of personality traits?
-
They aren't void of emotion, they have no empathy - which is different.
How do you get down the root problem of personality traits?
They are void of emotion. They have to be in certain sectors of their profession-----surgeons ?
Getting to know the background of a proposed MH sufferer, home life parents, schooling, the whole package.
-
They are void of emotion. They have to be in certain sectors of their profession-----surgeons ?
Getting to know the background of a proposed MH sufferer, home life parents, schooling, the whole package.
Well, you seem to have learned something. Even if it's only that it's not impossible for surgeons to be psychopathic.
-
They are void of emotion. They have to be in certain sectors of their profession-----surgeons ?
Getting to know the background of a proposed MH sufferer, home life parents, schooling, the whole package.
They aren't void of emotion and you don't need to be void of emotion to be a surgeon or a psychopath. Beggars belief where you get this stuff from!
-
They aren't void of emotion and you don't need to be void of emotion to be a surgeon or a psychopath. Beggars belief where you get this stuff from!
Say/ think what you like but I'm right !!
-
Say/ think what you like but I'm right !!
I will and you're not.
-
Say/ think what you like but I'm right !!
THAT is part of the problem! You just too arrogant to allow than someone else might know more than you, and as a result, some of what you come out with is garbage.
-
Remember Colin said he thought Jeremy was mimicking him at the funerals. Liz Rimington said he wasn't the same after he lost Brambles.
-
I've always been surprised by the fact that Crispy wasn't shot too seeing as JB didn't like the dog as it used to bite him. Then he was blamed for having had it put to sleep and it was AE's suggestion not JB's.
Another strange thing is Crispy cowering when he knew the inhabitants of WHF ? Or did he ?
-
I've always been surprised by the fact that Crispy wasn't shot too seeing as JB didn't like the dog as it used to bite him. Then he was blamed for having had it put to sleep and it was AE's suggestion not JB's.
Another strange thing is Crispy cowering when he knew the inhabitants of WHF ? Or did he ?
He could have tested the gun on Crispy I suppose, but wouldn't want to risk waking the occupants of the Farm until he was upstairs and in command.
-
He could have tested the gun on Crispy I suppose, but wouldn't want to risk waking the occupants of the Farm until he was upstairs and in command.
He had no bites from the dog that always bit him ?
-
He had no bites from the dog that always bit him ?
The dog didn't always bite him. ::)
-
The dog didn't always bite him. ::)
It would have done that night if he'd been hurtling about brandishing a rifle. It wasn't tied up either.
-
It would have done that night if he'd been hurtling about brandishing a rifle. It wasn't tied up either.
OMG!!! Telepathic communication with deceased dogs, too. Whatever next?
-
The more I think and read about psychopathy, the more I question as to whether it even exists.
The following is from a thesis on criminology.
"Psychopathy can be seen as the inverse of moral development. Some theoreticians (Shoemaker, 1990; Bartol and Bartol, 2011; Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2011) imply that psychopathy constitutes a criminological theory. However, a clear mechanism or specific unit theory is rarely ever discussed, and it is debateable as to whether or not one actually exists."
-
OMG!!! Telepathic communication with deceased dogs, too. Whatever next?
There's no end to my talent.
-
The more I think and read about psychopathy, the more I question as to whether it even exists.
The following is from a thesis on criminology.
"Psychopathy can be seen as the inverse of moral development. Some theoreticians (Shoemaker, 1990; Bartol and Bartol, 2011; Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2011) imply that psychopathy constitutes a criminological theory. However, a clear mechanism or specific unit theory is rarely ever discussed, and it is debateable as to whether or not one actually exists."
But Dr Robert Hare attests quite differently, doesn't he?
-
He had no bites from the dog that always bit him ?
Dogs can sense evil.
-
Dogs can sense evil.
Then why didn't it bite him ? The dog had done it before so why was that night so different ? Or rather, why didn't he shoot it, it would have been expected of him ?
I wonder if it had bitten Sheila where she had an abdominal dressing ?
-
Dogs can sense fear too and will bite.
-
Dogs can sense fear too and will bite.
Dogs don't always bite when they're frightened. That being the case, the dog would have bitten Cook and the other officers who picked him up.
I thought you were a cat person Lookout?
-
Dogs don't always bite when they're frightened. That being the case, the dog would have bitten Cook and the other officers who picked him up.
I thought you were a cat person Lookout?
The dog may have bitten the officers, we don't know.
Yes, I have cats now but I've had dogs in the past. An Afghan Hound and latterly a German Shepherd.
-
He didn’t seem to have any love for anything, like Brett said, there was no love for his Father, he didn’t like what his mother was doing, he didn’t have a brotherly/sister relationship with Sheila and he hated the dog and Julie was on her way out, Brett did mention, he did like one thing though, MONEY
-
The dog may have bitten the officers, we don't know.
Yes, I have cats now but I've had dogs in the past. An Afghan Hound and latterly a German Shepherd.
I think they would have said if the dog bit them.
Always had dogs and they bit if you tease them - that's why Jeremy probably got bitten.
-
He didn’t seem to have any love for anything, like Brett said, there was no love for his Father, he didn’t like what his mother was doing, he didn’t have a brotherly/sister relationship with Sheila and he hated the dog and Julie was on her way out, Brett did mention, he did like one thing though, MONEY
It doesn't make a person a murderer though, nor does it mean that he murdered his family.
-
It doesn't make a person a murderer though, nor does it mean that he murdered his family.
I also don't know anyone who doesn't like money, do you ?
-
I also don't know anyone who doesn't like money, do you ?
Not enough to do what he did.
-
I think of psychopathy as a personality type rather than a disorder or a mental illness. I don't think a psychopath is devoid of emotion, it's just that they don't really understand the feelings of others. You could say that about a lot of people these days, so is it really that uncommon?
-
Not enough to do what he did.
It wasn't a money killing.
-
I also don't know anyone who doesn't like money, do you ?
There's a huge difference between being content with enough and wanting the whole family fortune for oneself.
-
He didn’t seem to have any love for anything, like Brett said, there was no love for his Father, he didn’t like what his mother was doing, he didn’t have a brotherly/sister relationship with Sheila and he hated the dog and Julie was on her way out, Brett did mention, he did like one thing though, MONEY
Julie wasn't on her way out at the time of the shootings. In fact, I'd say that Jeremy was pretty devoted to her. After all, she lived in London, but he made the effort to see her, and he seemed quite dependent on her in some ways. It's a mystery to me why he ended the relationship.
-
I think of psychopathy as a personality type rather than a disorder or a mental illness. I don't think a psychopath is devoid of emotion, it's just that they don't really understand the feelings of others. You could say that about a lot of people these days, so is it really that uncommon?
I'd say it was quite common.
-
Julie wasn't on her way out at the time of the shootings. In fact, I'd say that Jeremy was pretty devoted to her. After all, she lived in London, but he made the effort to see her, and he seemed quite dependent on her in some ways. It's a mystery to me why he ended the relationship.
Because he didn't need her anymore. He had his own flat in London (Sheila's), he had money and he was the talk of the town. He was all about having a good time.
-
Because he didn't need her anymore. He had his own flat in London (Sheila's), he had money and he was the talk of the town. He was all about having a good time.
He didn't break with her straightaway though. They spent a lot of time together after the deaths.
-
He didn't break with her straightaway though. They spent a lot of time together after the deaths.
In June before the murders, Jeremy went with Brett to Amsterdam, he was perusing some woman (a Colchester barmaid) he fancied - booking the same hotel. Not someone who sounds serious about his girlfriend. He clearly wasn't faithful to her - even sleeping with Liz, one of her best mates.
-
Why did Jeremy want her to come over on the morning of the killings?
-
Why did Jeremy want her to come over on the morning of the killings?
Only he can answer that.
-
Only he can answer that.
It's not the action of someone who doesn't give a toss is it?
-
It's not the action of someone who doesn't give a toss is it?
Well, I'd have to say yes because I don't think he did give a toss. Weeks prior he was trying to see someone else and weeks after he did the same. Does that sound like someone who gives a toss. Julie knew what he's done - he needed to keep her close.
-
Julie wasn't on her way out at the time of the shootings. In fact, I'd say that Jeremy was pretty devoted to her. After all, she lived in London, but he made the effort to see her, and he seemed quite dependent on her in some ways. It's a mystery to me why he ended the relationship.
Bamber said his relationship had been unsteady for the last 6 months Kaldin, usually a long term relationship doesn’t end in one day, it’s usually over time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5816
-
I think of psychopathy as a personality type rather than a disorder or a mental illness. I don't think a psychopath is devoid of emotion, it's just that they don't really understand the feelings of others. You could say that about a lot of people these days, so is it really that uncommon?
Well. psychopathy isn't than uncommon. What IS uncommon, thankfully, is the number of them who kill. I don't believe it's possible to experience emotions but fail to understand them in others.
-
Why did Jeremy want her to come over on the morning of the killings?
I'll hazard a guess that it's what he thought was the done thing under the circumstances and would therefore look good on his 'cv'. I'm remembering what Colin said about Jeremy emulating him at the funeral. If we feel something what follows is spontaneous. When we don't feel, we have to learn how to do.
-
If he's guilty, it's possible he saw Julie as a partner in crime, so of course he wanted to discuss it with her. Later on, he realised that she didn't approve of what he'd done and saw no future with her.
If he's innocent, he merely wanted his girlfriend there to comfort him.
-
If he's guilty, it's possible he saw Julie as a partner in crime, so of course he wanted to discuss it with her. Later on, he realised that she didn't approve of what he'd done and saw no future with her.
If he's innocent, he merely wanted his girlfriend there to comfort him.
Certainly, IF he was innocent, it would be the most natural thing in the world for him to want his girlfriend with him. However, mindful of the tone he'd taken earlier during a phone call, allegedly made to hear a friendly voice, when it appeared to be 90% Jeremy -excited that his plan was working, perhaps, and needing to share it?- and 10% Julie, it starts to feel like it was more for show.
-
It was a bit risky getting Julie over though. She could have said anything by accident and blown the whole thing.
-
It was a bit risky getting Julie over though. She could have said anything by accident and blown the whole thing.
She could have, but it's quite likely that she was more concerned with protecting him. If there'd been the slightest chance that he'd been innocent, I think she'd have wanted to allow him that chance.
-
The point is what Jeremy thought. He must have had a great deal of faith in her, and her ability to stay calm in that situation. He took a big chance. She could have got hysterical or something.
-
The point is what Jeremy thought. He must have had a great deal of faith in her, and her ability to stay calm in that situation. He took a big chance. She could have got hysterical or something.
He'd groomed her well. It's very possible that it wasn't the first time in her life that such had occurred -she claims to have been abused- patterns repeat.
-
The point is what Jeremy thought. He must have had a great deal of faith in her, and her ability to stay calm in that situation. He took a big chance. She could have got hysterical or something.
Imagine if he had got rid of her 6 months prior, then carried out the murders, he knows Julie would have gone straight to police regarding his constant threat to do it. So I presume, he kept her on board with the pretence that she was the one, knowing full well he would rid her when he thought he was in the clear?
