Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on March 18, 2021, 04:48:PM
-
There's no dedicated thread for commentary on the podcast series, so I've decided to start one.
My immediate impression when I started listening to the podcasts is how odd and unnatural the narrator's voice sounds, almost like it's robotised, and I found that off-putting; but I've managed to put that to one side in my head and I am now going through the series and will evaluate the contents on their merits.
I've so far noticed that the narrator of Part 3 is the actress and model Dee Sadler: https://twitter.com/deedeesadler?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor. That podcast sounds better than the others.
EDIT - 17/09/2021
The podcasts have developed into a lengthy series with quite a lot of material. It's time to provide a single list of links. As well as in the thread itself, I will add a full list of YouTube links to the podcast series in this first post:
1. Trailer for Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycn6qRlcLg
Another version of the trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYfXoTcAUtw
2. Introduction to the Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuRCvuOU08
3. Prosecution and Defence Case at Trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kysQ48qiJr0
4. Timeline of Events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4DSEtFhG3U
5. Why The Silencer Matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsLr7KZpuL4
6. The Grey hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nx0wOe16m0
7. Robert Boutflour, Jeremy's Uncle, Key Prosecution Witness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk5mo-9xeyc
8 Sheila Caffell, Jeremy Bamber's Sister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abfDUjWfCzA
9. New Application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woWUJ1-YRjY
10. Julie Mugford, Jeremy Bamber's girlfriend in 1985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtWbg7moc_4&t=4s
11. Helen Grimster witness statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwlzQq5NPFE
12. Farhad Emami Witness Statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhKlfVgUjxU
13. What happened inside WHF, untold events 6th - 7th August 1985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1q0UTzEN8&t=5s
14. Your Questions Answered Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aJC7_P39_M&t=274s
15. Statements of Dr Ferguson, Sheila Caffell's Psychiatrist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL5Uv4JXqp0&t=59s
16. Dr Ferguson: The Cases of Paul Padget-Lewis and Sheila Caffell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMPElweBGqw&t=140s
17. In Discussion with Yvonne and Philip: Was Julie Mugford manipulated or was she the manipulator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHz4F3WIBK8&t=877s
18. The Mysterious Bullet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQSsNWHZMw&t=2s
19. Ann Eaton, Jeremy Bamber's cousin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=729s
20. How many gunshot wounds did Sheila Caffell have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCotKmX_uqg
21. The lives of Nevill and June Bamber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dajJCwAeFRc&t=317s
22. Detective Sergeant Stan Jones, key police officer in the Jeremy Bamber Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwwZF3Jyk74
23. Jeremy Bamber, a life in six pictures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnvAfx_pzSQ&t=176s
24. Jeremy Bamber's Security Status
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RyB3Pf2YZk&t=32s
25. Your Questions Answered Part II with Heidi & Yvonne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5sVklvcjM
26. Jeremy Bamber's Alibi Episode 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsP4shIKGU
27. Jeremy Bamber's Alibi Episode 2 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yor9HLbPLEs&t=467s
28. Jeremy Bamber's Alibi episode 3 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jShTzCvcSxw&t=98s
29. Judith Jackson Statement, Foster Carer for Nicholas and Daniel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQB-YX4ihcA
30. The Anniversary of the Tragedies at White House Farm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_eIfCWFno
31. The Last Week ...an Audio Drama in the case of Jeremy Bamber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEpAJiJHcQA&t=298s
32. Interview with polygraph expert Terry Mullins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL9TLqeyV3U&t=2603s
33. Your Questions Answered Part III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbYZ4r9WalQ
34. The Telephone Issues Resolved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LefLvrfaWO0&t=796s
35. Michael Abel - Head of Social Services Westminster County Council in 1985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMYZcSi3Jb8&t=86s
36. Homophobia in the Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159bxYsekQY&t=106s
37. Presentation by Mike O'Brien
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r46tPrQ7wg8
38. Jeremy's Arrest, On Remand and Preparation for Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwbQwGiKbc
39. Yvonne and Philip on the Shaun Attwood show, with Matthew Steeples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I&t=480s
40. Jeremy Bamber: A Life of Less Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFO1eZ6ZjFY&t=194s
41. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7qnCKGr980&t=2359s
42. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm' Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hwo99LneJI
43. Presentation by Peter Tatchell to Jeremy Bamber Campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDvHgUDy6ow&t=1790s
44. Interview with Barbara De'Ath about her time at the Osea caravan park and knowing the Bambers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP38IkZJEkc
45. Jeremy Bamber: A Life of Less Liberty part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULbRgnljtlA&t=112s
Other videos of interest from the Campaign Team:
White House Farm Murders interview with Matthew Steeples, Yvonne Hartley, and Philip Walker; hosted by Shaun Attwood as part of his True Crime podcast series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_fgy1ZENMQ
Audio version of the same interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I
-
It's a mixed bag. Overall, I enjoyed it, but with some slight trepidation regarding CT interpretations. It's not meant to put any meat on the bones of the recent submissions. I think it's out there, competing with the plethora of authorities' induced pap, designed to condemn JB and shore up his conviction. The one about RB sends a shudder down the spine.
-
I felt the same about the RWB one Roch. It left quite a bad taste in the mouth, just a horrible feeling.
-
What's more, I'd believe JB over him any day.
-
I didn't like them presenting Sheila hitting the twins as fact. I was on my guard thereafter for the falsehoods which followed.
-
I didn't like them presenting Sheila hitting the twins as fact. I was on my guard thereafter for the falsehoods which followed.
Like it or not Steve, whatever's said on the podcasts is taken from police notes which could have come via the social services.
-
Like it or not Steve, whatever's said on the podcasts is taken from police notes which could have come via the social services.
There never was police involvement Lookout: this part came from Jeremy's mouth.
-
Bamber said he saw a mother (Sheila) hit her children.
No one else was present.
-
Bamber said he saw a mother (Sheila) hit her children.
No one else was present.
There was another tale involving violence when Nevill was driving. All dead witnesses apart from Jeremy Bamber.
-
Social services would have asked the child how he/ they came by his bruises/ burns. The teacher too who'd alerted social services would also have seen marks as well as reporting how unkempt they'd appeared at school.
A teacher will always notice a change in children in his/her class and usually get the school nurse involved who in turn will tell social services.
I don't expect the system has changed in primary schools.
-
There never was police involvement Lookout: this part came from Jeremy's mouth.
The information came from those in social services. There wouldn't be any police involvement unless there'd been proof or a report of domestic abuse/ violence within the home.
-
The police would have made notes re. social services but as with many incidents it didn't reach the jury.
-
Social services would have asked the child how he/ they came by his bruises/ burns. The teacher too who'd alerted social services would also have seen marks as well as reporting how unkempt they'd appeared at school.
A teacher will always notice a change in children in his/her class and usually get the school nurse involved who in turn will tell social services.
I don't expect the system has changed in primary schools.
Nicholas fell out of a taxi, and although it was reported to Paddingon Green police station there was no evidence of a non-accidental injury. Daniel had tripped over a glass coffee table and sustained a small scar. He also had an ear infection and three scalds, but Sheila had sought help for these. The twins never felt awkward in their mother's company and would have told Colin had any of these injuries been deliberate.
-
Nicholas fell out of a taxi, and although it was reported to Paddingon Green police station there was no evidence of a non-accidental injury. Daniel had tripped over a glass coffee table and sustained a small scar. He also had an ear infection and three scalds, but Sheila had sought help for these. The twins never felt awkward in their mother's company and would have told Colin had any of these injuries been deliberate.
Nevertheless it would alarm a schoolteacher in those so young. Children talk as well and are quite free with what they say so chances are they'd have explained, innocently, how cigarette burns had been made along with other injuries.
They had to get their own breakfasts and were invariably late as they had to try and waken Sheila in order to take them to school. Their drawings should have rang alarm bells !
-
Nevertheless it would alarm a schoolteacher in those so young. Children talk as well and are quite free with what they say so chances are they'd have explained, innocently, how cigarette burns had been made along with other injuries.
They had to get their own breakfasts and were invariably late as they had to try and waken Sheila in order to take them to school. Their drawings should have rang alarm bells !
Yes but they were drawings of their visits to White House Farm and their dislike of June, not their mother.
-
The police would have made notes re. social services but as with many incidents it didn't reach the jury.
Notes of what?
Only Bamber saw Sheila hit the twins. Which he did not report.
-
I hope this isn't one of the submissions to the CCRC - Bamber saw Sheila hit the twins. Once.
He is wasting tax payers money again.
-
The one about RB sends a shudder down the spine.
That's why I mentioned on the other thread about RB having an alibi for that fateful night. He appears to have as big a motive as anyone.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3eCozXS7miFeKAfAVK6Brv
-
That's why I mentioned on the other thread about RB having an alibi for that fateful night. He appears to have as big a motive as anyone.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3eCozXS7miFeKAfAVK6Brv
My theory is that material, land and financial concerns were very quickly in the ascendency, in the minds of the relatives. Probably subconsciously, these concerns influenced the relatives' monitoring and interpretations of and suspicions towards Jeremy. I agree with QC that there is a flippant side to JB, probably tactless, with a tendency towards juvenile humour / crass remarks. The relatives on the other hand appeared to be a dour, serious and judgemental bunch, not shy of opportunism and harbouring a sense of entitlement.
It's clear Jeremy's fate was sealed pretty early on. It now seems to be being claimed that there were communications between the relatives and Mugford, prior to Jeremy's demise. If this is true, it lends weight to the theory that Julie jumped ship so as not to sink herself. It is possible that between them, the relatives, Ainsley and Stan Jones were capable of pursuading enough people that Jeremy was culpable for the killings. Anyone who disagreed or questioned this assessment would simply have their testimony sifted out of the evidence pile.
-
I can go along with that Roch.
Bribery and corruption from the word go.
-
My theory is that material, land and financial concerns were very quickly in the ascendency, in the minds of the relatives. Probably subconsciously, these concerns influenced the relatives' monitoring and interpretations of and suspicions towards Jeremy. I agree with QC that there is a flippant side to JB, probably tactless, with a tendency towards juvenile humour / crass remarks. The relatives on the other hand appeared to be a dour, serious and judgemental bunch, not shy of opportunism and harbouring a sense of entitlement.
The relatives also discovered very early on that Nevill and June had left them virtually nothing in their wills, which was probably interpreted as a slap in the face by such a money-grasping crew as the Boutflours were. It is also the case that Nevill thought that RWB was a lousy farmer, too idle to make a real success of farming. All contributory factors in the motivation to frame Jeremy.
-
RWB was too busy going around being a" pillar of the commuinity" to care about the land and getting his hands dirty. Nevill had told him he wasn't a good businessman when they were once talking man to man.
Yes, the Wills told it all really as regards friendship, or not, between the Boutflour's and Bamber's.