-
He'd groomed her well. It's very possible that it wasn't the first time in her life that such had occurred -she claims to have been abused- patterns repeat.
I don't believe that. She wasn't groomed, and she wasn't abused by Jeremy IMO.
-
If he's guilty I think that her responses to his talk about killing his family made him think that she was on board. She pretty much said that she understood about his parents but that Sheila and the boys had done nothing to him. She made a joke about burning the house down. She didn't attempt to talk him out of it. She expressed little concern, other than to say that she didn't like him talking about it.
-
I wonder what questions that JM was asked by the defence before she started blubbering and wasn't able to answer ? I note that she stood firm on the prosecution side of things ! Thoughts of a big pay-out as well as spite mixed with it, how damned easy that must have been.
-
I don't believe that. She wasn't groomed, and she wasn't abused by Jeremy IMO.
In YOUR opinion. I'm just keeping an open mind. If she'd been in a previous controlling relationship during her childhood -and these are often carried out under the guise of the perpetrator being concerned and caring- it wouldn't be beyond belief for her to find herself in another such as an adult because it's what she'd have come to see as being loving.
-
In YOUR opinion. I'm just keeping an open mind. If she'd been in a previous controlling relationship during her childhood -and these are often carried out under the guise of the perpetrator being concerned and caring- it wouldn't be beyond belief for her to find herself in another such as an adult because it's what she'd have come to see as being loving.
You're not keeping an open mind at all. Look at what you said.
He'd groomed her well.
You're very fond of telling people that their posts are their opinion, but you don't say it about your own. I did say it was my opinion.
There is nothing to suggest that Jeremy groomed Julie or was abusive to her. What was this controlling relationship when she was a child? Is that a fact?
-
You're not keeping an open mind at all. Look at what you said.
You're very fond of telling people that their posts are their opinion, but you don't say it about your own. I did say it was my opinion.
There is nothing to suggest that Jeremy groomed Julie or was abusive to her. What was this controlling relationship when she was a child? Is that a fact?
Controllers DO groom those well who stay in relationships with them. Those who won't be controlled DON'T stay in relationships with them.
As for my NOT? being open minded. My posts are peppered with questioning words, ie possibly/perhaps/maybe/may have. I think. I RARELY know. I hazard guesses. My world is about grey area, NOT either black or white. During the time I believed Jeremy was innocent, I allowed for all the grey area it was possible to give him. I made allowances until there were none left to make.
I can't tell you any more than what I've already said regarding any childhood abuse/control, but I DO know that she said it and I've been made aware of some of the fallout it incurred.
-
Controllers DO groom those well who stay in relationships with them. Those who won't be controlled DON'T stay in relationships with them.
As for my NOT? being open minded. My posts are peppered with questioning words, ie possibly/perhaps/maybe/may have. I think. I RARELY know. I hazard guesses. My world is about grey area, NOT either black or white. During the time I believed Jeremy was innocent, I allowed for all the grey area it was possible to give him. I made allowances until there were none left to make.
I can't tell you any more than what I've already said regarding any childhood abuse/control, but I DO know that she said it and I've been made aware of some of the fallout it incurred.
Look, if you're going to have a go at me for posting my opinion, look at your own posts and admit that they're just your opinion. If you have no evidence that Julie was "groomed", then don't present it as a fact. Has it occurred to you that Julie liked being involved in crime, and that she actually had a mind of her own?
-
Yes, Julie was " groomed "-----by Stan Jones ! Her 32 page statement ?
-
Yes, Julie was " groomed "-----by Stan Jones ! Her 32 page statement ?
Well, NOW, perhaps, we're getting somewhere. If she was capable of being groomed by one man, she was capable of being groomed by another.
-
If he's guilty, it's possible he saw Julie as a partner in crime, so of course he wanted to discuss it with her. Later on, he realised that she didn't approve of what he'd done and saw no future with her.
If he's innocent, he merely wanted his girlfriend there to comfort him.
This is how I see it.
-
Look, if you're going to have a go at me for posting my opinion, look at your own posts and admit that they're just your opinion. If you have no evidence that Julie was "groomed", then don't present it as a fact. Has it occurred to you that Julie liked being involved in crime, and that she actually had a mind of her own?
But it's fine for you to question me, is it? No, my posts aren't "JUST" my opinion. They're observations based on years of hard work to attain qualifications, and furthered by experience. Yes, what you say of Julie MAY be a possibility, but there's nothing else about her to suggest it. I think you're simply straw clutching because you don't want me to be right.
-
But it's fine for you to question me, is it? No, my posts aren't "JUST" my opinion. They're observations based on years of hard work to attain qualifications, and furthered by experience. Yes, what you say of Julie MAY be a possibility, but there's nothing else about her to suggest it. I think you're simply straw clutching because you don't want me to be right.
They are just your opinion. I disagreed with one of your posts and you got aggressive about it. Your opinion is no more valid than mine - remember that.
There is nothing to suggest that Julie was "groomed". I don't think you're right - I think you have a bee in your bonnet about Julie being a "victim".
-
They are just your opinion. I disagreed with one of your posts and you got aggressive about it. Your opinion is no more valid than mine - remember that.
There is nothing to suggest that Julie was "groomed". I don't think you're right - I think you have a bee in your bonnet about Julie being a "victim".
You're fully entitled to think what you want. It's entirely down to you how you choose to read my words. How non aggressive -insulting!!- is your claim that "Your opinion is no more valid than mine - Remember that"?
So, in YOUR opinion, Julie wasn't groomed. I haven't made the claim that she definitely was. What I've said is that she has said she was abused and if that's the case, it's LIKELY -not a certainty- that she'd be in another abusive relationship.
-
What was this alleged abusive relationship she was in earlier?
-
What was this alleged abusive relationship she was in earlier?
I can only tell you that she has claimed it to have happened, and I know that to be so. I'm not prepared to say more, it would mean breaking confidence.
-
I can only tell you that she has claimed it to have happened, and I know that to be so. I'm not prepared to say more, it would mean breaking confidence.
Well then it's just hearsay, and I won't take it into account.
-
This is how I see it.
very dangerous position Jeremy Bamber would find himself in though if indeed guilty. Forever in fear of what a women who he had jilted could tell authorities. I'm inclined to believe, that if indeed guilty he'd be wanting to keep her buttered up. Even if he had previous arrogantly told her. He'd realized he had dropped a bollock in doing so. To continue living a life as a free man post massacre, he had to keep Julie on side. Cater to her every whim etc
-
Well then it's just hearsay, and I won't take it into account.
I'm delighted if it means you'll no longer question me about it. My problem is -has always been- that I live a scant few miles from Jeremy's family in one direction (and have friends who were friends of the Bambers) and an equally scant few miles from Julie's family in the opposite direction (and have friends who are friends with them) I've been told things...............
-
I'm delighted if it means you'll no longer question me about it. My problem is -has always been- that I live a scant few miles from Jeremy's family in one direction (and have friends who were friends of the Bambers) and an equally scant few miles from Julie's family in the opposite direction (and have friends who are friends with them) I've been told things...............
I only questioned you once about it - after you brought it up. Perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up if you can't corroborate it.
-
Well, NOW, perhaps, we're getting somewhere. If she was capable of being groomed by one man, she was capable of being groomed by another.
She chose money over honesty though ! Not so vulnerable, eh ?
-
She chose money over honesty though ! Not so vulnerable, eh ?
Jeremy chose money over his family's lives.
-
Jeremy chose money over his family's lives.
How could/did he, it was already in the planning by the relatives after they'd seen their own paltry legacy ?
-
Jeremy chose money over his family's lives.
That's not relevant. We're discussing Julie.
-
How could/did he, it was already in the planning by the relatives after they'd seen their own paltry legacy ?
I have no idea what you mean, Lookout. You seem to be implying that the relatives planned to kill the Bambers but I must have it wrong.
-
That's not relevant. We're discussing Julie.
Okay, back to Julie. I suspect she thought -hoped- she was likely to get a ring on her finger. Isn't that what most young and in love women hope for?
-
Okay, back to Julie. I suspect she thought -hoped- she was likely to get a ring on her finger. Isn't that what most young and in love women hope for?
All I can say is that he had a lucky escape.
-
All I can say is that he had a lucky escape.
Did he? Bet he doesn't think so! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Did he? Bet he doesn't think so! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well I'd have said he's well out of it. I also reckon that had he been found not guilty he'd have been dead before now too !
-
Well I'd have said he's well out of it. I also reckon that had he been found not guilty he'd have been dead before now too !
Why's that then?
-
I do wonder what Jeremy thinks of Julie. His spokesperson doesn't mention her much, and Jeremy's anger seems to be reserved for the police and his relatives.
If he's guilty, he must have been hopping mad that he was convicted and that she got got away with it. Like I said, I think he perceived her to be some kind of accomplice. She got away with the burglary, the cheque fraud, and the drug dealing. Not only that, but she got paid a lot of money by the NOTW. She went on to travel the world, and got herself a nice husband, family, and job.
If he's innocent, how must he feel about her story? She helped put him in prison all this time!
-
I do wonder what Jeremy thinks of Julie. His spokesperson doesn't mention her much, and Jeremy's anger seems to be reserved for the police and his relatives.
If he's guilty, he must have been hopping mad that he was convicted and that she got got away with it. Like I said, I think he perceived her to be some kind of accomplice. She got away with the burglary, the cheque fraud, and the drug dealing. Not only that, but she got paid a lot of money by the NOTW. She went on to travel the world, and got herself a nice husband, family, and job.
If he's innocent, how must he feel about her story? She helped put him in prison all this time!
So why, if she's guilty, did she come back to England to give evidence -albeit, she wasn't called?
-
Why's that then?
I have my reasons.
-
So why, if she's guilty, did she come back to England to give evidence -albeit, she wasn't called?
I don't know the background to that, but obviously she didn't want him to be acquitted on appeal.
-
Wasn't the appeal called off ?
-
I don't know the background to that, but obviously she didn't want him to be acquitted on appeal.
He wasn't acquitted, anyway.
-
I do wonder what Jeremy thinks of Julie. His spokesperson doesn't mention her much, and Jeremy's anger seems to be reserved for the police and his relatives.
If he's guilty, he must have been hopping mad that he was convicted and that she got got away with it. Like I said, I think he perceived her to be some kind of accomplice. She got away with the burglary, the cheque fraud, and the drug dealing. Not only that, but she got paid a lot of money by the NOTW. She went on to travel the world, and got herself a nice husband, family, and job.
If he's innocent, how must he feel about her story? She helped put him in prison all this time!
I think if innocent. Jeremy put to bed the bitterness he harboured in the early years of his sentence. He knew it wasn't going to help him in his plight
-
Wasn't the appeal called off ?
I'm not certain, Lookout. I thought that it was just Julie who wasn't called but I could be wrong.
-
He wasn't acquitted, anyway.
No, but she wouldn't have known that in advance.
-
Wasn't the appeal called off ?
No. It went ahead.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
No. It went ahead.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Oh yes----wrong one that I was thinking of.