Anyone with half an eye could see where this was going during trial. Trouble was, the jury didn't know the half ! Jeremy was well and truly fleeced.
-
My theory is that material, land and financial concerns were very quickly in the ascendency, in the minds of the relatives. Probably subconsciously, these concerns influenced the relatives' monitoring and interpretations of and suspicions towards Jeremy. I agree with QC that there is a flippant side to JB, probably tactless, with a tendency towards juvenile humour / crass remarks. The relatives on the other hand appeared to be a dour, serious and judgemental bunch, not shy of opportunism and harbouring a sense of entitlement.
It's clear Jeremy's fate was sealed pretty early on. It now seems to be being claimed that there were communications between the relatives and Mugford, prior to Jeremy's demise. If this is true, it lends weight to the theory that Julie jumped ship so as not to sink herself. It is possible that between them, the relatives, Ainsley and Stan Jones were capable of pursuading enough people that Jeremy was culpable for the killings. Anyone who disagreed or questioned this assessment would simply have their testimony sifted out of the evidence pile.
On a scale of one to ten how would you rate Jeremys intelligence???
He really didn’t have a clue from the start what was going on in front of his very eyes?
From start to finish when he made that comment in court about it was up the the prosecution to prove he was guilty
He just didn’t have a clue about anything or what Julie was really like
Can you imagine the relatives must have been laughing all the way to the bank
It is truly sickening. Everyone that has made money out of these murders from the relatives to Julie to Colin
-
The relatives also discovered very early on that Nevill and June had left them virtually nothing in their wills, which was probably interpreted as a slap in the face by such a money-grasping crew as the Boutflours were. It is also the case that Nevill thought that RWB was a lousy farmer, too idle to make a real success of farming. All contributory factors in the motivation to frame Jeremy.
Doubt they were expecting anything.
The wills of June & Nevill would go to Sheila, Bamber & the twins.
If Nevill died first, he would leave money to June & vice versa.
-
June was also very religous and some of her will was going to the church. This would not have surprised the relatives.
-
Adam, what's your assessment of RWB? Do you see him as a Hooded Claw type?
-
Adam, what's your assessment of RWB? Do you see him as a Hooded Claw type?
Thought AE was the main relative working against Bamber.
RB just tagged along saying 'we all know who that was' after the caravan break in. Later testifying Bamber said 'I could easily kill my parents'.
-
Thought AE was the main relative working against Bamber.
RB just tagged along saying 'we all know who that was' after the caravan break in. Later testifying Bamber said 'I could easily kill my parents'.
Didn't Robert Boutflour also meet with the police and pressure them to investigate Jeremy?
I also thought it was Robert Boutflour who alerted the police to the silencer. He had gone to Witham Police Station to demand a meeting with a senior officer and in passing he mentioned the silencer, as he assumed Ann and Peter had already handed it over. When the police said, 'What silencer?', it became clear the evidence had not been collected and Stan Jones then arranged to do so.
Robert Boutflour was the patriarch of the Boutflour/Eaton side of the extended family and, despite being only a minor witness at trial, I would say his moral influence on detectives was a linchpin of the whole case.
-
Thought AE was the main relative working against Bamber.
RB just tagged along saying 'we all know who that was' after the caravan break in. Later testifying Bamber said 'I could easily kill my parents'.
How I would love to see this all played out truthfully in a Netflix series it would be mind blowing and maybe the best series they have ever commissioned
-
Didn't Robert Boutflour also meet with the police and pressure them to investigate Jeremy?
I also thought it was Robert Boutflour who alerted the police to the silencer. He had gone to Witham Police Station to demand a meeting with a senior officer and in passing he mentioned the silencer, as he assumed Ann and Peter had already handed it over. When the police said, 'What silencer?', it became clear the evidence had not been collected and Stan Jones then arranged to do so.
Robert Boutflour was the patriarch of the Boutflour/Eaton side of the extended family and, despite being only a minor witness at trial, I would say his moral influence on detectives was a linchpin of the whole case.
Suspect AE, PE, RB & DB did things together.
Finding the silencer, going to Taff Jones, handing in the silencer. Going to head office & getting Taff replaced.
-
Suspect AE, PE, RB & DB did things together.
Finding the silencer, going to Taff Jones, handing in the silencer. Going to head office & getting Taff replaced.
Well what I have just told you is, I believe, considered canon. Yes, overall they acted in concert, but my point is that Robert Boutflour was a driving force. If Lookout's suggestion of an alternate truth Netflix series is ever taken up, I would imagine that the 'Robert Boutflour' character will be pretty central if there's emphasis on the backstory and investigation.
-
In maintaining that Robert Boutflour was a minor player at the trial, I was forgetting that it was the patriarch himself who wrote that rather disingenuous note to the jury in reply to their famous question.
He also maintained to the jury that he measured his wealth in friends, not 'LSD'. I don't accept that. On the other hand, I must say that the idea he, or any other family member, would frame Jeremy is an extraordinary claim and must meet Laplace's principle.
The Laplace principle is not insurmountable, though.
-
Well what I have just told you is, I believe, considered canon. Yes, overall they acted in concert, but my point is that Robert Boutflour was a driving force. If Lookout's suggestion of an alternate truth Netflix series is ever taken up, I would imagine that the 'Robert Boutflour' character will be pretty central if there's emphasis on the backstory and investigation.
Who would play him?
-
In maintaining that Robert Boutflour was a minor player at the trial, I was forgetting that it was the patriarch himself who wrote that rather disingenuous note to the jury in reply to their famous question.
He also maintained to the jury that he measured his wealth in friends, not 'LSD'. I don't accept that. On the other hand, I must say that the idea he, or any other family member, would frame Jeremy is an extraordinary claim and must meet Laplace's principle.
The Laplace principle is not insurmountable, though.
Do you not think that in the minds of he and Ann, also possibly David, it became a case of 'the ends justified the means'. In convincing themselves he was guilty, cooperating in playing dirty along with EP was simply ensuring Jeremy didn't 'profit from his act'. It also had the reassuring, added bonus that they themselves would profit, instead.
-
The relatives also discovered very early on that Nevill and June had left them virtually nothing in their wills, which was probably interpreted as a slap in the face by such a money-grasping crew as the Boutflours were. It is also the case that Nevill thought that RWB was a lousy farmer, too idle to make a real success of farming. All contributory factors in the motivation to frame Jeremy.
You totally misunderstand this part of the story.
-
You totally misunderstand this part of the story.
.
Steve, what do you think of David Warner as my choice for Bobby?
-
.
Steve, what do you think of David Warner as my choice for Bobby?
It's him down to a T.
-
Well what I have just told you is, I believe, considered canon. Yes, overall they acted in concert, but my point is that Robert Boutflour was a driving force. If Lookout's suggestion of an alternate truth Netflix series is ever taken up, I would imagine that the 'Robert Boutflour' character will be pretty central if there's emphasis on the backstory and investigation.
Another drama on the case.
I'm still waiting for JackieD's 6 part documentary on Julie & Mike's Youtube video on the silencer.
Five years on & David still hasn't disclosed his 'forensic evidenve breakthrough'. Surely that is worthy of a docu drama.
-
Another drama on the case.
I'm still waiting for JackieD's 6 part documentary on Julie & Mike's Youtube video on the silencer.
Five years on & David still hasn't disclosed his 'forensic evidenve breakthrough'. Surely that is worthy of a docu drama.
Thanks Adam. I'm afraid I've already bagged the 'Jeremy' role. I know you and David are jealous, but some of us just have natural good looks. I can't help it.
-
Mugford's podcast is now up. Haven't had a chance to listen yet.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeremy-bamber-and-white-house-farm/id1555731881
-
That was interesting Roch and thought provoking too.
-
That was interesting Roch and thought provoking too.
Shocking as expected
There are no words
-
Mugford's podcast is now up. Haven't had a chance to listen yet.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeremy-bamber-and-white-house-farm/id1555731881
A Goldsmith's student felt intimidated by Julie and Susan's presence in the kitchen but Jeremy was nice to her so he's innocent..
-
Search
The Justice Gap
Does Jeremy Bamber have a human right to be released from prison with immediate effect?
* By Michael Naughton
* 22 March 2021 | 7:13 am
The recent application to the miscarriage of justice watchdog on behalf of Jeremy Bamber is based on 347,000 sheets of newly disclosed documents withheld from the defence at the time of his trial and on eight new grounds of appeal that his lawyer says fundamentally undermines the prosecution narrative at trial and should exonerate him (here). Michael Naughton asks whether Jeremy Bamber, who has so far sent 35 years in prison for crimes that he has always maintained he didn’t commit, should be immediately released on the basis that his trial was unfair under human rights legislation.
Anyone with even only the slightest passing interest in criminal justice matters in Britain will be familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case, which has divided public and legal opinion since his conviction for the 1985 murders of his adoptive parents, Nevill and June Bamber, his sister, Sheila Caffell, and his sister’s six-year-old twin sons Daniel and Nicholas Caffell.
For some, Jeremy Bamber has come to epitomise evil personified for the nature and brutality of the crimes that he was convicted for, a discourse that was strengthened in a recent drama series that claimed to be based on the murders at White House Farm.
For those in the anti-Bamber camp, his apparent unwillingness, audacity and sheer callousness in refusing to acknowledge his guilt and show remorse for his crimes have been viewed as adding insult to injury to his deceased victims and their survivors (here).
It is, perhaps, unsurprising, then, that Bamber is one of just 60 whole-life prisoners in England and Wales, an infamous group which includes some of Britain’s most notorious convicted criminals such as Rosemary West, Levi Bellfield, Stephen Port (Grindr Killer) and Michael Adebolajo (for the murder of Lee Rigby).
On the other hand, Jeremy Bamber has always steadfastly maintained his innocence (he is the only whole life tariff prisoner to maintain innocence) and his supporters and advocates have long argued that Jeremy Bamber is an innocent scapegoat who was convicted for crimes that he didn’t commit (here).
At the centre of the pro-Bamber campaign are claims of non-disclosure of evidence that would exonerate him fully from the murders. Non-disclosure of evidence that works counter to the prosecution’s narrative or which positively supports the defence case is a perennial cause of miscarriages of justice.
In the case of John Kamara, for instance, his protestations of innocence were also deemed to be false at his trial and were rejected by the Court of Appeal. It was only when it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose 201 witness statements that were beneficial to his defence that his innocence was accepted and his conviction overturned (here).
More recently, the police and prosecution side’s control of the disclosure of evidence regime was again shown to be lacking in the in the near-miss case (because he wasn’t actually wrongly convicted) of Liam Allan, which involved the non-disclosure of 40,000 text and WhatsApp messages that undermined the rape allegations that he charged with and on trial for.
The problem for the pro-Bamber advocates, historically, has been a hitherto impossible dilemma to overcome: they say that they haven’t been able to prove their claims as they haven’t had the evidence to support them because the evidence that could support the claims has not been disclosed.
The impasse was broken earlier in the month when the nature and full scale of the non-disclosure of evidence in the Jeremy Bamber case was revealed when his lawyer, Mark Newby, made it public that he had submitted a third application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) based on 347,000 sheets of evidence that were obtained when the 30-year Public Interest Immunity on the non-disclosed evidence in the case had expired.
Those who follow miscarriages of justice will have heard of Mark Newby, a solicitor advocate who specialises in alleged miscarriages of justice, who has been involved in overturning a large number of wrongful convictions. He is not a frivolous man and his thoughts on the implications of the previously undisclosed evidence on Jeremy Bamber’s conviction are most concerning for anyone concerned with the fairness and/or justice of the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
Crucially for Newby: ‘The audit trail now uncovered raises very serious questions over withheld evidence, misleading of the jury, interference with the crime scene, the movement of key evidence, altered phone records and admitted destruction of original exhibits.’
‘Every part of the reported case appears to be untrue, and there is now a new narrative to be told which if accepted by the Commission [CCRC] and then in turn the Court of Appeal should lead to Jeremy Bamber being exonerated,’ he said.
This highlights why disclosure of all and any evidence, or what the American’s call full open book disclosure, in a criminal trial is crucial for trials to be fair and justice to be carried. It is also crucial that full disclosure is provided for the outcomes of criminal trials to be accepted as legitimate by the general public and be in accordance with human rights law.
Perhaps most pertinent to the analysis here is Article 6 of the Human Rights (right to a fair trial) which provides a framework of protections to alleged criminals aimed at avoiding wrongful convictions. More specifically, section 1 of Article 6, for instance, enshrines the right to a fair trial, whilst section 2 requires that everyone charged with a criminal offence be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Section 3 then lays out additional minimum rights for those charged with criminal offences, which includes the requirement that a defendant has adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence (s.3(b)) and to examine or have examined any prosecution witnesses and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses (s.3(d)) (here).
Evaluated against Article 6, in what sense can Jeremy Bamber’s trial be said to be fair when 347,000 items of evidence were not disclosed to his defence team? Here I would distinguish between ‘fairness’ in the lay sense in terms of criminal trials attempting to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of alleged crimes and ‘fairness’ in terms of compliance with the procedural dictates of the criminal justice process – a distinction between procedural or substantive justice.
Indeed, are we to simply accept that Jeremy Bamber’s trial was fair because the criminal justice system says that it was? How could Jeremy Bamber adequately prepare his defence when evidence that is now claimed to totally undermine the prosecution case against him was not disclosed? How could he examine any potential witnesses or scrutinise forms of evidence that neither he nor his defence or previous appeal lawyers knew existed?
Are we to uncritically trust the outcomes of trials that involve Public Interest Immunity (PII) where individuals are convicted for crimes that they say that they didn’t commit when hundreds of thousands of items of evidence are not disclosed to the defence? And, incidentally, why would defence lawyers accept that their clients can be tried without full sight of all of the police and/or prosecution evidence in the case; why would they accept that such trials are fair?
Other fundamental questions raised by the revelation of the non-disclosure of almost 350,000 pieces of evidence in the Jeremy Bamber case in the context of Article 6 relate to the so called protections provided to those alleged or charged with criminal offences against wrongful convictions such as the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution and the need for equality of arms between the prosecution and defence: how can Jeremy Bamber’s conviction be conceptualised as fair and/or just in light of the revelation of the extent of the non-disclosure in his case? (see here).
It is in this context that I would invite readers to put themselves into Jeremy Bamber’s shoes (or any alleged innocent victim of wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment for that matter) and consider whether they think it would be fair if they or their loved one were accused of a crime that they said that they didn’t commit and the prosecution could withhold almost 350,000 sheets of evidence, which in the Jeremy Bamber case Mark Newby believes should exonerate a man who has spent the last 35 years in prison from any culpability for the murders that he was convicted for.
If Jeremy Bamber is not to be released immediately on the grounds of the failure to provide his human right to a fair trial, the least that he can expect is a public commitment by the CCRC to prioritise his latest application above all other applications and to ensure that if he is innocent that he doesn’t spend a day longer in prison than he needs to.
-
Is Mark Newby being paid to read these documents? Did he have any input in these podcasts, which distort reality so much as to deceive?
-
Search
The Justice Gap
Does Jeremy Bamber have a human right to be released from prison with immediate effect?
NG1066 may be able to assist with this question, but I imagine that if such an argument were made - perhaps to the ECHR itself - it would rest on the materiality of the recently-disclosed evidence. It needs to be appreciated that, for both justice and pragmatic reasons, there can never be complete disclosure. If there were such a requirement, the English criminal justice system would be like the Italians have, with criminal cases going on forever - bouncing back and forth between trial and appellate courts - and hardly anybody with financial resources would be convicted or punished.
Disclosure has to be relevant and there has to be finality. Justice must proceed swiftly and efficiently.
Jeremy can't base his appeal arguments on not receiving a copy of the notebook of an obscure police officer who happened to be on the scene. That's not reasonable.
That said, there is a legitimate question of whether it is appropriate for police officers and Crown Prosecutors to be making legal disclosure decisions - which even today is still the practice, if I'm not mistaken. The court is meant to be an independent failsafe, but neither the defence nor the court know what is contained in documents, and sometimes the defence don't even know what there is. Surely in the more serious cases (homicides, armed robbery, sexual offences, GBH), disclosure decisions should be reviewed by officials independent of the police and the CPS? Perhaps use should also be made of information technology to place all material deemed 'irrelevant' in a protected environment that is beyond the reach of the police and the CPS and that the defence can apply to access?
-
This is a question for Roch
I have just listened to the podcast regarding submissions
The first point is regarding the phone calls
We are led to believe there is now absolute proof that the phone calls from Jeremy and Neville were definitely made
Surely proof of this makes the whole case fall apart ???? Without taking into account any of the other submissions
-
This is a question for Roch
I have just listened to the podcast regarding submissions
The first point is regarding the phone calls
We are led to believe there is now absolute proof that the phone calls from Jeremy and Neville were definitely made
Surely proof of this makes the whole case fall apart ???? Without taking into account any of the other submissions
Agree that Jeremy made 4 phone calls that night.
Nevill's call to the police? That has already been established as properganda & was not part of the 2012 CCRC submission.
This years submission will be focusing on technicalities to claim the conviction was unsafe, rather than proving him innocent.
-
If ever released Bamber can say he's innocent and do the media/showbiz circuit.
He will be well known enough & get enough financial offers to live the life style he craved in the 1980's. This will have been a motivation to campaign for freedom since 1986.
-
Mugford's podcast is now up. Haven't had a chance to listen yet.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeremy-bamber-and-white-house-farm/id1555731881
Just seen it's over 46 minutes.
Do you believe she committed serious perjury because they split up?
-
Agree that Jeremy made 4 phone calls that night.
Nevill's call to the police? That has already been established as properganda & was not part of the 2012 CCRC submission.
This years submission will be focusing on technicalities to claim the conviction was unsafe, rather than proving him innocent.
I haven’t agreed anything with you Adam
-
If ever released Bamber can say he's innocent and do the media/showbiz circuit.
He will be well known enough & get enough financial offers to live the life style he craved in the 1980's. This will have been a motivation to campaign for freedom since 1986.
Good luck to him if his conviction is overturned
-
Just seen it's over 46 minutes.
Do you believe she committed serious perjury because they split up?
It is a fact Julie is a pathological liar
Adam that is undeniable
-
A pathological liar is usually considered manipulative, selfish and cunning. They lie incessantly to get their way and do so with little awareness or guilt.
They use lies to protect themselves when a situation goes bad. Below are a few common features of a pathological liar
These people are excellent liars because they lie constantly and make up stories so unnecessarily and often that it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish the truth from false statements.
They are nearly impossible to catch in the act.
* Their lie is usually goal oriented (i.e., focused, one tells lies to get their way).
*
* Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others.
* They often have no conscience or guilt.
* Pathological liars base their lives around deceit and may deeply hurt their victims.
-
This is a question for Roch
I have just listened to the podcast regarding submissions
The first point is regarding the phone calls
We are led to believe there is now absolute proof that the phone calls from Jeremy and Neville were definitely made
Surely proof of this makes the whole case fall apart ???? Without taking into account any of the other submissions
Hi Jackie,
Due to the way press articles were worded I'm confused about exactly what is being claimed by the defence, with regard to any alleged calls from Nevill. I was going to submit a question about it to the relevant contacts on website/s but didn't get round to it. I'll send one today.
-
This years submission will be focusing on technicalities to claim the conviction was unsafe, rather than proving him innocent.
Quite the opposite in fact. The CCRC submission proves that the case against Jeremy was a work of fiction by Ainsley and relies on forgery, perjury and the withholding of evidence that demonstrates that Sheila killed her family. Virtually nothing previously thought to be ‘fact’ in the case is actually true.
-
Quite the opposite in fact. The CCRC submission proves that the case against Jeremy was a work of fiction by Ainsley and relies on forgery, perjury and the withholding of evidence that demonstrates that Sheila killed her family. Virtually nothing previously thought to be ‘fact’ in the case is actually true.
Have you actually seen and read through the CCRC submission?
-
Quite the opposite in fact. The CCRC submission proves that the case against Jeremy was a work of fiction by Ainsley and relies on forgery, perjury and the withholding of evidence that demonstrates that Sheila killed her family. Virtually nothing previously thought to be ‘fact’ in the case is actually true.
Why do you believe the police created the industrial frame department?
Do you believe the relatives or police fabricated the silencer?
What order do you believe Sheila killed the family?
-
Quite the opposite in fact. The CCRC submission proves that the case against Jeremy was a work of fiction by Ainsley and relies on forgery, perjury and the withholding of evidence that demonstrates that Sheila killed her family. Virtually nothing previously thought to be ‘fact’ in the case is actually true.
Are you positive Bill about the submissions or do you think there will continue to be cover ups. Is it best to keep the submissions (and all now disclosed evidence ) secret or shouldn’t this all be rolled out to the media channels making it harder for the CCRC to whitewash everything
-
Hi Jackie,
Due to the way press articles were worded I'm confused about exactly what is being claimed by the defence, with regard to any alleged calls from Nevill. I was going to submit a question about it to the relevant contacts on website/s but didn't get round to it. I'll send one today.
Thank you
-
This years submission will be focusing on technicalities to claim the conviction was unsafe, rather than proving him innocent.
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
If ever released Bamber can say he's innocent and do the media/showbiz circuit.
He will be well known enough & get enough financial offers to live the life style he craved in the 1980's. This will have been a motivation to campaign for freedom since 1986.