-
So why, if she's guilty, did she come back to England to give evidence -albeit, she wasn't called?
Her attendance was required at the appeal by order of the Court of Appeal on the application by JB's legal team. It would have been very difficult for her not to turn up.
-
Her attendance was required at the appeal by order of the Court of Appeal on the application by JB's legal team. It would have been very difficult for her not to turn up.
ngb, why did she have to attend, for what purpose? This wasn't a trial was it, Jeremy Bambers guilt had been proven 17 years previously. I have never heard of previous witnesses at a trial being called at appeals to give evidence. As we're always led to believe that appeals are heard when new evidence comes to light. Why did Jeremy's team request an attendance order ?
-
Her attendance was required at the appeal by order of the Court of Appeal on the application by JB's legal team. It would have been very difficult for her not to turn up.
Thank-you for the clarification, NGB. Unless her flight was paid for -which may have imposed some restrictions- I suppose she could have used the time to visit relatives and saved what could have been an appalling waste of money whoever footed the bill.
-
Her attendance was required at the appeal by order of the Court of Appeal on the application by JB's legal team. It would have been very difficult for her not to turn up.
Ah, thank you. I didn't know if she was required to attend or not.
-
ngb, why did she have to attend, for what purpose? This wasn't a trial was it, Jeremy Bambers guilt had been proven 17 years previously. I have never heard of previous witnesses at a trial being called at appeals to give evidence. As we're always led to believe that appeals are heard when new evidence comes to light. Why did Jeremy's team request an attendance order ?
Her story was part of the appeal though. Ground 4 dealt with the timing of the call to Julie, and ground 5 dealt with her credibility,
-
Julie was called to the appeal, but didn't have to testify in the end.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm
-
I do wonder what Jeremy thinks of Julie. His spokesperson doesn't mention her much, and Jeremy's anger seems to be reserved for the police and his relatives.
If he's guilty, he must have been hopping mad that he was convicted and that she got got away with it. Like I said, I think he perceived her to be some kind of accomplice. She got away with the burglary, the cheque fraud, and the drug dealing. Not only that, but she got paid a lot of money by the NOTW. She went on to travel the world, and got herself a nice husband, family, and job.
If he's innocent, how must he feel about her story? She helped put him in prison all this time!
He doesn't say much about her but he has referred to her as 'Julie Mugshot'.
-
ngb, why did she have to attend, for what purpose? This wasn't a trial was it, Jeremy Bambers guilt had been proven 17 years previously. I have never heard of previous witnesses at a trial being called at appeals to give evidence. As we're always led to believe that appeals are heard when new evidence comes to light. Why did Jeremy's team request an attendance order ?
Before the appeal was heard there were various applications to the Court of Appeal in relation to evidence to be presented and witnesses to attend. This second appeal was essentially based upon new evidence. Although the CCRC had only referred the case on very limited grounds, the defence, as they were entitled to do, added a number of additional grounds. One aspect they wish to raise was the firm information received by the defence long after the original trial that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the News of the World before the trial, contrary to what she had informed the trial judge via the police during the trial. The defence wanted to challenge Julie Mugford about this in cross examination.
At the start of the appeal the defence applied for an order that JM's solicitor should be ordered to disclose documents relating to the contract with the News of the World. For some reason the Court refused this application. The prosecution had obtained a fresh statement from JM about the NOW deal shortly before the appeal hearing. Because of the refusal of the application it would not have been possible for the defence to challenge what JM said in that statement. She was therefore not called to give evidence at the appeal.
There is now new firm evidence about this and I do know that if the 2012 CCRC application had succeeded a fresh application would have been made to the Court of Appeal for JM to attend, as this time she could have been cross examined on the matter.
-
Thank-you for the clarification, NGB. Unless her flight was paid for -which may have imposed some restrictions- I suppose she could have used the time to visit relatives and saved what could have been an appalling waste of money whoever footed the bill.
Her flight and other expenses were paid from public funds.
-
Before the appeal was heard there were various applications to the Court of Appeal in relation to evidence to be presented and witnesses to attend. This second appeal was essentially based upon new evidence. Although the CCRC had only referred the case on very limited grounds, the defence, as they were entitled to do, added a number of additional grounds. One aspect they wish to raise was the firm information received by the defence long after the original trial that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the News of the World before the trial, contrary to what she had informed the trial judge via the police during the trial. The defence wanted to challenge Julie Mugford about this in cross examination.
At the start of the appeal the defence applied for an order that JM's solicitor should be ordered to disclose documents relating to the contract with the News of the World. For some reason the Court refused this application. The prosecution had obtained a fresh statement from JM about the NOW deal shortly before the appeal hearing. Because of the refusal of the application it would not have been possible for the defence to challenge what JM said in that statement. She was therefore not called to give evidence at the appeal.
There is now new firm evidence about this and I do know that if the 2012 CCRC application had succeeded a fresh application would have been made to the Court of Appeal for JM to attend, as this time she could have been cross examined on the matter.
thank you for clarifying that. Can I ask, off the record your opinion on the chances of a third appeal for Jeremy Bamber? I have always felt the strongest aspect of the case against him was the silencer evidence...
-
Before the appeal was heard there were various applications to the Court of Appeal in relation to evidence to be presented and witnesses to attend. This second appeal was essentially based upon new evidence. Although the CCRC had only referred the case on very limited grounds, the defence, as they were entitled to do, added a number of additional grounds. One aspect they wish to raise was the firm information received by the defence long after the original trial that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the News of the World before the trial, contrary to what she had informed the trial judge via the police during the trial. The defence wanted to challenge Julie Mugford about this in cross examination.
At the start of the appeal the defence applied for an order that JM's solicitor should be ordered to disclose documents relating to the contract with the News of the World. For some reason the Court refused this application. The prosecution had obtained a fresh statement from JM about the NOW deal shortly before the appeal hearing. Because of the refusal of the application it would not have been possible for the defence to challenge what JM said in that statement. She was therefore not called to give evidence at the appeal.
There is now new firm evidence about this and I do know that if the 2012 CCRC application had succeeded a fresh application would have been made to the Court of Appeal for JM to attend, as this time she could have been cross examined on the matter.
if mugford lied to justice drake about the notw aspect. Why did she not face criminal proceedings?
-
Julie wasn't on her way out at the time of the shootings. In fact, I'd say that Jeremy was pretty devoted to her. After all, she lived in London, but he made the effort to see her, and he seemed quite dependent on her in some ways. It's a mystery to me why he ended the relationship.
To add to #1176 he was still on the rebound from Suzette, mentioning her to Andy and Karen Bishop during the Eastbourne trip. He told Charles Marsden he was going to sell Bourtree Cottage and move into Moreshead Mansions with Brett and Virginia. He thought he could buy off Julie with the offer of a wine bar.
-
if mugford lied to justice drake about the notw aspect. Why did she not face criminal proceedings?
She did not lie.
Lawyers from both the NOTW & the defence would have covered everything.
It is no secret her & Bamber had verbal deals. For one it would become written, dependent on the verdict.
-
She did not lie.
Lawyers from both the NOTW & the defence would have covered everything.
It is no secret her & Bamber had verbal deals. For one it would become written, dependent on the verdict.
What ??
-
What ??
I believe Jeremy to have had a deal with a newspaper to sell his story and I feel sure I read that he sneered that he was going to ask double what Julie got. Perhaps I dreamed it?
-
I believe Jeremy to have had a deal with a newspaper to sell his story and I feel sure I read that he sneered that he was going to ask double what Julie got. Perhaps I dreamed it?
You did not. From Clare Powell's Murder At White House Farm:
Hidden in a hotel several miles from Chelmsford, Anji Greaves was chewing her nails as she waited for news of the verdict, supported by two girlfriends. She was dressed for a party and had a bag packed ready to accompany Jeremy to London and then on to their holiday, courtesy of a national newspaper. She believed that Jeremy would soon walk through the door and the celebrations would start.
"I planned to give Anji the verdict myself but she had already seen a newsflash on the television," said the reporter who had arranged the deal with her. "She was devastated. She was convinced that Bamber was innocent and had even decorated the room with banners. One of them was fifteen foot long and said, "Faith, love, truth, freedom. Welcome home, Jeremy."
-
Well at least someone thought he'd walk.
-
You did not. From Clare Powell's Murder At White House Farm:
Hidden in a hotel several miles from Chelmsford, Anji Greaves was chewing her nails as she waited for news of the verdict, supported by two girlfriends. She was dressed for a party and had a bag packed ready to accompany Jeremy to London and then on to their holiday, courtesy of a national newspaper. She believed that Jeremy would soon walk through the door and the celebrations would start.
"I planned to give Anji the verdict myself but she had already seen a newsflash on the television," said the reporter who had arranged the deal with her. "She was devastated. She was convinced that Bamber was innocent and had even decorated the room with banners. One of them was fifteen foot long and said, "Faith, love, truth, freedom. Welcome home, Jeremy."
Steve, Thank-you.
-
thank you for clarifying that. Can I ask, off the record your opinion on the chances of a third appeal for Jeremy Bamber? I have always felt the strongest aspect of the case against him was the silencer evidence...
I think it is possible he will have a further appeal heard in the Court of Appeal but the grounds will have to be powerful in order to get past the CCRC. I am no longer in the loop as far as the appeal efforts are concerned so I do not know how far JB's legal team have got.
-
if mugford lied to justice drake about the notw aspect. Why did she not face criminal proceedings?
Because the evidence that she lied has not yet been presented before a court.
-
She did not lie.
Lawyers from both the NOTW & the defence would have covered everything.
It is no secret her & Bamber had verbal deals. For one it would become written, dependent on the verdict.
She did lie. She had a written agreement with the NOTW.
Bamber's deal was not improper, hers was.
-
She did lie. She had a written agreement with the NOTW.
Bamber's deal was not improper, hers was.
How would this transform Jeremy's guilt to innocence?
-
She did lie. She had a written agreement with the NOTW.
Bamber's deal was not improper, hers was.
Well she approached the police a year earlier.
Bamber's defence should have been better if the NOTW lawyers slipped up.
-
How would this transform Jeremy's guilt to innocence?
It brings Julie's evidence into question. She had an incentive to say he was guilty.
-
It brings Julie's evidence into question. She had an incentive to say he was guilty.
But does it mean he wasn't?
-
But does it mean he wasn't?
No, but without Julie's evidence, there was really only the silencer evidence. Everything else was fluff and speculation.
-
In the event Jeremy Bamber wins an appeal has a retrial and is accquited. Would JM face any legal proceedings??
-
In the event Jeremy Bamber wins an appeal has a retrial and is accquited. Would JM face any legal proceedings??
Possibly - for perjury, if it could be proved. However, when other defendants are acquitted, the witnesses against them aren't usually prosecuted - in rape cases, for example.
-
No, but without Julie's evidence, there was really only the silencer evidence. Everything else was fluff and speculation.