It's not all it's cracked up to be, though, Adam. Somebody still has to clean the indoor pool and it's normally left to Joe Muggins when the butler's off. Then there's all those glossy portrait photos to autograph - hundreds a day in my case. The only consolation there is that it means I get to look at my handsome face every day. But I still have to take the jet ski in for servicing and you should have seen the funny looks I got last year when I told them I'd wrecked it trying to use it on the Essex roads.
-
Are you positive Bill about the submissions or do you think there will continue to be cover ups. Is it best to keep the submissions (and all now disclosed evidence ) secret or shouldn’t this all be rolled out to the media channels making it harder for the CCRC to whitewash everything
Working with Yvonne Hartley for 5-6 years on the materials released in 2011, I can confirm that an entirely new narrative of evidence emerged, challenging every assumption held in the case. Time after time as we probed the new materials an aspect of the prosecutions case was revealed to be false. As far as releasing the materials it won’t happen until after the CCRC have referred the case to the court of appeal. The problem with the media is that they seem incapable of reporting anything accurately. Even those newspapers sympathetic to Jeremy tend to get the facts wrong. So, I guess that maybe it is wise to keep the new evidence confidential until after the CCRC have had a chance to evaluate it.
-
Have you actually seen and read through the CCRC submission?
No, the actual submission was written by the lawyers, but I did research the materials used for the submission for 6 years and I know pretty much what the submissions are based on.
-
Why do you believe the police created the industrial frame department?
Do you believe the relatives or police fabricated the silencer?
What order do you believe Sheila killed the family?
I don’t know what an industrial frame department is. The conspiracy to convict Jeremy would have consisted of a few people, with Ainsley masterminding the plot. Many others who provided evidence may not have realized that they were contributing to the framing of Jeremy.
A combination of the relatives, primarily RWB, with the implicit approval of Ainsley.
In my opinion Sheila killed the twins, then June and finally Nevill but I don’t suppose that will ever be known for certain.
-
Working with Yvonne Hartley for 5-6 years on the materials released in 2011, I can confirm that an entirely new narrative of evidence emerged, challenging every assumption held in the case. Time after time as we probed the new materials an aspect of the prosecutions case was revealed to be false. As far as releasing the materials it won’t happen until after the CCRC have referred the case to the court of appeal. The problem with the media is that they seem incapable of reporting anything accurately. Even those newspapers sympathetic to Jeremy tend to get the facts wrong. So, I guess that maybe it is wise to keep the new evidence confidential until after the CCRC have had a chance to evaluate it.
I can certainly understand that Bill.
-
Regarding the phone-calls, that part of the case isn't difficult to fathom out anyway and initially the urgent call that Nevill made would automatically have been recorded/ taped as are all emergency calls.
Essex police cocked up between both Jeremy and his father.
-
Working with Yvonne Hartley for 5-6 years on the materials released in 2011, I can confirm that an entirely new narrative of evidence emerged, challenging every assumption held in the case. Time after time as we probed the new materials an aspect of the prosecutions case was revealed to be false. As far as releasing the materials it won’t happen until after the CCRC have referred the case to the court of appeal. The problem with the media is that they seem incapable of reporting anything accurately. Even those newspapers sympathetic to Jeremy tend to get the facts wrong. So, I guess that maybe it is wise to keep the new evidence confidential until after the CCRC have had a chance to evaluate it.
Thank you Bill that’s all good to hear🤞🤞🤞
-
I don’t know what an industrial frame department is. The conspiracy to convict Jeremy would have consisted of a few people, with Ainsley masterminding the plot. Many others who provided evidence may not have realized that they were contributing to the framing of Jeremy.
A combination of the relatives, primarily RWB, with the implicit approval of Ainsley.
In my opinion Sheila killed the twins, then June and finally Nevill but I don’t suppose that will ever be known for certain.
Bill are any of the police involved still alive?
-
Bill are any of the police involved still alive?
Michael Ainsley is
-
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
It's not all it's cracked up to be, though, Adam. Somebody still has to clean the indoor pool and it's normally left to Joe Muggins when the butler's off. Then there's all those glossy portrait photos to autograph - hundreds a day in my case. The only consolation there is that it means I get to look at my handsome face every day. But I still have to take the jet ski in for servicing and you should have seen the funny looks I got last year when I told them I'd wrecked it trying to use it on the Essex roads.
Just correcting Bill.
Thanks QC.
-
Michael Ainsley is
That’s handy, would he be fit to stand trial
-
I don’t know what an industrial frame department is. The conspiracy to convict Jeremy would have consisted of a few people, with Ainsley masterminding the plot. Many others who provided evidence may not have realized that they were contributing to the framing of Jeremy.
A combination of the relatives, primarily RWB, with the implicit approval of Ainsley.
In my opinion Sheila killed the twins, then June and finally Nevill but I don’t suppose that will ever be known for certain.
At what stage did Nevill call Jeremy & the police?
An industrial frame is police, experts, friends, relatives and the legal system working together to frame someone.
Do you not believe Sheila's blood ended up in the silencer from her two contact shots?
-
At what stage did Nevill call Jeremy & the police?
An industrial frame is police, experts, friends, relatives and the legal system working together to frame someone.
Do you not believe Sheila's blood ended up in the silencer from her two contact shots?
It’s confidential
-
That’s handy, would he be fit to stand trial
I believe that he is well enough although I suspect that at present he will be a worried chap.
-
Do you not believe Sheila's blood ended up in the silencer from her two contact shots?
No of course not. There was no silencer on the rifle during the killings.
-
I believe that he is well enough although I suspect that at present he will be a worried chap.
I will never be able to get my head around how someone could put an innocent person in prison
I guess Mugford, the relatives and the police are equally wicked
-
I'm supposing that the idea at this stage was to hang on for everyone to snuff it, including poor Jeremy.
That's how it would look to me. What a shower of shysters, who I hope will get their comeuppance.
-
I'm supposing that the idea at this stage was to hang on for everyone to snuff it, including poor Jeremy.
That's how it would look to me. What a shower of shysters, who I hope will get their comeuppance.
I don’t think there’s an appropriate comeuppance for putting an innocent man in prison for over 30 years but if you imagine the books, series films if the conviction is proved to be unsafe I don’t think those involved will ever be able to live a normal life again
-
No, the actual submission was written by the lawyers, but I did research the materials used for the submission for 6 years and I know pretty much what the submissions are based on.
Well, I just hope you have thought things through, cross referenced everything and drawn inferences from facts this time. Otherwise it could just be a repeat of something like this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440)
-
I don’t think there’s an appropriate comeuppance for putting an innocent man in prison for over 30 years but if you imagine the books, series films if the conviction is proved to be unsafe I don’t think those involved will ever be able to live a normal life again
I should hope that those who put Jeremy where he is will never ever feel normal again least of all if/ when he's released that they suffer nightmares for the rest of their miserable lives.
-
No of course not. There was no silencer on the rifle during the killings.
Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?
-
Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?
Didn't Davidson say it was? Rings a bell.
-
Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?
We don't know for sure that it wasn't. The test carried out was hardly rigorous. And how do you explain the absence of such blood in the rifle if - I assume - you're saying Sheila's blood was in the silencer? Isn't that a contradiction?
-
Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?
I have no idea; I’m not a forensic scientist. But by the same token there was no blood from the other victims shot at close proximity. So maybe there is a scientific explanation?
-
I have no idea; I’m not a forensic scientist. But by the same token there was no blood from the other victims shot at close proximity. So maybe there is a scientific explanation?
Sheila's shots were contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The other shots were in areas of low blood flow or non contact. Or both.
-
We don't know for sure that it wasn't. The test carried out was hardly rigorous. And how do you explain the absence of such blood in the rifle if - I assume - you're saying Sheila's blood was in the silencer? Isn't that a contradiction?
How do you know they were not rigorous? It was a murder case.
If Sheila's blood is in the silencer it would not be in the rifle barrel as well.
-
How do you know they were not rigorous? It was a murder case.
Again, something I've been through before. I recall there was a thread in which I raised this, you challenged me, and I then asked you a series of questions about the pull-through examination that you never answered. It wasn't rigorous. It was a joke.
If Sheila's blood is in the silencer it would not be in the rifle barrel as well.
Why not?
-
Again, something I've been through before. I recall there was a thread in which I raised this, you challenged me, and I then asked you a series of questions about the pull-through examination that you never answered. It wasn't rigorous. It was a joke.
Why not?
The rifle isn't powerful enough for back splatter to travel several inches tjrough a silencer. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.
-
The rifle... back splatter... Silencer
I really don't understand how Fletcher's trial testimony managed to stand. He was made to look foolish when cross examined.
-
Didn't Davidson say it was? Rings a bell.
No.
-
Sheila's shots were contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The other shots were in areas of low blood flow or non contact. Or both.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
Adam were is all the biological material from Nicholas 3 contact head shots?
-
Why was Sheila's blood not in the rifle barrel?
The last shot was under Sheila's chin and through her mouth. So any blood from the previous lower gunshot to her neck would have been blown out by the last gun shot.
-
Just seen it's over 46 minutes.
Do you believe she committed serious perjury because they split up?
In the aftermath of the killings. This is what I think happened.
[1] The relatives had a very limited understanding of Sheila's illness, which impacted upon their ability to accept Sheila was responsible. This lack of acceptance (born partly from ignorance) contributed to Jeremy being suspected as involved in the killings.
[2] Some of Jeremy's flippant remarks, mannerisms or actions raised eyebrows among some observers, (ostensibly the relatives).
[2] The relatives needed Jeremy to be responsible for the killings (because of material and financial concerns) .
[4] Therefore, the relatives became unable to view Jeremy's actions and words other than through a prism (whereby he was responsible for the killings).
[5] A few coppers were not that keen on Jeremy and became inclined to align their respect with the relatives.
[6] Once the relatives had secured the willing cooperation of certain police officers, a plan was hatched to effectively blacken Jeremy's name.
[7] Julie Mugford became pivotal in this (possibly she was seen as the weakest link in getting to Jeremy).
[8] Jeremy was briefed against by the relatives and the collusive police officers. Some of this 'black propaganda' may have reached or been directed at Julie.
[9] Julie's split with Jeremy provided her with a reason to turn against him - it also provided the police with an opportunity to isolate her for the purpose of cranking up the propaganda and railroading her towards providing testimony against Jeremy.
[10] Julie had then reached the point of no return and was locked in to the relatives / police version of events forever.
-
No.
Then he said paint. If not blood, then paint.
-
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
Adam were is all the biological material from Nicholas 3 contact head shots?
If you can show him where forensics tested for calcium-phosphorous particles at Huntingdon and where Jeremy shot a pig at White House Farm he'll tell you.