You see, it's this anomaly which concerns me about ANY case. A witness may be found to have said -or not said- something which leads to a convicted person being freed. However, being freed on a technicality doesn't make them innocent. When this sort of thing occurs, I start to get noble cause corruption. I must start to take my own heeding on board that we can never get anything 100% correct.
-
You see, it's this anomaly which concerns me about ANY case. A witness may be found to have said -or not said- something which leads to a convicted person being freed. However, being freed on a technicality doesn't make them innocent. When this sort of thing occurs, I start to get noble cause corruption. I must start to take my own heeding on board that we can never get anything 100% correct.
Hmmm, I'm not sure it would be a technicality. If that did happen, would it not be Julie's fault for doing the deal with the NOTW, involving a lot of money?
-
Hmmm, I'm not sure it would be a technicality. If that did happen, would it not be Julie's fault for doing the deal with the NOTW, involving a lot of money?
I can see a determination to blame her for something, not that I'm suggesting it was alright for her to lie. I'd be interested to know if it was her decision or if she was told it would be 'acceptable'?
-
I can see a determination to blame her for something, not that I'm suggesting it was alright for her to lie. I'd be interested to know if it was her decision or if she was told it would be 'acceptable'?
Well look, if Julie did a deal with the NOTW whereby she gained a financial advantage dependent on a guilty verdict, do you not see how that could affect her credibility? I'm surprised her evidence was allowed tbh.
-
It was blood money - end of. Disgusting.
-
Well look, if Julie did a deal with the NOTW whereby she gained a financial advantage dependent on a guilty verdict, do you not see how that could affect her credibility? I'm surprised her evidence was allowed tbh.
I can, indeed, but it doesn't transform a guilty Jeremy into an innocent one.
-
Well look, if Julie did a deal with the NOTW whereby she gained a financial advantage dependent on a guilty verdict, do you not see how that could affect her credibility? I'm surprised her evidence was allowed tbh.
Not really, if she had a deal with the NOTW when she came forward with her story, I can see that would make a difference.
-
It was blood money - end of. Disgusting.
So was the inheritance.
-
I can, indeed, but it doesn't transform a guilty Jeremy into an innocent one.
Without Julie's evidence, what else is there? The silencer - that's about it.
-
So was the inheritance.
Inherited by the relatives? I agree. It should have gone to charity.
-
Inherited by the relatives? I agree. It should have gone to charity.
I don't think that's for us to say really - if Bamber is guilty, they were next in line.
-
I don't think that's for us to say really - if Bamber is guilty, they were next in line.
They made sure of that. I can say it if I like. There was a lot of money to be made with a guilty verdict. The evidence relating to the finding of the silencer was relevant - everything else was fluff.
-
They made sure of that. I can say it if I like. There was a lot of money to be made with a guilty verdict. The evidence relating to the finding of the silencer was relevant - everything else was fluff.
Well, that's your opinion - but just because you rubbish Julie's testimony, doesn't make it wrong. Not much of afence sitter are you? ;D ;D
-
Well, that's your opinion - but just because you rubbish Julie's testimony, doesn't make it wrong. Not much of afence sitter are you? ;D ;D
Oh I am. I make no secret of my opinion of Julie Mugford and the relatives. However, I haven't accused them of fabricating evidence, or making things up.
-
Oh I am. I make no secret of my opinion of Julie Mugford and the relatives. However, I haven't accused them of fabricating evidence, or making things up.
Perhaps yu don't mean to but you do come over as a Bamber supporter - if you're on the fence, then there must be things that don't sit well with you about Bamber himself?
-
Perhaps yu don't mean to but you do come over as a Bamber supporter - if you're on the fence, then there must be things that don't sit well with you about Bamber himself?
Of course there are, but they are mainly forensic issues.
-
Of course there are, but they are mainly forensic issues.
Nothing about Jeremy himself?
-
Oh I am. I make no secret of my opinion of Julie Mugford and the relatives. However, I haven't accused them of fabricating evidence, or making things up.
You may not think you do, but EVERYTHING you say of them is slanted towards dislike and screams of negativity, a tiny example being "Ann say a lot of things", Any one new to the case and reading what you have to say would be left in NO doubt of what you feel. Yet you STILL insist you're not biased in Jeremy's favour? Look a little more deeply.
-
You may not think you do, but EVERYTHING you say of them is slanted towards dislike and screams of negativity, a tiny example being "Ann say a lot of things", Any one new to the case and reading what you have to say would be left in NO doubt of what you feel. Yet you STILL insist you're not biased in Jeremy's favour? Look a little more deeply.
Have to say when I thought he was innocent, I was biased too. Reading my old posts makes me cringe.
-
Nothing about Jeremy himself?
Like what? His behavior, his attitude? No, not really.
-
You may not think you do, but EVERYTHING you say of them is slanted towards dislike and screams of negativity, a tiny example being "Ann say a lot of things", Any one new to the case and reading what you have to say would be left in NO doubt of what you feel. Yet you STILL insist you're not biased in Jeremy's favour? Look a little more deeply.
Your favourable view of Julie makes you biased in her favour, and your view of Jeremy as a person also makes you biased, so maybe you should look a little deeper yourself.
My view of Julie and the relatives concerns issues which are not to do with hard evidence, except that there is doubt cast on Julie's testimony because of the press deal.
-
Have to say when I thought he was innocent, I was biased too. Reading my old posts makes me cringe.
Yeah, hands on heart, I've been on the other side of where I think Kaldin is now. I'd have more respect if they had the courage of their convictions rather than hiding behind being openminded and continually posting in Jeremy's defence.
-
Yeah, hands on heart, I've been on the other side of where I think Kaldin is now. I'd have more respect if they had the courage of their convictions rather than hiding behind being openminded and continually posting in Jeremy's defence.
I'm not convinced one way or the other, and it's nothing to do with hiding or cowardice.
-
Your favourable view of Julie makes you biased in her favour, and your view of Jeremy as a person also makes you biased, so maybe you should look a little deeper yourself.
My view of Julie and the relatives concerns issues which are not to do with hard evidence, except that there is doubt cast on Julie's testimony because of the press deal.
I don't have a favourable view on Julie back then and I don't believe we have the WHOLE truth, however, I believe that what she told the police, is what Bamber told her.
-
Your favourable view of Julie makes you biased in her favour, and your view of Jeremy as a person also makes you biased, so maybe you should look a little deeper yourself.
My view of Julie and the relatives concerns issues which are not to do with hard evidence, except that there is doubt cast on Julie's testimony because of the press deal.
Yes, but I've done, of Jeremy, exactly what you're doing now. I didn't like Julie then. I still don't like her, BUT, it's not necessary for me to like her to try to understand her, in the same way I've attempted to understand what Jeremy has done..............and Sheila.................and RB..................and Ann.
-
I don't have a favourable view on Julie back then and I don't believe we have the WHOLE truth, however, I believe that what she told the police, is what Bamber told her.
I was replying to Jane, who clearly thinks that Julie was a poor little victim who was abused and groomed.
-
I'm not convinced one way or the other, and it's nothing to do with hiding or cowardice.
You say one thing. You're writing convinces me -and I imagine, everyone else reading you- otherwise.
-
Julie's testimony and statements are compelling, but it simply has to be considered that they might not be true. It's her word against Jeremy's word.
-
You say one thing. You're writing convinces me -and I imagine, everyone else reading you- otherwise.
It's up to them to speak for themselves. I can't help it if you don't like what I say.
-
Julie's testimony and statements are compelling, but it simply has to be considered that they might not be true. It's her word against Jeremy's word.
I have first hand experience of 'Jeremy's word' - it means squat.
-
I have first hand experience of 'Jeremy's word' - it means squat.
We're not talking about Jeremy though.
I thought you only wrote letters to him.
-
I was replying to Jane, who clearly thinks that Julie was a poor little victim who was abused and groomed.
You misrepresent me. I'd guess deliberately. Julie made the claim of abuse. I said if she'd been in that sort of relationship during childhood, it wasn't impossible that she'd find herself in another such as an adult. Do you not understand the difference between MAY be and WOULD be?
-
You misrepresent me. I'd guess deliberately. Julie made the claim of abuse. I said if she'd been in that sort of relationship during childhood, it wasn't impossible that she'd find herself in another such as an adult. Do you not understand the difference between MAY be and WOULD be?
That's also hearsay ...
-
It's up to them to speak for themselves. I can't help it if you don't like what I say.
You can say what you like as long as you don't twist my words.
-
You can say what you like as long as you don't twist my words.
I haven't - you should look back at your own posts.
-
That's also hearsay ...
Yes, I hear you block your ears to anything other than what's pro Jeremy. You appear to CHOOSE to call anything hearsay which you don't like.........................and I'm still not giving you the source.
-
I haven't - you should look back at your own posts.
I don't need to. I check what I've written before I send it. I have no idea what's going on with you, but since your return, when I welcomed you, you've become offensive in the extreme. You must be scraping the barrel to find insults if you have to resort to criticism of my writing style.
-
How would this transform Jeremy's guilt to innocence?
It would not in itself. However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.
-
It would not in itself. However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.
Hi NGB, if he was to ever win an appeal, would a trial for all parties be practical 30+ years on, most who were around originally are deceased. How could they summon witnesses.
-
It would not in itself. However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.
So we'd be talking about technicalities? I can't see that there's anything which could "create" him innocent when he's guilty.
-
Hi NGB, if he was to ever win an appeal, would a trial for all parties be practical 30+ years on, most who were around originally are deceased. How could they summon witnesses.
I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial. Many of the essential witnesses are dead. The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.
-
I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial. Many of the essential witnesses are dead. The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.
Thanks Neil, that’s what I thought
-
So we'd be talking about technicalities? I can't see that there's anything which could "create" him innocent when he's guilty.
No, not simply technicalities. Remember, an appeal should be allowed if there is new evidence which renders the original guilty verdicts unsafe. An appellant does not have to prove his innocence in order to succeed on appeal. Obviously in some cases innocence is proved, but in the case of most successful appeals it is not.
-
I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial. Many of the essential witnesses are dead. The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.
But we know that winning an appeal doesn't make a guilty person innocent, which, in Jeremy's case, would mean that a guilty man goes free. Oh well, I expect there are those who think he's been in long enough even though he's guilty.
-
No, not simply technicalities. Remember, an appeal should be allowed if there is new evidence which renders the original guilty verdicts unsafe. An appellant does not have to prove his innocence in order to succeed on appeal. Obviously in some cases innocence is proved, but in the case of most successful appeals it is not.
Thanks, NGB. NOT ideal, is it, but what, in life is?
-
But we know that winning an appeal doesn't make a guilty person innocent, which, in Jeremy's case, would mean that a guilty man goes free. Oh well, I expect there are those who think he's been in long enough even though he's guilty.
If the Court of Appeal did not believe the new evidence cast real doubt on the guilt of JB they would not allow the appeal. If there is real doubt it would be wrong for JB to remain in prison.
-
If the Court of Appeal did not believe the new evidence cast real doubt on the guilt of JB they would not allow the appeal. If there is real doubt it would be wrong for JB to remain in prison.