-
If you can show him where forensics tested for calcium-phosphorous particles at Huntingdon and where Jeremy shot a pig at White House Farm he'll tell you.
Bone splatter from a rifle used for shooting rabbits. Lol. It was barely powerful to produce blood splatter from Sheila's neck.
Next someone will be suggesting the back splatter could have travelled through the silencer to the gun barrel. Wait there.
-
I don’t know what an industrial frame department is. The conspiracy to convict Jeremy would have consisted of a few people, with Ainsley masterminding the plot. Many others who provided evidence may not have realized that they were contributing to the framing of Jeremy.
A combination of the relatives, primarily RWB, with the implicit approval of Ainsley.
In my opinion Sheila killed the twins, then June and finally Nevill but I don’t suppose that will ever be known for certain.
All it needed was for PC West to confirm he received a telephone call from Nevill and Jeremy is innocent.
-
In the aftermath of the killings. This is what I think happened.
[1] The relatives had a very limited understanding of Sheila's illness, which impacted upon their ability to accept Sheila was responsible. This lack of acceptance (born partly from ignorance) contributed to Jeremy being suspected as involved in the killings.
[2] Some of Jeremy's flippant remarks, mannerisms or actions raised eyebrows among some observers, (ostensibly the relatives).
[2] The relatives needed Jeremy to be responsible for the killings (because of material and financial concerns) .
[4] Therefore, the relatives became unable to view Jeremy's actions and words other than through a prism (whereby he was responsible for the killings).
[5] A few coppers were not that keen on Jeremy and became inclined to align their respect with the relatives.
[6] Once the relatives had secured the willing cooperation of certain police officers, a plan was hatched to effectively blacken Jeremy's name.
[7] Julie Mugford became pivotal in this (possibly she was seen as the weakest link in getting to Jeremy).
[8] Jeremy was briefed against by the relatives and the collusive police officers. Some of this 'black propaganda' may have reached or been directed at Julie.
[9] Julie's split with Jeremy provided her with a reason to turn against him - it also provided the police with an opportunity to isolate her for the purpose of cranking up the propaganda and railroading her towards providing testimony against Jeremy.
[10] Julie had then reached the point of no return and was locked in to the relatives / police version of events forever.
Wow that is a lot of people ganging up on Jeremy and committing perjury.
-
Wow that is a lot of people ganging up on Jeremy and committing perjury.
For some reason, I think ACC Simpson told Ainsley to fully cooperate with Robert Boutflour. It's as if Simpson was scared of him.
-
Wow that is a lot of people ganging up on Jeremy and committing perjury.
Get real Adam
Guildford Four police 'acted criminally', lawyers claim
06 October 2017
Lawyers have claimed
recently released documents
concerning the 1974 Guildford IRA pub bombing expose "criminality" by police and prosecutors.
The Guildford Four were wrongfully convicted over the bombings in one of the UK's worst miscarriages of justice.
KRW Law said newly-released archive material contained "evidence of perverting the course of justice" and demanded a new inquiry be launched.
The Attorney General said it had not yet received the application.
Surrey Police said they were aware of the letter and were awaiting any decisions by the Attorney General.
Soldiers Ann Hamilton, 19, Caroline Slater, 18, William Forsyth, 18, and John Hunter, 17, died in the blast at the Horse & Groom on 5 October 1974, along with plasterer Paul Craig, 21.
In a letter to Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, the law firm urges him to launch a fresh probe into the actions of police and lawyers at the time.
It said its application was being made on the basis of material accessed at the National Archives by the BBC last year .
"On the basis of this material we submit that your offices can review the case in its entirety with a view to directing a fresh criminal inquiry," the firm wrote.
-
The rifle isn't powerful enough for back splatter to travel several inches tjrough a silencer. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.
That doesn't tell us why blood would not be found several inches through the silencer and also in the rifle barrel. Back spatter (note: spatter not splatter) is not the only factor in blood distribution.
-
Get real Adam
Guildford Four police 'acted criminally', lawyers claim
06 October 2017
Lawyers have claimed
recently released documents
concerning the 1974 Guildford IRA pub bombing expose "criminality" by police and prosecutors.
The Guildford Four were wrongfully convicted over the bombings in one of the UK's worst miscarriages of justice.
KRW Law said newly-released archive material contained "evidence of perverting the course of justice" and demanded a new inquiry be launched.
The Attorney General said it had not yet received the application.
Surrey Police said they were aware of the letter and were awaiting any decisions by the Attorney General.
Soldiers Ann Hamilton, 19, Caroline Slater, 18, William Forsyth, 18, and John Hunter, 17, died in the blast at the Horse & Groom on 5 October 1974, along with plasterer Paul Craig, 21.
In a letter to Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, the law firm urges him to launch a fresh probe into the actions of police and lawyers at the time.
It said its application was being made on the basis of material accessed at the National Archives by the BBC last year .
"On the basis of this material we submit that your offices can review the case in its entirety with a view to directing a fresh criminal inquiry," the firm wrote.
Nothing to do with the Bamber case.
-
That doesn't tell us why blood would not be found several inches through the silencer and also in the rifle barrel. Back spatter (note: spatter not splatter) is not the only factor in blood distribution.
Blood was found several baffles down the silencer.
It was never going to go through the silencer onto the rifle barrel. No one has suggested it would since 1986. Even David & Mike.
-
Blood was found several baffles down the silencer.
It was never going to go through the silencer onto the rifle barrel. No one has suggested it would since 1986. Even David & Mike.
At what point do you think Jeremy unscrewed the silencer from the rifle?
-
Nothing to do with the Bamber case.
You know exactly my point regarding police acting criminally
-
In the aftermath of the killings. This is what I think happened.
[1] The relatives had a very limited understanding of Sheila's illness, which impacted upon their ability to accept Sheila was responsible. This lack of acceptance (born partly from ignorance) contributed to Jeremy being suspected as involved in the killings.
[2] Some of Jeremy's flippant remarks, mannerisms or actions raised eyebrows among some observers, (ostensibly the relatives).
[2] The relatives needed Jeremy to be responsible for the killings (because of material and financial concerns) .
[4] Therefore, the relatives became unable to view Jeremy's actions and words other than through a prism (whereby he was responsible for the killings).
[5] A few coppers were not that keen on Jeremy and became inclined to align their respect with the relatives.
[6] Once the relatives had secured the willing cooperation of certain police officers, a plan was hatched to effectively blacken Jeremy's name.
[7] Julie Mugford became pivotal in this (possibly she was seen as the weakest link in getting to Jeremy).
[8] Jeremy was briefed against by the relatives and the collusive police officers. Some of this 'black propaganda' may have reached or been directed at Julie.
[9] Julie's split with Jeremy provided her with a reason to turn against him - it also provided the police with an opportunity to isolate her for the purpose of cranking up the propaganda and railroading her towards providing testimony against Jeremy.
[10] Julie had then reached the point of no return and was locked in to the relatives / police version of events forever.
If Jeremy is innocent, this is as good an explanation as any.
-
At what point do you think Jeremy unscrewed the silencer from the rifle?
After he shot Sheila.
Either pre planned as he already knew about her arm and rifle lenght. Or he realised at the time.
-
If Jeremy is innocent, this is as good an explanation as any.
Seems that David is on his own. Saying the relatives fabricated the silencer and the police were not involved in the frame.
Although I agree with him that a non corrupt police would not try to get Julie to create a false WS.
-
If Jeremy is innocent, this is as good an explanation as any.
As there is no real evidence Jeremy hated his family I find it difficult to believe the relatives ever really believed Jeremy killed his entire family. It is also becoming clear that many statements regarding Jeremys character have been hidden under PII
Going by what we are reading and listening to what is even more dispicable is when the relatives petitioned there MP to have Jeremy put back to a category A prisoner to make his life as unbearable as possible
The hatred and jealousy of Jeremy was real. They 100% did not know Jeremy was guilty that is a fact
-
As there is no real evidence Jeremy hated his family I find it difficult to believe the relatives ever really believed Jeremy killed his entire family. It is also becoming clear that many statements regarding Jeremys character have been hidden under PII
Going by what we are reading and listening to what is even more dispicable is when the relatives petitioned there MP to have Jeremy put back to a category A prisoner to make his life as unbearable as possible
The hatred and jealousy of Jeremy was real. They 100% did not know Jeremy was guilty that is a fact
He stole from them.
-
After he shot Sheila.
Either pre planned as he already knew about her arm and rifle lenght. Or he realised at the time.
Therefore you accept that the silencer, with fresh blood in it, was attached to the rifle throughout the assault on the family?
-
Adam, something that we'll get to know in due course is the person who was responsible for the blood on one silencer and also the person who scraped the Aga with the second silencer. You'll just have to be patient. It will be revealed in the forthcoming appeal.
-
Therefore you accept that the silencer, with fresh blood in it, was attached to the rifle throughout the assault on the family?
Yes. Makes sense when attempting a 2am massacre.
-
Yes. Makes sense when attempting a 2am massacre.
To me, that raises the question of why there wasn't blood in the rifle. It may not raise that question for you, but it's again a matter for forensic science. I know next-to-nothing about blood distribution and tension dynamics and so forth.
-
Adam, something that we'll get to know in due course is the person who was responsible for the blood on one silencer and also the person who scraped the Aga with the second silencer. You'll just have to be patient. It will be revealed in the forthcoming appeal.
:)
-
In the aftermath of the killings. This is what I think happened.
[1] The relatives had a very limited understanding of Sheila's illness, which impacted upon their ability to accept Sheila was responsible. This lack of acceptance (born partly from ignorance) contributed to Jeremy being suspected as involved in the killings.
[2] Some of Jeremy's flippant remarks, mannerisms or actions raised eyebrows among some observers, (ostensibly the relatives).
[2] The relatives needed Jeremy to be responsible for the killings (because of material and financial concerns) .
[4] Therefore, the relatives became unable to view Jeremy's actions and words other than through a prism (whereby he was responsible for the killings).
[5] A few coppers were not that keen on Jeremy and became inclined to align their respect with the relatives.
[6] Once the relatives had secured the willing cooperation of certain police officers, a plan was hatched to effectively blacken Jeremy's name.
[7] Julie Mugford became pivotal in this (possibly she was seen as the weakest link in getting to Jeremy).
[8] Jeremy was briefed against by the relatives and the collusive police officers. Some of this 'black propaganda' may have reached or been directed at Julie.
[9] Julie's split with Jeremy provided her with a reason to turn against him - it also provided the police with an opportunity to isolate her for the purpose of cranking up the propaganda and railroading her towards providing testimony against Jeremy.
[10] Julie had then reached the point of no return and was locked in to the relatives / police version of events forever.
Roch Could you explain what you mean by point 6. ????? What plan are you referring to?
-
Roch Could you explain what you mean by point 6. ????? What plan are you referring to?
Ainsley and Stan Jones were comfortable with portraying Jeremy in a bad light, regardless of accuracy. The relatives were comfortable in going along with that.
-
Ainsley and Stan Jones were comfortable with portraying Jeremy in a bad light, regardless of accuracy. The relatives were comfortable in going along with that.
What policeman got the experts to create false evidence. Or was it a team effort?
-
Ainsley and Stan Jones were comfortable with portraying Jeremy in a bad light, regardless of accuracy. The relatives were comfortable in going along with that.
I wanted to know if you believe the relatives were guilty of criminality in there pursuit to make it look like Jeremy was responsible for the murders?
Robert Boutflour wasn’t the only person in the family who had access to the silencer that led to Jeremys conviction
-
I wanted to know if you believe the relatives were guilty of criminality in there pursuit to make it look like Jeremy was responsible for the murders?
Robert Boutflour wasn’t the only person in the family who had access to the silencer that led to Jeremys conviction
Do you believe the relatives or police fabricated the silencer.
Either way it would have to be a joint effort. The police would have asked the relatives to create false WS's. Or the relatives getting a lot of essential information from the police.
-
Seems that David is on his own. Saying the relatives fabricated the silencer and the police were not involved in the frame.
No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.
-
No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.
Really? NGB, please elaborate.
-
No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.
Sound moderator aside, If Sheila committed the killings, there would have been a tonne of evidence to suggest she did. There had to be, because she was / would have been responsible, therefore her involvement would have been plain to see / detect / record / discuss etc. Do you honestly believe Sheila killed four individuals without leaving a trace of her own involvement? No clue, no pointers, nothing?
How is it possible for a new case head, to then oversee the prosecutuon of Bamber from the ground up, without having any fore-knowledge of or access to the above data / evidence? It is not possible.
It is therefore not possible for Ainsley to have NOT been involved in deliberate wrongdoing.
-
No I am not. Scott Lomax and NGB believe this also.
He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.
-
Sound moderator aside, If Sheila committed the killings, there would have been a tonne of evidence to suggest she did. There had to be, because she was / would have been responsible, therefore her involvement would have been plain to see / detect / record / discuss etc. Do you honestly believe Sheila killed four individuals without leaving a trace of her own involvement? No clue, no pointers, nothing?
How is it possible for a new case head, to then oversee the prosecutuon of Bamber from the ground up, without having any fore-knowledge of or access to the above data / evidence? It is not possible.
It is therefore not possible for Ainsley to have NOT been involved in deliberate wrongdoing.
I don't believe that logically follows. This whole case is basically about how different people interpret the same evidence.
-
Ainsley and Stan Jones were comfortable with portraying Jeremy in a bad light, regardless of accuracy. The relatives were comfortable in going along with that.
Well he had the baggage to go with it! My only regret this thief, druggy, greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?
It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family! It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!
-
Well he had the baggage to go with it! My only regret this thief, druggy, greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?
It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family! It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!
In your opinion that counts for what exactly???
Let’s deal with the elephant in the room
You obviously appear to know what is in the 340,000 withheld documents which have clearly been withhold to distort the facts in the case or can you come up with any possible excuse
What has come across clearly numerous times on this forum was that the relatives were obsessed by the thought of Jeremy getting his inheritance and they are seen as money grabbing and greedy
RJ is this conviction is overturned there will be a focus on ‘the silencer’ and who found it in every film and tv series
-
I don't believe that logically follows. This whole case is basically about how different people interpret the same evidence.
The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?
-
The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?
Exactly
-
He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.
What mistake? They found a silencer and handed it in.
-
He must have changed his position, because in his book (circa 2004) he says the relatives just made a mistake.
Scott Lomax worded his book cautiously. So much so that he drew some ire from one or two of the more hardcore supporters hovering around the CT.
-
Well he had the baggage to go with it! My only regret this thief, druggy, greedy Bamber should have been shopped earlier, maybe just maybe he wouldn’t have killed his family?
It was the perfect receipt for the path he was taking, a thief that thought he could get away with it, a druggy that wanted more, a greedy spoilt son with access to firearms and a hatred of his family! It’s the same triangle, Oxygen, fuel and heat then Fire!
He may have had some baggage. Without it, I'm not sure he would have been framed. In other words, I think his baggage became a contributing factor.
I'm in the camp that believes his conviction was brought about by the suppression of evidence implicating his sister. For me, that suppression renders his conviction worthless.
-
Scott Lomax worded his book cautiously. So much so that he drew some ire from one or two of the more hardcore supporters hovering around the CT.
I agree that the book comes across as him having one eye on defamation law. Even so, I can only go on what he says.
The filtered down evidence available to you, or the full evidence that was available to Ainsley?
But you don't know what, if any, other evidence was available to Ainsley. I'm sure he did see things that nobody outside the police (and others closely-connected to the incident) saw, but it's just an assumption to say that it is of any relevance.
-
What mistake? They found a silencer and handed it in.
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
-
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Answer the question if you have an answer.
Thanks QC.
-
Answer the question if you have an answer.
Thanks QC.
There is absolutely not a single thing in Jeremys ‘baggage’ that makes it likely that he would murder his whole family and defiantly not anything regarding violence. The price for that goes to Julie. Who puts pillows over there boyfriends face to smother them when dumped. ???
-
There is absolutely not a single thing in Jeremys ‘baggage’ that makes it likely that he would murder his whole family and defiantly not anything regarding violence. The price for that goes to Julie. Who puts pillows over there boyfriends face to smother them when dumped. ???
Well he stole from his gran and parents.
My question was to QC. Hopefully he will answer.
-
Well he stole from his gran and parents.
My question was to QC. Hopefully he will answer.
Sorry, I assumed the question was rhetorical and/or facetious. It should be obvious what the alleged 'mistake' was, but to clarify: in his book, Lomas is claiming that the relatives got carried away with their grief and read the worst into Jeremy's intentions - quite similar to the scenario that Roch outlines above.
-
Sorry, I assumed the question was rhetorical and/or facetious. It should be obvious what the alleged 'mistake' was, but to clarify: in his book, Lomas is claiming that the relatives got carried away with their grief and read the worst into Jeremy's intentions - quite similar to the scenario that Roch outlines above.
It sounded like Lomax was saying the relatives made a mistake they were unaware of.
-
There is absolutely not a single thing in Jeremys ‘baggage’ that makes it likely that he would murder his whole family and defiantly not anything regarding violence. The price for that goes to Julie. Who puts pillows over there boyfriends face to smother them when dumped. ???
Yes, this is a better way of putting it across.
You can't say that Jeremy was a man of good character as he had admitted to the police that he stole from the caravan park. That's a dead end. You're just digging a hole for yourself, though I appreciate that may not be the point you were trying to get across and others have distorted your meaning.
What you can say is that Jeremy's prior behaviour gave no serious indication that he had murderous intent towards his parents, Sheila and the children. The theft shows dishonesty and it was staged in the sense that it was made to look like a break-in, but that's nowhere near in the order of seriousness to mass murder, including killing two small boys. What could change my mind about that is if it can be shown that Jeremy was about to be confronted about the theft by his parents.
His remarks to Robert Boutflour and Julie Mugford, even if those conversations happened, can be dismissed as flippancy or jocularity that was taken out of context, and/or exaggerations of what Jeremy said. In support of this, we can note that the remarks were reported to third parties after the fact by only two witnesses, both of whom had a motive to incriminate Jeremy.
There is the alleged incident where Jeremy was trying to show Sheila how to use the rifle and a claim of a conversation about this between Robert Boutflour and Jean Bamber, but again this rests on one vested person reporting the incident after the fact. That's not to say Robert Boutflour was lying, but it is to say that he may have been inclined to put a slant on things. Sheila is supposed to have fired a shotgun on a shooting trip to Scotland. And why shouldn't Jeremy show his sister how to use the rifle? Put your own slant on it and decide.
The Bloke In The Pub, who reported a remark Jeremy made to him about hating his parents, can't be taken seriously. I'm surprised the court even bothered with that witness, but I can also see why Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., may have decided not to object for the defence under the "he doth protest too much" principle. Even if Jeremy did say he hated his parents and meant it at that time, lots of young people hate their parents, and may tell a friend as much, and may or may not mean it when they say it. It doesn't imply anything sinister or criminal.
Pro-guilters say that these incidents point to a pattern of behaviour. The remarks to Boutflour and The Bloke In The Pub can't be seen as part of a pattern. Possibly the behaviour with Julie could be seen as a pattern. In a sense, I regard Julie Mugford's evidence as bad character evidence rather than directly probative. None of it proves Jeremy actually killed anybody or conspired to do so, and her account of what occurred turned out to be wrong as the person she incriminated had an alibi. If the entire Crown case had rested on believing Julie, then Jeremy would have walked free. Even if you believe Jeremy literally said these things, it also rests on believing that her interpretation of what she heard is fair and accurate. Yet there is some value in her evidence, in what it says of Jeremy's character and mindset. I think Jeremy did have those conversations with Julie, but it is possible Julie has decontextualised the conversations and/or exaggerated them, leaving Jeremy and his legal team with no option but to refute them.
-
It sounded like Lomax was saying the relatives made a mistake they were unaware of.
Exactly right. That, in summary, is what Lomax says in the book.
-
Yes, this is a better way of putting it across.
You can't say that Jeremy was a man of good character as he had admitted to the police that he stole from the caravan park. That's a dead end. You're just digging a hole for yourself, though I appreciate that may not be the point you were trying to get across and others have distorted your meaning.
What you can say is that Jeremy's prior behaviour gave no serious indication that he had murderous intent towards his parents, Sheila and the children. The theft shows dishonesty and it was staged in the sense that it was made to look like a break-in, but that's nowhere near in the order of seriousness to mass murder, including killing two small boys. What could change my mind about that is if it can be shown that Jeremy was about to be confronted about the theft by his parents.
His remarks to Robert Boutflour and Julie Mugford, even if those conversations happened, can be dismissed as flippancy or jocularity that was taken out of context, and/or exaggerations of what Jeremy said. In support of this, we can note that the remarks were reported to third parties after the fact by only two witnesses, both of whom had a motive to incriminate Jeremy.
There is the alleged incident where Jeremy was trying to show Sheila how to use the rifle and a claim of a conversation about this between Robert Boutflour and Jean Bamber, but again this rests on one vested person reporting the incident after the fact. That's not to say Robert Boutflour was lying, but it is to say that he may have been inclined to put a slant on things. Sheila is supposed to have fired a shotgun on a shooting trip to Scotland. And why shouldn't Jeremy show his sister how to use the rifle? Put your own slant on it and decide.