Well, if it ever happens, news-wise, it'll top Brexit
-
Well, if it ever happens, news-wise, it'll top Brexit
I agree if it happens it will be very big news.
-
Well, if it ever happens, news-wise, it'll top Brexit
😂😂😂
-
And if it does happen Jane, you can blame Brexit ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, I hear you block your ears to anything other than what's pro Jeremy. You appear to CHOOSE to call anything hearsay which you don't like.........................and I'm still not giving you the source.
So it's hearsay then. I'd say the same to anyone who told me they had info which they won't divulge or provide evidence for.
-
And if it does happen Jane, you can blame Brexit ;D ;D ;D ;D
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I was replying to Jane, who clearly thinks that Julie was a poor little victim who was abused and groomed.
But that is her right to think that, just as it's yours to believe what you believe.
-
But that is her right to think that, just as it's yours to believe what you believe.
The point is that I was replying to her and not you.
I'm getting a bit fed up of the pair of you misunderstanding everything.
-
I'm disgusted Jeremy's legal team has nothing better to do than hound a happily-married woman who has happened to make a success of her life overseas since the tragedy. Everyone involved in this campaign should hang their heads in shame.
-
I'm disgusted Jeremy's legal team has nothing better to do than hound a happily-married woman who has happened to make a success of her life overseas since the tragedy. Everyone involved in this campaign should hang their heads in shame.
How are they hounding her?
-
How are they hounding her?
She has already come back to England once, the recent publicity would rake the whole thing up again and now the Bamber legal team are hitting below the belt.
-
She has already come back to England once, the recent publicity would rake the whole thing up again and now the Bamber legal team are hitting below the belt.
Has she been mentioned in the appeal then?
-
Has she been mentioned in the appeal then?
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
-
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
What are you talking about? How is he trying to break up the family?
You know what? If Julie hadn't covered up for Jeremy, maybe there wouldn't be all these appeals - there would have been more evidence in the house for a start because the police wouldn't have cleaned up.
-
How are they hounding her?
Perhaps you weren't here when it occurred, but a one time member -a Jeremy defender- bragged about the Canadian authorities having been alerted about her involvement in the case, allegedly resulting in her being questioned. She's married. She has children. She has a position of some standing within the community. It was felt they had the right to know what sort of person she was. I have no way of knowing how much of the story is the truth.
-
Perhaps you weren't here when it occurred, but a one time member -a Jeremy defender- bragged about the Canadian authorities having been alerted about her involvement in the case, allegedly resulting in her being questioned. She's married. She has children. She has a position of some standing within the community. It was felt they had the right to know what sort of person she was. I have no way of knowing how much of the story is the truth.
How is ngb involved though?
-
She has already come back to England once, the recent publicity would rake the whole thing up again and now the Bamber legal team are hitting below the belt.
What recent publicity ?
-
I'm disgusted Jeremy's legal team has nothing better to do than hound a happily-married woman who has happened to make a success of her life overseas since the tragedy. Everyone involved in this campaign should hang their heads in shame.
That is very unfair. On any view. Bamber guilty or innocent, Julie Mugford comes out of this extremely badly. I can tell you with confidence that even the family agree with this.
-
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
You are a disgrace Steve UK. You and I have argued about this before. You are an apologist for JM and it is shameful in my view.
-
Oooer. I wasn't aware of this.
-
You are a disgrace Steve UK. You and I have argued about this before. You are an apologist for JM and it is shameful in my view.
I agree NGB totally and utterly uncalled for
-
Oooer. I wasn't aware of this.
Steve UK and I have forum history on this Lookout. I try to stay neutral as a forum administrator and I accept that Steve is liked and respected by many here on both sides. However if you search back over nearly 8 years you can see I have clashed with him on several occasions. He has attacked me personally in the past. He annoys me intensely I am afraid and sometimes I have to fight back.
-
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
NGB has nothing to do with Bambers representation and if he does everyone deserves a defence. I think Bamber guilty, but I’m not happy with Julies part in it and she has a lot to answer for.
-
NGB has nothing to do with Bambers representation and if he does everyone deserves a defence. I think Bamber guilty, but I’m not happy with Julies part in it and she has a lot to answer for.
Thank you Justice.
-
NGB has nothing to do with Bambers representation and if he does everyone deserves a defence. I think Bamber guilty, but I’m not happy with Julies part in it and she has a lot to answer for.
RJ, I doubt ANYONE here thinks Julie shines brightly in this. She may have told SOME of the truth but I don't think she told ALL of the truth.
-
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
A totally unfair and unjustified attack on ngb imo Steve. I’m sure ‘breaking up the Smerchanski family’ is the last thing on his mind.
-
A totally unfair and unjustified attack on ngb imo Steve. I’m sure ‘breaking up the Smerchanski family’ is the last thing on his mind.
Thank you Maggie.
-
RJ, I doubt ANYONE here thinks Julie shines brightly in this. She may have told SOME of the truth but I don't think she told ALL of the truth.
My thoughts as well Jane, I’ve tried to picture her as my daughter or Grandaughter. She had a choice to get out of a bad relationship where a lot don’t, she was fully aware what Bamber was up to and chose a moment to grass him up when it didn’t suit her. I think a lot of what she says is the truth, but she plays down her part in it.
-
Steve UK and I have forum history on this Lookout. I try to stay neutral as a forum administrator and I accept that Steve is liked and respected by many here on both sides. However if you search back over nearly 8 years you can see I have clashed with him on several occasions. He has attacked me personally in the past. He annoys me intensely I am afraid and sometimes I have to fight back.
You shouldn't be blamed for anything NGB it's totally out of order. I did sense tension but didn't know what it was about as I wasn't aware if this was a recent " happening " or not.
-
You shouldn't be blamed for anything NGB it's totally out of order. I did sense tension but didn't know what it was about as I wasn't aware if this was a recent " happening " or not.
I do not want to make too much of it and I have tried to draw a line under past arguments but if you want you can search old posts. He has been quite personal at times and even accused me of being a public schoolboy once which really hacked me off!
-
My thoughts as well Jane, I’ve tried to picture her as my daughter or Grandaughter. She had a choice to get out of a bad relationship where a lot don’t, she was fully aware what Bamber was up to and chose a moment to grass him up when it didn’t suit her. I think a lot of what she says is the truth, but she plays down her part in it.
The thing we don’t know, is how much she played a part in it, I think she would encourage his thoughts, Julie knows that Bamber can’t tell this side because it implicates him, so this allows her to completely water down her part in it.
-
The thing we don’t know, is how much she played a part in it, I think she would encourage his thoughts, Julie knows that Bamber can’t tell this side because it implicates him, so this allows her to completely water down her part in it.
Yes, I've often thought it was one of those situations where they each have the other by the proverbials!!! He cant't reveal what she's left out because he drops himself in it, and she can't reveal all she knows because it implicates her more deeply. I suspect, back in the days when it was nothing more than pillow talk, it would have been something along the lines of "Wouldn't it be lovely if........................" of "Just imagine what it would be like if..........................". Then it grew wings and flew.
-
Yes, I've often thought it was one of those situations where they each have the other by the proverbials!!! He cant't reveal what she's left out because he drops himself in it, and she can't reveal all she knows because it implicates her more deeply. I suspect, back in the days when it was nothing more than pillow talk, it would have been something along the lines of "Wouldn't it be lovely if........................" of "Just imagine what it would be like if..........................". Then it grew wings and flew.
You have such a great way with words Jane, I wish I could write such excellence. Spot on my friend. I think I was at the back of the class in my English lesson dreaming about the fag break ( I was 20 when I stopped smoking)
-
Is this the statements or whatever the CT have found ?
-
You have such a great way with words Jane, I wish I could write such excellence. Spot on my friend. I think I was at the back of the class in my English lesson dreaming about the fag break ( I was 20 when I stopped smoking)
But at least you can understand what one and one make!!!! ;D ;D
-
That is very unfair. On any view. Bamber guilty or innocent, Julie Mugford comes out of this extremely badly. I can tell you with confidence that even the family agree with this.
I agree but that kind of rules out them being in cahoots with her?
-
I'm disgusted Jeremy's legal team has nothing better to do than hound a happily-married woman who has happened to make a success of her life overseas since the tragedy. Everyone involved in this campaign should hang their heads in shame.
So on the 10th of August, Julie Jeremy and Colin went for a Pizza together, Julie was annoyed because Colin was showing Jeremy so much love and affection and yet she knew Jeremy killed his children. He again tells Julie why he’s done it, why he killed Colins children. She sat on this evidence, she carried on her relationship, she slept with him and holidaying with him, knowing full well he’d killed innocent children, the trouble is Steve, if we believe Julie and her statement, then she is a monster like him, we cannot cherry pick to suit, she should have been locked up and Bambers legal team have every right to hound her, just because she’s happily married and made a success of her life, doesn’t make her innocent.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10043.0;attach=55453
-
It makes you feel slightly sick that JM knowing what she knew could continue the relationship-----pretty nauseating to say the least. Love isn't that strong that anyone could stick by someone like that. The thought alone would affect you for the rest of your life---it would me anyway.
Whether anyone likes it or not, she's an accessory and should be tried like he was.
-
It makes you feel slightly sick that JM knowing what she knew could continue the relationship-----pretty nauseating to say the least. Love isn't that strong that anyone could stick by someone like that. The thought alone would affect you for the rest of your life---it would me anyway.
Whether anyone likes it or not, she's an accessory and should be tried like he was.
I can endorse that. I'd never believed, previously, that feeling could be like light switches until I found myself in a situation so shocking to me, that I experienced it. I will add, though, it was another three weeks before I resolved it.
-
I can endorse that. I'd never believed, previously, that feeling could be like light switches until I found myself in a situation so shocking to me, that I experienced it. I will add, though, it was another three weeks before I resolved it.
Over 34 years against your 3 weeks doesn't begin to cut it. It's positively shocking----a life-time.
-
You'd better ask ngb1066 why he finds it acceptable to attempt to break up the Smerchanski family unit in an attempt to win one small point in law which will serve no purpose in the fate of Jeremy Bamber.
Just seen this - why would you think that?. Nothing we say here can have an effect on a sound relationship and facts are facts - you can't change those either. I think a lot of people assume what NGB thinks and that's their mistake and if he wants to stay neutral, that's up to him.
-
Over 34 years against your 3 weeks doesn't begin to cut it. It's positively shocking----a life-time.
You missed the point. I was referring to feelings, not time.
-
It makes you feel slightly sick that JM knowing what she knew could continue the relationship-----pretty nauseating to say the least. Love isn't that strong that anyone could stick by someone like that. The thought alone would affect you for the rest of your life---it would me anyway.
Whether anyone likes it or not, she's an accessory and should be tried like he was.
Actually, she wasn’t. It’s not a crime not to report one.
-
Actually, she wasn’t. It’s not a crime not to report one.
Caroline, she'd known for long enough the amount of times he'd allegedly made all sorts of threats-----statement----yet did nothing about it. It's her knowing that's the big issue here.
-
There were the sleeping pills, the fire then the abject hatred he'd felt and if that's not enough to send you to the police nothing is. She knew, Caroline and that's the crime.
-
We ALL want to know why she chose to ignore these threats over the period of time that they were together. She didn't help those who were murdered did she ?
Then telling him to go back to bed when he'd rang ?? She should have rang the police from where she was !
-
There were the sleeping pills, the fire then the abject hatred he'd felt and if that's not enough to send you to the police nothing is. She knew, Caroline and that's the crime.
It seems it may be more of a moral crime than a legal one. It's often the moral crimes that get to us more deeply because there's nothing in law to satisfy our desire for retribution.
-
It seems it may be more of a moral crime than a legal one. It's often the moral crimes that get to us more deeply because there's nothing in law to satisfy our desire for retribution.
According to her statements it seemed to have been a continuing topic of conversation over time that his family were going to meet their fate somehow.
Had it been a one-off then I suppose it can be passed off but circumstances dictate that to kill was a regular occurrence every time he opened his mouth.
Moral ? I call it criminal. She knew his feelings on the matter. I couldn't go out with someone with death on their mind, could you ?
-
It was even spread around to his uncle and he did damn all about it.
-
According to her statements it seemed to have been a continuing topic of conversation over time that his family were going to meet their fate somehow.
Had it been a one-off then I suppose it can be passed off but circumstances dictate that to kill was a regular occurrence every time he opened his mouth.
Moral ? I call it criminal. She knew his feelings on the matter. I couldn't go out with someone with death on their mind, could you ?
It seems to have taken hold/escalated the previous Christmas, but whilst it was a "continuing topic of conversation" we can't know if it was on a daily basis. It wasn't as if they lived together 24/7.
Yes, a one-off could have been over-looked. More than that, I think I'd have been fearful for my own safety. I wouldn't, for any length of time, want to be around someone capable of that depth of hatred. Naturally, these days, I'd probably suggest a course of therapy....................just before I left!
-
There were the sleeping pills, the fire then the abject hatred he'd felt and if that's not enough to send you to the police nothing is. She knew, Caroline and that's the crime.
The pills were never used although there is a moral duty to report a crime, it’s not a crime in itself. However, if you’re arguing that she is guilty of not reporting a crime - it means Bamber is guilty!
-
The pills were never used although there is a moral duty to report a crime, it’s not a crime in itself. However, if you’re arguing that she is guilty of not reporting a crime - it means Bamber is guilty!
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q514.htm
-
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q514.htm
That being the case, then she remains an accessory with possible perjury thrown in for good measure.
-
Blimey, what with Sheila saying she could kill her children and Jeremy his whole family-------------
-
That being the case, then she remains an accessory with possible perjury thrown in for good measure.
She doesn't remain an accessory - she didn't report a crime which isn't a crime. To be an accessory you would need to prove she was involved. Being as you think Bamber is innocent - how can she be an accessory?
-
She doesn't remain an accessory - she didn't report a crime which isn't a crime. To be an accessory you would need to prove she was involved. Being as you think Bamber is innocent - how can she be an accessory?
On the premise that he wasn't innocent, she would have been guilty by association.
-
She doesn't remain an accessory - she didn't report a crime which isn't a crime. To be an accessory you would need to prove she was involved. Being as you think Bamber is innocent - how can she be an accessory?
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
-
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
So if she felt the need to protect him, could that not mean she was convinced he'd committed murder? Doesn't it also mean that she didn't deliberately lie to get him convicted of something he was entirely innocent of?
-
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59867.html#msg59867
Her 2 page WS on the 8/8/85 seems all correct.
-
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
So if she lied, he's guilty.
-
So if she lied, he's guilty.
So is she, by association.
-
'There is something wrong at home'. 'Bye honey'. 'Go back to bed'.
These are all things she also included in her later WS.
She did not include 'everything is going well' & 'I have not slept all night'. Probably on instruction from Bamber.
The rest of the WS is factually correct. Confirming who she is etc.
-
BTW, what's a testimony as opposed to a statement, or are they one and the same ?
-
So if she felt the need to protect him, could that not mean she was convinced he'd committed murder? Doesn't it also mean that she didn't deliberately lie to get him convicted of something he was entirely innocent of?
If she told the truth at trial JB is guilty, but she is also guilty of serious criminal offences. If she lied at trial JB is not guilty and she is guilty of (different) serious criminal offences.
-
Sorry Julie did not mention the 'it's now or never' & 'tonights the night' in her 9.50pm phone call. In her 8/8/85 WS.
-
Julie's 8/8/85 WS does say Bamber took her to Chelmsford train station on the 3/8/85.
Julie did not use June's bike Jeremy had just brought over.
-
Jeremy dropped Julie off at Chelmsford police station at 7.50pm on the 3rd August 1985.
There was then no contact until 9.50pm on the 6th August 1985, when Jeremy phoned her.
A long gap. There was no other way to communicate in those days.
Jeremy obviously fancied a catch up.
-
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
Thinking about it, how can she be prosecuted as an accessory given that she did come forward of her own accord just a few weeks later and told the truth about what was said in the phone call?
-
Jeremy will regret phoning Julie at 9.50pm & 3am.
Gave Julie two open goals.
Bamber can't claim he did not phone her. Obviously he phoned her as he wanted to speak to her. Julie has said about what.
-
Bamber has always been very vague about what was spoken about at the 9.50pm phone call. Although he phoned Julie & the call lasted 20 minutes!
He just denies saying 'tonights the night' etc. Although can't remember what he did say.
Very dissappointing from a man protesting innocence.
-
Possible reasons for the 9.50pm phone call -
Bamber phoned Julie every night - No. There had been a 3 day gap between contact.
Bamber had rang Julie to break up with her - No. He rang her again at 3am.
Bamber had an exciting day or had exciting news - No. He worked all day.
Bamber wanted to arrange there next meeting - No. Julie did not mention this.
Bamber wanted to find out about Julie's day - No. Julie had no big events planned for that day.
------------
So a big coincidence that he phoned Julie around 5 hours before the massacre.
-
Anyway, why worry if you knew she was telling the truth ? That's all I can say.
-
Anyway, why worry if you knew she was telling the truth ? That's all I can say.
Worry about what?
-
Julie did say Bamber had said he had been in his tractor all day thinking about it (the massacre).
Bamber eventually confirmed to police he had been in his tractor that day.
-
Obviously the 9.50pm phone call from Bamber was extremley damaging. Nearly as damaging as the 3am call.
Julie has gone into detail about what was said. Which added together will make up the 20 minute duration.
Bamber & the CT refuse to discuss it.
-
Thinking about it, how can she be prosecuted as an accessory given that she did come forward of her own accord just a few weeks later and told the truth about what was said in the phone call?
The crime was committed (if she told the truth at trial) when she assisted JB by giving a false account to police about the conversation she had with JB the night of the murders. She reinforced that by supporting JB including at the funeral when she knew (if her trial evidence is true) that his expressed grief was fake, thus further protecting him from scrutiny. The fact that she repented later and cooperated with police does not alter the fact that serious offences had been committed by her.
-
The crime was committed (if she told the truth at trial) when she assisted JB by giving a false account to police about the conversation she had with JB the night of the murders. She reinforced that by supporting JB including at the funeral when she knew (if her trial evidence is true) that his expressed grief was fake, thus further protecting him from scrutiny. The fact that she repented later and cooperated with police does not alter the fact that serious offences had been committed by her.
If there is a potential for being charged/prosecuted for coming forward and changing an original statements, it would prevent people coming forward at all. Technically, if not telling the truth from day one is classed as an offence, I doubt it would be one where are charges are brought if the individual comes clean (of their own accord) and helps with the prosecution of a murderer?
-
If there is a potential for being charged/prosecuted for coming forward and changing an original statements, it would prevent people coming forward at all. Technically, if not telling the truth from day one is classed as an offence, I doubt it would be one where are charges are brought if the individual comes clean (of their own accord) and helps with the prosecution of a murderer?
It will depend upon the circumstances. In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public. I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily. Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him. JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her. What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage. I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice. She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution. They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision. Under that pressure she cracked. From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.
-
It will depend upon the circumstances. In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public. I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily. Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him. JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her. What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage. I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice. She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution. They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision. Under that pressure she cracked. From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.
It's hardly a surprise to learn that such may be the case, but unless it's ever confirmed it remains speculation. I understand that police rely quite heavily on witnesses coming forward voluntarily so I don't suppose they'd want that particular applecart upset. There was huge anti-Julie feeling at the time, from parents who were demanding that she was removed from the school where she taught -which subsequently happened- to those who thought she was a scheming bitch out to destroy lovely Jeremy. All were baying for her blood. That she was kept in a safe house for her own protection isn't unreasonable.
-
It will depend upon the circumstances. In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public. I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily. Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him. JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her. What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage. I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice. She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution. They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision. Under that pressure she cracked. From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.
Well, if that came to light - it wouldn't be Julie what would have things to answer, it would be EP. However, given that she did/dose have immunity, presumably couldn't be charged anyway? I'm no Julie fan but I would rather she walk that a 5 times murderer. I think she has since done her best to become a decent person and should get credit for that. I guess it depends on whether you think Bamber is innocent or guilty.
-
I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth.
Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment. I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.
-
I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth.
Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment. I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.
I hope you're right, Lookout, but recently it's been a bit like a witch-hunt out to get Julie. Some seem not to care that she didn't commit murder. It's almost as if it's been her fault he did it.
I think some of what she said was the truth, but I don't believe she told ALL of the truth. I think the reason that Jeremy has taken a softly softly approach regarding her is that if he reveals exactly what she knows, ie their conversations/plans/pillow talk, it will be tantamount to admitting his guilt. She can't reveal all she knows because it will involve her in a greater involvement than she admitted too. In a less than desirable way, it means they're still linked.
-
I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth.
Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment. I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.
Why hasn't what come to light?
By the way, how do you know her hasn't shown any malice?
-
I hope you're right, Lookout, but recently it's been a bit like a witch-hunt out to get Julie. Some seem not to care that she didn't commit murder. It's almost as if it's been her fault he did it.
I think some of what she said was the truth, but I don't believe she told ALL of the truth. I think the reason that Jeremy has taken a softly softly approach regarding her is that if he reveals exactly what she knows, ie their conversations/plans/pillow talk, it will be tantamount to admitting his guilt. She can't reveal all she knows because it will involve her in a greater involvement than she admitted too. In a less than desirable way, it means they're still linked.
Whichever way you look at it it's not going to be easy.
Typically British-----cart before the horse ::)
-
Whichever way you look at it it's not going to be easy.
Typically British-----cart before the horse ::)
Maybe the carts backing up? ;D ;D ;D
-
That is very unfair. On any view. Bamber guilty or innocent, Julie Mugford comes out of this extremely badly. I can tell you with confidence that even the family agree with this.
I've just logged in so bear with me. You can't possibly believe that Jeremy Bamber is innocent. You are an intelligent man. You are therefore being disingenuous for your own reasons or proxy agenda.
-
You are a disgrace Steve UK. You and I have argued about this before. You are an apologist for JM and it is shameful in my view.