The Bloke In The Pub, who reported a remark Jeremy made to him about hating his parents, can't be taken seriously. I'm surprised the court even bothered with that witness, but I can also see why Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., may have decided not to object for the defence under the "he doth protest too much" principle. Even if Jeremy did say he hated his parents and meant it at that time, lots of young people hate their parents, and may tell a friend as much, and may or may not mean it when they say it. It doesn't imply anything sinister or criminal.
Pro-guilters say that these incidents point to a pattern of behaviour. The remarks to Boutflour and The Bloke In The Pub can't be seen as part of a pattern. Possibly the behaviour with Julie could be seen as a pattern. In a sense, I regard Julie Mugford's evidence as bad character evidence rather than directly probative. None of it proves Jeremy actually killed anybody or conspired to do so, and her account of what occurred turned out to be wrong as the person she incriminated had an alibi. If the entire Crown case had rested on believing Julie, then Jeremy would have walked free. Even if you believe Jeremy literally said these things, it also rests on believing that her interpretation of what she heard is fair and accurate. Yet there is some value in her evidence, in what it says of Jeremy's character and mindset. I think Jeremy did have those conversations with Julie, but it is possible Julie has decontextualised the conversations and/or exaggerated them, leaving Jeremy and his legal team with no option but to refute them.
Correct QC, it’s very hard for a defence to defend bad character in a court, I think NGB would agree, it opens up a whole new can of worms and lets the prosecution exploit it more. The only way of defending it is deal with it like you said. Like I said, “he admitted in court about the caravan park money theft, he admitted he did this for greed, he was into drugs and I know this doesn’t make anyone a murderer, but it’s sowing the seeds in the jury’s head’s and of course any prosecution would welcome this ammunition to use, The defence would have tried to get bad character omitted as evidence for this reason.
-
Correct QC, it’s very hard for a defence to defend bad character in a court, I think NGB would agree, it opens up a whole new can of worms and lets the prosecution exploit it more. The only way of defending it is deal with it like you said. Like I said, “he admitted in court about the caravan park money theft, he admitted he did this for greed, he was into drugs and I know this doesn’t make anyone a murderer, but it’s sowing the seeds in the jury’s head’s and of course any prosecution would welcome this ammunition to use, The defence would have tried to get bad character omitted as evidence for this reason.
It sows the seeds of doubt. Espescially as there was only one alive suspect.
-
It sows the seeds of doubt. Espescially as there was only one alive suspect.
Possibly yes. His behaviour, flippant, criminal or otherwise; and the fact he survived, could have been weighed against the killings for consideration. Though I think it's a tad unfair regarding using his survival against him: as he lived in his own cottage elsewhere, there was no reason for him to be routinely present in the farmhouse during the early hours anyway.
None of this however, excuses any suppression of evidence implicating Sheila. It doesn't matter how many places he robbed or how many people he upset, if evidence of Sheila's involvement was erased or withheld.
-
Possibly yes. His behaviour, flippant, criminal or otherwise; and the fact he survived, could have been weighed against the killings for consideration. Though I think it's a tad unfair regarding using his survival against him: as he lived in his own cottage elsewhere, there was no reason for him to be routinely present in the farmhouse during the early hours anyway.
None of this however, excuses any suppression of evidence implicating Sheila. It doesn't matter how many places he robbed or how many people he upset, if evidence of Sheila's involvement was erased or withheld.
It would be common sense practice for the police to dispose of all evidence implicating Sheila. Espescially if they created a mountain of evidence implicating Bamber.
So be surprised if the CCRC submission has any newly discovered documents implimenting Sheila.
-
Correct QC, it’s very hard for a defence to defend bad character in a court, I think NGB would agree, it opens up a whole new can of worms and lets the prosecution exploit it more. The only way of defending it is deal with it like you said. Like I said, “he admitted in court about the caravan park money theft, he admitted he did this for greed, he was into drugs and I know this doesn’t make anyone a murderer, but it’s sowing the seeds in the jury’s head’s and of course any prosecution would welcome this ammunition to use, The defence would have tried to get bad character omitted as evidence for this reason.
Different types of bad character evidence were used against Jeremy. Some went to his credibility as a witness of truth, some of it was more about highlighting patterns of behaviour or prior offending that could imply that he was more likely to be guilty.
In regard to the theft at the caravan park, this seems to fall into both categories. It shows recent criminal dishonesty, and it shows sufficient criminal acumen to stage an inside theft as a burglary. Indeed, he was cross-examined about it at trial.
From the 2002 appeal judgment:
The Appellant's Evidence at Trial
137. No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
139. Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
It may be worth emphasising that from a strict textbook point-of-view, just having a prior criminal record does not necessarily lead to an inference of bad character. There is in criminal law the concept of 'effective good character', where the defence argues for exclusion of adverse character evidence or a favourable direction from the bench on the basis that the prior criminal record is not relevant, either because the nature of the offending is different or because the offending is not recent.
In Jeremy's case, he admitted the caravan break-in, it was recent, and he could not overcome this by arguing that he had long-ago confessed to his parents, paid the money back (or was on his way to doing so), and had made other conspicuous efforts at rehabilitation. Thus, the only line of argument the defence had would have been to say that the caravan break-in should either be excluded altogether or subject to a careful direction to the jury from the judge on the basis that it involved radically different offending to murder. To be frank, I can understand why an experienced trial counsel like Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., would take the view: 'least said the better'. You are never going to polish that problem away. It is what it is.
The other problem Jeremy has is that if he has admitted to the break-in, this means that on at least one point, Julie was telling the truth - by Jeremy's own admission. Not only that, she was telling the truth to her own detriment, since she was involved as his accomplice. Yet Jeremy refutes (note: refutes, not just denies) everything else she says about him that is incriminating. Maybe, as I have speculated above, Jeremy and his legal team had no choice but to pursue a blunt, unsophisticated strategy of refutation, but why is she telling the truth about one thing and not the rest?
The flip side of that of course is that if Jeremy is guilty, why would he admit to the break-in? Why not just continue to deny it? Ironically, you could argue that his admission implies innocence of the later more serious incident, since he had nothing to gain by admitting it and did so greatly to his own detriment.
Two possibilities to consider (I don't pretend these are exhaustive):
(i). Julie was telling the truth in a literal sense, and Jeremy did say most or all of these things or things very much like it. But Jeremy was teasing/joking and she has exaggerated and taken what he said out of context. This means she has either made a very grave mistake under the influence of pressures from the family and police, or she has lied by omission. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence, and may or may not be innocent, since Julie's truthfulness can be considered separate and independent of the fact of what actually occurred at the farmhouse that night.
OR
(ii). She was in on it all along - what I call a 'constructive accomplice'. She saw the tide turning, and under the influence of the family and police, switched sides and gave evidence against Jeremy. Her earlier collusion with Jeremy has been concealed - hence the non-disclosure controversy. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence because he knows that, although he is guilty, Julie cannot confirm this without also confirming her deeper involvement. Instead, Julie has presented a story in which she is only semi-involved as Jeremy's confidant after-the-fact and also able to contextualise as incriminating conversations that took place with Jeremy before-the-fact.
-
It would be common sense practice for the police to dispose of all evidence implicating Sheila. Espescially if they created a mountain of evidence implicating Bamber.
So be surprised if the CCRC submission has any newly discovered documents implimenting Sheila.
Would it really? Common sense you say?
-
It would be common sense practice for the police to dispose of all evidence implicating Sheila. Espescially if they created a mountain of evidence implicating Bamber.
So be surprised if the CCRC submission has any newly discovered documents implimenting Sheila.
I can see where you're coming from. Anything dynamite would have been destroyed under Ainsley. All we are left with, is some trace evidence that the dynamite once existed.
-
Different types of bad character evidence were used against Jeremy. Some went to his credibility as a witness of truth, some of it was more about highlighting patterns of behaviour or prior offending that could imply that he was more likely to be guilty.
In regard to the theft at the caravan park, this seems to fall into both categories. It shows recent criminal dishonesty, and it shows sufficient criminal acumen to stage an inside theft as a burglary. Indeed, he was cross-examined about it at trial.
From the 2002 appeal judgment:
It may be worth emphasising that from a strict textbook point-of-view, just having a prior criminal record does not necessarily lead to an inference of bad character. There is in criminal law the concept of 'effective good character', where the defence argues for exclusion of adverse character evidence or a favourable direction from the bench on the basis that the prior criminal record is not relevant, either because the nature of the offending is different or because the offending is not recent.
In Jeremy's case, he admitted the caravan break-in, it was recent, and he could not overcome this by arguing that he had long-ago confessed to his parents, paid the money back (or was on his way to doing so), and had made other conspicuous efforts at rehabilitation. Thus, the only line of argument the defence had would have been to say that the caravan break-in should either be excluded altogether or subject to a careful direction to the jury from the judge on the basis that it involved radically different offending to murder. To be frank, I can understand why an experienced trial counsel like Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., would take the view: 'least said the better'. You are never going to polish that problem away. It is what it is.
The other problem Jeremy has is that if he has admitted to the break-in, this means that on at least one point, Julie was telling the truth - by Jeremy's own admission. Not only that, she was telling the truth to her own detriment, since she was involved as his accomplice. Yet Jeremy refutes (note: refutes, not just denies) everything else she says about him that is incriminating. Maybe, as I have speculated above, Jeremy and his legal team had no choice but to pursue a blunt, unsophisticated strategy of refutation, but why is she telling the truth about one thing and not the rest?
The flip side of that of course is that if Jeremy is guilty, why would he admit to the break-in? Why not just continue to deny it? Ironically, you could argue that his admission implies innocence of the later more serious incident, since he had nothing to gain by admitting it and did so greatly to his own detriment.
Two possibilities to consider (I don't pretend these are exhaustive):
(i). Julie was telling the truth in a literal sense, and Jeremy did say most or all of these things or things very much like it. But Jeremy was teasing/joking and she has exaggerated and taken what he said out of context. This means she has either made a very grave mistake under the influence of pressures from the family and police, or she has lied by omission. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence, and may or may not be innocent, since Julie's truthfulness can be considered separate and independent of the fact of what actually occurred at the farmhouse that night.
OR
(ii). She was in on it all along - what I call a 'constructive accomplice'. She saw the tide turning, and under the influence of the family and police, switched sides and gave evidence against Jeremy. Her earlier collusion with Jeremy has been concealed - hence the non-disclosure controversy. Jeremy continues to protest his innocence because he knows that, although he is guilty, Julie cannot confirm this without also confirming her deeper involvement. Instead, Julie has presented a story in which she is only semi-involved as Jeremy's confidant after-the-fact and also able to contextualise as incriminating conversations that took place with Jeremy before-the-fact.
Bamber didn't pay the money back or was in the process of doing so.
-
Bamber didn't pay the money back or was in the process of doing so.
Didn't Neville pay it back and Bamber was supposedly going to pay Neville? Not quite sure now.