I am not an apologist for Julie Mugford. But she was a young woman who became outsmarted by a conman. The charges against her were dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions so that the big fish could be caught. As for the matter of the News of the World deal you are like a dog with a bone, even though the position has been explained to you and your coterie many times that Julie had negotiated but not signed the agreement before the trial started.
-
A totally unfair and unjustified attack on ngb imo Steve. I’m sure ‘breaking up the Smerchanski family’ is the last thing on his mind.
Some marriages have failed for far less Maggie.
-
Why hasn't what come to light?
By the way, how do you know her hasn't shown any malice?
This business with Julie----it's taken all of 34 years to realise that all's not well.
If he'd shown bitterness/hatred/malice call it what you like, it would have been well publicised.
-
Maybe the carts backing up? ;D ;D ;D
Lost its wheels more like.
-
I do not want to make too much of it and I have tried to draw a line under past arguments but if you want you can search old posts. He has been quite personal at times and even accused me of being a public schoolboy once which really hacked me off!
I don't remember having attacked you personally. How personal can you get by raking up a 34-year-old case by trying to find a crack which is irrelevant to the verdict and which may result in discord between Julie and her family?
-
It will depend upon the circumstances. In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public. I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily. Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him. JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her. What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage. I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice. She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution. They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision. Under that pressure she cracked. From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.
Why would the police have to put intense pressure on her. She had already told 5 people. Talking to the police was the natural next step.
-
This business with Julie----it's taken all of 34 years to realise that all's not well.
If he'd shown bitterness/hatred/malice call it what you like, it would have been well publicised.
Lookout, unless you were with him 24/7 I'm not sure how it's possible for you to know what are his feelings for Julie. What do you think would happen?? The red tops brandishing the headline "Family Killer Throws Tantrum Over Ex Lover?"
-
Lookout, unless you were with him 24/7 I'm not sure how it's possible for you to know what are his feelings for Julie. What do you think would happen?? The red tops brandishing the headline "Family Killer Throws Tantrum Over Ex Lover?"
" lewisham" panda car " " tell all"....
-
Some marriages have failed for far less Maggie.
They have been together this long but really NGB is far from her worries - he hasn't said anything detrimental to her or him.
-
This business with Julie----it's taken all of 34 years to realise that all's not well.
If he'd shown bitterness/hatred/malice call it what you like, it would have been well publicised.
I very much doubt he say anything publicly, although I do have to say that he wasn't too hostile about her to me - he used to call her Julie Mugshot. However, is attitude towards Colin was despicable!
-
If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory. You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases). However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him. That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several). JM potentially faced a lot of problems. We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____
Now you're going off onto a tangent. I thought your whole case now was that Julie signed a £25000 deal with a newspaper with the intent to deceive a judge and jury and profit therefrom. If Jeremy Bamber is guilty as you suggest the latter point becomes irrelevant to any future appeal you and your coterie may be planning.
-
Now you're going off onto a tangent. I thought your whole case now was that Julie signed a £25000 deal with a newspaper with the intent to deceive a judge and jury and profit therefrom. If Jeremy Bamber is guilty as you suggest the latter point becomes irrelevant to any future appeal you and your coterie may be planning.
Steve, you are seriously on the wrong track here, NGB isn't involved in Bambers case. You really are barking up the wrong tree.
-
Lookout, unless you were with him 24/7 I'm not sure how it's possible for you to know what are his feelings for Julie. What do you think would happen?? The red tops brandishing the headline "Family Killer Throws Tantrum Over Ex Lover?"
I don't really think I'd be best pleased at being holed-up for 34 years on a whim and I'd have more than thrown a tantrum. The whim being that he dared to drop her for someone else :o Revenge can be dangerous.
Julie was the one who threw the tantrum until she realised that she'd bitten off more than she could chew. No wonder she broke down on the defence stand !
-
Some marriages have failed for far less Maggie.
Steve, there was someone on here, at one time, who actually implied and bragged about having had a hand in alerting the Canadian police to Julie's involvement in the case. This person really didn't care about her family and children learning about her past, they felt she deserved all she had coming to her. That person wasn't NGB.
-
Why would the police have to put intense pressure on her. She had already told 5 people. Talking to the police was the natural next step.
Of course it was. The cat was out of the bag.
-
Steve, you are seriously on the wrong track here, NGB isn't involved in Bambers case. You really are barking up the wrong tree.
I thought he was surreptitiously giving succour to the Bamberettes. Every piece of evidence he has proffered on this site from Julie to the silencer has favoured Jeremy Bamber's innocence, not his guilt.
-
I don't really think I'd be best pleased at being holed-up for 34 years on a whim and I'd have more than thrown a tantrum. The whim being that he dared to drop her for someone else :o Revenge can be dangerous.
Julie was the one who threw the tantrum until she realised that she'd bitten off more than she could chew. No wonder she broke down on the defence stand !
None of which has any relevance to my post which was about how you can be so positive that Jeremy never says anything negative regarding Julie.
-
I very much doubt he say anything publicly, although I do have to say that he wasn't too hostile about her to me - he used to call her Julie Mugshot. However, is attitude towards Colin was despicable!
Maybe because it was the way that Colin quickly turned ?
-
Maybe because it was the way that Colin quickly turned ?
How "quickly" did Colin turn? He doesn't come over as being someone who does things in a hurry but the circumstances were extraordinary. His world had collapsed. I think he was entitled to react, especially after having been so supportive of Jeremy.
-
Maybe because it was the way that Colin quickly turned ?
Colin was the last to believe he was guilty and he is the ONLY TRUE victim. There is no excuse for Bamber turning on him - none!
-
Well, if that came to light - it wouldn't be Julie what would have things to answer, it would be EP. However, given that she did/dose have immunity, presumably couldn't be charged anyway? I'm no Julie fan but I would rather she walk that a 5 times murderer. I think she has since done her best to become a decent person and should get credit for that. I guess it depends on whether you think Bamber is innocent or guilty.
If she has been given immunity it would be virtually impossible to charge her now. I think you are right in that your attitude to JM depends to a large extent upon whether you think JB is guilty or innocent. The only point I have been trying to get across is that whatever your view overall on the case JM comes out of it very badly indeed. She is very lucky, on any view.
-
If she has been given immunity it would be virtually impossible to charge her now. I think you are right in that your attitude to JM depends to a large extent upon whether you think JB is guilty or innocent. The only point I have been trying to get across is that whatever your view overall on the case JM comes out of it very badly indeed. She is very lucky, on any view.
I second that NGB and I think Jeremy guilty
-
If she has been given immunity it would be virtually impossible to charge her now. I think you are right in that your attitude to JM depends to a large extent upon whether you think JB is guilty or innocent. The only point I have been trying to get across is that whatever your view overall on the case JM comes out of it very badly indeed. She is very lucky, on any view.
I agree and have always said that I don't think we have the full story and doubt we ever will.
-
I don't remember having attacked you personally. How personal can you get by raking up a 34-year-old case by trying to find a crack which is irrelevant to the verdict and which may result in discord between Julie and her family?
A search of posts will reveal you have certainly attacked me personally. I am not motivated by any desire to cause problems between JM and her family. JB in fact got on very well with JM's mother and looked after her in ways I will not detail here. The files relating to police interaction with JM's mother have been withheld under PII. This is not good.
-
Why would the police have to put intense pressure on her. She had already told 5 people. Talking to the police was the natural next step.
The police needed evidence. They did not have much if any. Cracking Julie was the breakthrough Stan Jones wanted and needed.
-
If she has been given immunity it would be virtually impossible to charge her now. I think you are right in that your attitude to JM depends to a large extent upon whether you think JB is guilty or innocent. The only point I have been trying to get across is that whatever your view overall on the case JM comes out of it very badly indeed. She is very lucky, on any view.
I certainly wouldn't have been in a hurry to tell the world she was my daughter!!! I think she was bright enough to realize that she'd scuppered any plans she'd had for a teaching career here. She didn't come out of it covered in glory. However, she's 34 years older now.
-
I certainly wouldn't have been in a hurry to tell the world she was my daughter!!! I think she was bright enough to realize that she'd scuppered any plans she'd had for a teaching career here. She didn't come out of it covered in glory. However, she's 34 years older now.
I agree.
-
Did she finish her teaching degree, or whatever it was?
-
Did she finish her teaching degree, or whatever it was?
I think she did.
-
I think she did.
I don't know how she could concentrate.
-
I don't know how she could concentrate.
It was easier for her because she had a vast sum of money from the NoW deal. She had in any event by the trial finished the main part of her course.
-
As soon as the jury foreman said gulity at Jeremy nevill Bamber. Julie felt secured...
-
As soon as the jury foreman said gulity at Jeremy nevill Bamber. Julie felt secured...
She certainly did. I imagine she was very relieved.
-
I don't know how she could concentrate.
Me neither. So much for the vulnerable 20 year old.
-
Me neither. So much for the vulnerable 20 year old.
She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.
-
She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.
Not in the fairest way I imagine.
-
She said she bought a flat with the money from the NOTW, so how did she afford to travel around the world?
-
She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.
if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her. If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely. I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM. I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her. I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.
-
if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her. If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely. I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM. I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her. I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.
I don't support her staying quiet for so long and as I have said, there are things I think he didn't/couldn't say. However, as a FIRM guilty supporter, I have to give her credit for the part she played in his conviction. If it ever turned out that he could PROVE his innocence, I think you know that I would be one of the first to admit I was wrong.
-
:'(
if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her. If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely. I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM. I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her. I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.
Do you agree that Julie should have started telling the police within the first few hours.
-
:'(
Do you agree that Julie should have started telling the police within the first few hours.
If she told the truth at trial she should certainly have told the truth to police much earlier than she did, ideally when first questioned. On the other hand if she lied in evidence at trial her initial answers to police were correct.
-
Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?
-
Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?
Is what leaked news? If you mean about her having signed a deal - no it's not.
-
Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?
No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team. It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review. I discussed it with JB at the time. It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further. Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.
-
No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team. It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review. I discussed it with JB at the time. It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further. Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.
I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.
-
I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.
There are several strands to this issue, only two of which has been extensively discussed here. The credibility of JM as a witness was a very important aspect of the case. The way she was presented to the jury in my view gave a seriously misleading view. First, in relation to the circumstances in which she "came forward" and changed her account to implicate JB. Second, in relation to the circumstances in which the cheque book frauds were resolved with the bank. Third, the improper NOW deal which had been concluded before JM gave evidence and about which she lied in answering questions administered at the instigation of the trial judge. The defence at trial were seriously hampered in their cross examination of JM as a result of the failure to disclose the full and correct facts about each of these issues. Remember that this was a bare majority verdict. JM's evidence was crucial and her credibilty was something the jury had to assess. They were denied the ability to do that properly in the circumstances.
-
No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team. It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review. I discussed it with JB at the time. It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further. Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.
I see. I seem to recollect a spattering of something concerning her testimony some years ago as I possibly or most likely remarked on it then but it fizzled out and I thought no more about it though I wasn't aware of what the testimony contained only that it wasn't altogether Kosher.
Thankyou for the reminder anyway.
-
I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.
It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.
-
There are several strands to this issue, only two of which has been extensively discussed here. The credibility of JM as a witness was a very important aspect of the case. The way she was presented to the jury in my view gave a seriously misleading view. First, in relation to the circumstances in which she "came forward" and changed her account to implicate JB. Second, in relation to the circumstances in which the cheque book frauds were resolved with the bank. Third, the improper NOW deal which had been concluded before JM gave evidence and about which she lied in answering questions administered at the instigation of the trial judge. The defence at trial were seriously hampered in their cross examination of JM as a result of the failure to disclose the full and correct facts about each of these issues. Remember that this was a bare majority verdict. JM's evidence was crucial and her credibilty was something the jury had to assess. They were denied the ability to do that properly in the circumstances.
Yes, i get all of that, but have you personally seen evidence to show she was arrested rather than coming forward of her own accord or is this a suspicion based on other issues? The reason I ask is because if true, then Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby and Malcolm Waters all lied too and for the life of me, I can't think of a reason why they would and maintain it to this day.
-
It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.
How would they know anyway ? They took her at her word didn't they ?
-
Maybe, instead of EP hanging on to files, that if they'd released JM's then there'd have been no need for this 34 years later ? It's clearly the fault of EP that this has now come to the fore and if Steve had given it enough thought he wouldn't be blaming NGB or anyone else !
-
How would they know anyway ? They took her at her word didn't they ?
Certainly my solicitor accepts my word NOW because we've become friends, but Julie wasn't known to hers. I feel that, under the circumstances, it was his responsibility to do double checks.
-
Certainly my solicitor accepts my word NOW because we've become friends, but Julie wasn't known to hers. I feel that, under the circumstances, it was his responsibility to do double checks.
There again, she used the same firm of solicitors which RWB used. Maybe not the same solicitor but they talk !
-
It was RWB who'd put her on to them, so doubtless he'd have told her to mention him.
-
Maybe, instead of EP hanging on to files, that if they'd released JM's then there'd have been no need for this 34 years later ? It's clearly the fault of EP that this has now come to the fore and if Steve had given it enough thought he wouldn't be blaming NGB or anyone else !
Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?
-
It was RWB who'd put her on to them, so doubtless he'd have told her to mention him.
Did he? I'd thought she'd picked one randomly.
-
Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?
It's beginning to sound like there was some manipulation going on.
-
Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?
Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.
-
Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.
Of course he shouldn't. None of us have control of the case, we're not involved with it. Some people forget that we're just a bunch or people debating on a case we're interested in. The next time someone uses the word 'agenda' we should ALL object!
-
Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.
Holding back information isn't illegal and this case isn't unique in that respect. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I think everything should be shared. However by the same token, the defence doesn't have to share everything either.
-
It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.
If it was someone named Swan, then he didn't remember a blooming thing, like a CPS Essex file relating to Julie Mugford. Or a file of complaint towards police officers made by Jeremy Bamber.
-
Holding back information isn't illegal and this case isn't unique in that respect. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I think everything should be shared. However by the same token, the defence doesn't have to share everything either.
I can't imagine the defence being in the category of tomes when it comes to withheld documents.
-
It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.
Yes, you would have thought so and of course so far she has got away with it. He of course was not responsible for the answers JM gave in relation to questions about this. There were two distinct aspects the NOW deal, the first entering into a deal before giving evidence and the second lying about it when asked during the trial on behalf of the judge.
-
Yes, i get all of that, but have you personally seen evidence to show she was arrested rather than coming forward of her own accord or is this a suspicion based on other issues? The reason I ask is because if true, then Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby and Malcolm Waters all lied too and for the life of me, I can't think of a reason why they would and maintain it to this day.
I have not personally seen the material but I have discussed what has been seen so far, and also discussed material which has been withheld dealing with the interaction between the police, JM and her mother in the period immediately after she "came forward" I accept that there is currently not enough to prove my view on this but if the relevant documents could be obtained I think it is very likely that they would confirm what I have suggested. A problem in the case has been that the CCRC have been very reluctant to use their powers of disclosure fully.
-
Yes, you would have thought so and of course so far she has got away with it. He of course was not responsible for the answers JM gave in relation to questions about this. There were two distinct aspects the NOW deal, the first entering into a deal before giving evidence and the second lying about it when asked during the trial on behalf of the judge.
If part of the NOW deal was to make certain claims I can see she'd be in deep trouble, but if her evidence, at trial, wasn't other than she'd said when she made her WS why would it matter if the deal was already signed? From recollection, most of it was personal stuff at basic NOW level. We'd probably call it soft porn, now. She took a huge risk in lying to the judge. Hardly surprising that she cried!
-
I have not personally seen the material but I have discussed what has been seen so far, and also discussed material which has been withheld dealing with the interaction between the police, JM and her mother in the period immediately after she "came forward" I accept that there is currently not enough to prove my view on this but if the relevant documents could be obtained I think it is very likely that they would confirm what I have suggested. A problem in the case has been that the CCRC have been very reluctant to use their powers of disclosure fully.
OK, personally, I think it's likely that she did go without police intervention BUT that she was coerced by Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters. I don't think she would have gotten a softly approach from EP either - certainly not initially. I think they probably threatened to implicate her and possibly charge them as a pair. I'm sure such tactics are used quite often and certainly back then. I honestly don't think we will ever know what initially went on when she came forward and many of those involved, are no longer here to tell.
-
If part of the NOW deal was to make certain claims I can see she'd be in deep trouble, but if her evidence, at trial, wasn't other than she'd said when she made her WS why would it matter if the deal was already signed? From recollection, most of it was personal stuff at basic NOW level. We'd probably call it soft porn, now. She took a huge risk in lying to the judge. Hardly surprising that she cried!
A deal such as this with a witness is improper. The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.
-
A deal such as this with a witness is improper. The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.
But Julie couldn't control the verdict. Her payment depended on them, not the other way around? I could understand if she went to the papers before going to the police, then it could be argued that she was motivated by the cash, but having already done so, the verdict was still 50/50?
-
For anyone interested, there is an article on the new Drama in this weeks Radio Times. It's based on CAL's book so well done to her!
-
A deal such as this with a witness is improper. The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.
So who'd have been most guilty? NOW -who must have been aware of the illegality- for making the offer, or Julie -who may not have been aware- for accepting? Are we to assume she made changes in her testimony to ensure the £25,000? There's also the the point that the jury, unless they were 'got at', had a choice.
-
Hadn't the issue of the NOTW payment been raised before? It was mentioned in the 2002 appeal.
363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.
364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.
365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.
366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.
-
Fighting a losing battle springs to mind. I don't hold much hope at all from what I can sense and it's another sheer waste of time.
-
May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?
-
May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?
Steve, I very much doubt any of them read the forum.
-
Steve, I very much doubt any of them read the forum.
It's where this could lead Caroline. I for one would not return again to England after the 2002 incident.
-
May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?
Steve, for my part, I was more shocked, rather than offended. You were a Steve I'd never previously experienced. I know you have huge empathy with Julie and see something more in her than just the person many believe her to be. You, more than any of us, would understand what are the difficulties student teachers face and how easy it can be for them to slip from the path if an easier one appears to be on offer.
-
Aren't student teachers supposed to be dedicated? They should know that they have to be squeaky clean because they're going to setting an example to young people or children. Why is it harder than being any other kind of student?
-
Steve, I very much doubt any of them read the forum.
I read the forum----well most of it.
-
I read the forum----well most of it.
You're not part of Julie's family.
-
You're not part of Julie's family.
Oh heck, I wasn't listening, or reading ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh heck, I wasn't listening, or reading ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D
-
Hadn't the issue of the NOTW payment been raised before? It was mentioned in the 2002 appeal.
It has been but the defence had both hands tied. There is now much better evidence about the issue.
-
:'(
Do you agree that Julie should have started telling the police within the first few hours.
even though this wasn't aimed at me. Yes 100 percent. No other explanation or reason could justify otherwise
-
17 years later !
Blimey if this is another waiting game, I either won't be around or I'll be as daft as a brush.
-
17 years later !
Blimey if this is another waiting game, I either won't be around or I'll be as daft as a brush.
No comment ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) XX
-
No comment ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) XX
You're getting too cheeky you are. ;D
-
You're getting too cheeky you are. ;D
;D ;D ;D :-*
-
;D ;D ;D :-*
Aw, I know. xx
-
Can somebody please edit the title of this thread. It’s totally false and it’s misleading for guests and visitors.
-
Can somebody please edit the title of this thread. It’s totally false and it’s misleading for guests and visitors.
I've just added a question mark.
-
Aren't student teachers supposed to be dedicated? They should know that they have to be squeaky clean because they're going to setting an example to young people or children. Why is it harder than being any other kind of student?
I think it's harder to switch off of an evening than other professions. We wouldn't expect a doctor to be crying over his cancer patients, yet if teachers appear unconcerned or nonchalant they are castigated for it.
-
even though this wasn't aimed at me. Yes 100 percent. No other explanation or reason could justify otherwise
Everyone would react differently as a 20 year old in a situation they have never been in before.
Thirty four years later & everyone believes they would act in a certain way if it was them. If that way is not how Julie reacted, she must be lying.
You believe you would have been talking to the police as if there was no tomorrow, within hours. Although you loved Jeremy.
I believe her talking after 2 weeks is not terrible. Some would not talk at all.
-
Everyone would react differently as a 20 year old in a situation they have never been in before.
Thirty four years later & everyone believes they would act in a certain way if it was them. If that way is not how Julie reacted, she must be lying.
You believe you would have been talking to the police as if there was no tomorrow, within hours. Although you loved Jeremy.
I believe her talking after 2 weeks is not terrible. Some would not talk at all.
I agree.
-
Everyone would react differently as a 20 year old in a situation they have never been in before.
Thirty four years later & everyone believes they would act in a certain way if it was them. If that way is not how Julie reacted, she must be lying.
You believe you would have been talking to the police as if there was no tomorrow, within hours. Although you loved Jeremy.
I believe her talking after 2 weeks is not terrible. Some would not talk at all.
well I wouldn't be going on beanos with him, shagging him and accompanying him to Amsterdam but maybe that's just me.... Maybe I'd speak to my mum In that period ," as a young naive 20 year old girl " or maybe " I just was spiteful "
-
well I wouldn't be going on beanos with him, shagging him and accompanying him to Amsterdam but maybe that's just me.... Maybe I'd speak to my mum In that period ," as a young naive 20 year old girl " or maybe " I just was spiteful "
What did you think of Jeremy's beano's?
-
What do you think about Julie identifying the bodies ( in full knowledge by her own account , knowing her partner had done them in)?
-
What did you think of Jeremy's beano's?
to answer your question, who doesn't turn to alcohol on times of crisis? Remember we only have red tops and beneficial relatives avaliable to add anything sinister to it...
-
when was the last time bill posted.cause ive a bone to pick with him,he told everyone to put money on jb to be out before xmas 2018,ive done £200 down the pan >:(