-
It sows the seeds of doubt. Espescially as there was only one alive suspect.
Do you mean also one living family member who was going to inherit everything?
-
Bamber didn't pay the money back or was in the process of doing so.
I know. That's the whole point I'm making.
-
Didn't Neville pay it back and Bamber was supposedly going to pay Neville? Not quite sure now.
What's your source for this? This is important.
-
What's your source for this? This is important.
It just stuck in my head QC but I can’t for the life of me think where? I will have a look later see if I can find anything? I’m pretty certain Neville paid it back to save face?
-
I know. That's the whole point I'm making.
Rephase.
He didn't pay the money back.
He wasn't in the process of paying the money back.
-
Rephase.
He didn't pay the money back.
He wasn't in the process of paying the money back.
Yes, I know. That's exactly what I mean. The point is that, as far as I can see, there was no realistic basis for him to ask the judge to make an 'effective good character' direction to the jury.
Maybe the defence could have argued for excluding mention of the theft altogether, as it wasn't strictly relevant to establishing whether Jeremy actually committed the murders, but I think Rivlin, Q.C., would have been on stony ground with that sort of argument.
-
Yes, I know. That's exactly what I mean. The point is that, as far as I can see, there was no realistic basis for him to ask the judge to make an 'effective good character' direction to the jury.
Maybe the defence could have argued for excluding mention of the theft altogether, as it wasn't strictly relevant to establishing whether Jeremy actually committed the murders, but I think Rivlin, Q.C., would have been on stony ground with that sort of argument.
The judge in his summing up said both Jeremy & Julie had committed crimes in the past. But that does not mean either lied at trial.
The judge also said Julie had paid the money back. Jeremy hadn't.
-
The judge in his summing up said both Jeremy & Julie had committed crimes in the past. But that does not mean either lied at trial.
The judge also said Julie had paid the money back. Jeremy hadn't.
Did Julie pay back the caravan park then?
-
Did Julie pay back the caravan park then?
Just the cheque book fraud.
-
Didn't Neville pay it back and Bamber was supposedly going to pay Neville? Not quite sure now.
No. Jeremy persuaded his father to leave the money in the safe instead of taking it to the bank.
-
No. Jeremy persuaded his father to leave the money in the safe instead of taking it to the bank.
Ok Steve, I found this from Adam in an earlier post, Barbara Wilson said the family knew about the caravan break in. Neville probably suspected and Jeremy admitted it, confident it would be kept private. This would have further strained relations within the family.
I thought I’d read somewhere that his Father paid the money back and Jeremy was supposed to repay his father?
-
Ok Steve, I found this from Adam in an earlier post, Barbara Wilson said the family knew about the caravan break in. Neville probably suspected and Jeremy admitted it, confident it would be kept private. This would have further strained relations within the family.
I thought I’d read somewhere that his Father paid the money back and Jeremy was supposed to repay his father?
Nevill may have confronted his son, but we don't know for sure. I suspect Nevill told his wife about the rumour Jeremy was responsible because she stopped writing personal cheques in her son's favour from thereon in, thus effectively signing her own death warrant.
-
Maybe Nevill & June had decided Jeremy should pay them back by making them breakfast in bed for the next 6 months. A fry up of course.
-
Maybe Nevill & June had decided Jeremy should pay them back by making them breakfast in bed for the next 6 months. A fry up of course.
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
It could be that Stan got jealous and asked Jeremy to cook him a fry up as well, and when Jeremy refused, Stan took offence and that set the ball rolling.
One for the CCRC, I think.
-
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
It could be that Stan got jealous and asked Jeremy to cook him a fry up as well, and when Jeremy refused, Stan took offence and that set the ball rolling.
One for the CCRC, I think.
Maybe Nevill and June thought Jeremy needed more focus in life. So decided he must drive June to & join her at bible classes for the next 6 months.
-
Maybe Nevill and June thought Jeremy needed more focus in life. So decided he must drive June to & join her at bible classes for the next 6 mknths.
Thanks Adam. It could be that Jeremy took a different view of a few of the Bible passages and this is why they came to blows.
-
Thanks Adam. It could be that Jeremy took a different view of a few of the Bible passages and this is why they came to blows.
Maybe Nevill banned Jeremy from sitting in the tractor. But told him he must clean it every evening.
-
Just the cheque book fraud.
Does anybody else here find that quite interesting? Julie pays back the bank - supposedly - but doesn't pay back Osea, even though she was just as involved as Jeremy in the latter. Even if she had made a token payment or tried to pay back half, that would have indicated remorse.
She then receives a pay out from a cheap, scummy newspaper, the News of the World, lies to the court about it in the process despite being a pivotal witness, and thinks it's all behind her and she doesn't have to compensate Osea.
The difference between the two incidents is that in the theft she paid back, she was acting with Susan Battersby, whereas in the Osea theft, she acted with Jeremy. In both incidents, she was fully culpable, stole out of greed entirely and not for any needful reason, enjoyed the proceeds of her misdeeds, and had no mitigation or excuse whatsoever. But only one is paid back. Why?
-
Maybe Nevill banned Jeremy from sitting in the tractor. But told him he must clean it every evening.
We know Jeremy liked dressing up as a glam rocker on his tractor. Stan may have taken offence. I think Mike may have information. Another one for the appeal file. Thanks Adam.
-
We know Jeremy liked dressing up as a glam rocker on his tractor. Stan may have taken offence. I think Mike may have information. Another one for the appeal file. Thanks Adam.
So that's how David got his forensic evidence breakthrough.
-
Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.
-
Does anybody else here find that quite interesting? Julie pays back the bank - supposedly - but doesn't pay back Osea, even though she was just as involved as Jeremy in the latter. Even if she had made a token payment or tried to pay back half, that would have indicated remorse.
She then receives a pay out from a cheap, scummy newspaper, the News of the World, lies to the court about it in the process despite being a pivotal witness, and thinks it's all behind her and she doesn't have to compensate Osea.
The difference between the two incidents is that in the theft she paid back, she was acting with Susan Battersby, whereas in the Osea theft, she acted with Jeremy. In both incidents, she was fully culpable, stole out of greed entirely and not for any needful reason, enjoyed the proceeds of her misdeeds, and had no mitigation or excuse whatsoever. But only one is paid back. Why?
She was as bad as him and should have faced justice. There is no coercive control whatsoever from Bamber with Julie, everything she did or knew was her own doing or knowledge.
-
Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.
Why Bevan Hurley is from New Zealand and writes for the NZ Sunday News, do you think he’s now part of the orchestrated frame up? Anyone who ever says anything negative about Bamber is automatically put into this bracket.
-
Why Bevan Hurley is from New Zealand and writes for the NZ Sunday News, do you think he’s now part of the orchestrated frame up? Anyone who ever says anything negative about Bamber is automatically put into this bracket.
Hardly a balanced article. It has appeared in the wake of the drama. Why would he suddenly just appear and do that interview. Let's see how much he got paid snd by who?
-
Didn't he also bottle one of his TV interviews over here?
-
She was as bad as him and should have faced justice. There is no coercive control whatsoever from Bamber with Julie, everything she did or knew was her own doing or knowledge.
Whether you take the view that Jeremy is guilty or innocent, or like me, you're neutral, the whole case requires a complete re-think. If Jeremy is guilty, I simply do not accept that Julie was an innocent party. It's not credible. If Jeremy is innocent, then Julie has some serious questions to answer and an extradition lawyer in Winnipeg will be getting some new instructions.
Would you agree with me that her 2002 witness statement is really quite reprehensible?
Would you also agree that it is clear that the visit to the bank and paying the money back was a set-up by the police and the 2002 evidence from the bank manager cannot be believed? He claimed it was a spontaneous gesture from the two young women. Frankly I am insulted that anybody would think I'd buy that story. It is clear even from the bank manager's own evidence that it can't be true. It was obviously staged, and I think I have previously remarked sardonically to NG1066 that the appeal judges must have been asleep when they heard that evidence.
Would you also agree that, in view of the staged scenario at the bank, it is suspicious that Julie pays back the money she stole from the bank but not the money she helped steal from Osea? To spell it out, to my mind it lends itself to the view that Julie was a groomed witness more than a spontaneous witness of truth. I could speculatively go further and, as I have suggested on here in the past, propose that Julie's entire evidence is a concoction, with collusion from the police, to conceal her own involvement in order to convict Jeremy, and thus the trial was a sham.
-
Hardly a balanced article. It has appeared in the wake of the drama. Why would he suddenly just appear and do that interview. Let's see how much he got paid snd by who?
Supposing Jeremy is guilty, would you agree with me that it is quite likely that Brett was mixed up in it all, and may even have been the genius behind the escapade, if genius is the right word? How can we be sure he really was physically in Greece?
I remember in those days I had a temporary passport made of cardboard from the Post Office with my photo glued on it by the nice subpostmaster who always used to practice German with me. Greece was a member of the EEC back then. Border controls and paperwork were lax-to-nonexistent. He could have travelled around undetected quite easily.
In any event, and whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty, I certainly take the view that Brett morally corrupted Jeremy from their acquaintance in New Zealand onwards.
By the way, just for Adam's benefit: Brett was present during the legal proceedings, though I'm not sure if it was just earlier hearings or the trial itself, or both. There are photos of him with Anji Greaves strolling out of one of the courts, either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court (not sure which). I could look it up and find out, but frankly can't be bothered at the moment.
What I can also say is that after the trial and the guilty verdict, Brett disappeared and went off the radar.
-
Supposing Jeremy is guilty, would you agree with me that it is quite likely that Brett was mixed up in it all, and may even have been the genius behind the escapade, if genius is the right word? How can we be sure he really was physically in Greece?
I remember in those days I had a temporary passport made of cardboard from the Post Office with my photo glued on it by the nice subpostmaster who always used to practice German with me. Greece was a member of the EEC back then. Border controls and paperwork were lax-to-nonexistent. He could have travelled around undetected quite easily.
In any event, and whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty, I certainly take the view that Brett morally corrupted Jeremy from their acquaintance in New Zealand onwards.
By the way, just for Adam's benefit: Brett was present during the legal proceedings, though I'm not sure if it was just earlier hearings or the trial itself, or both. There are photos of him with Anji Greaves strolling out of one of the courts, either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court (not sure which). I could look it up and find out, but frankly can't be bothered at the moment.
What I can also say is that after the trial and the guilty verdict, Brett disappeared and went off the radar.
'Collins stuck by his friend during the arrest and initial court appearances. But he left London before the trial in 1986, when a majority 10-2 verdict found Bamber guilty of five counts of murder.'
-
Bamber went to Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez. After or before the champagne funeral.
Brett & other friends being invited to the jolly ups.
WHF being cleared out of it's valuble possessions during this time & Bamber setting up a base at Sheila's flat.
-
Bamber went to Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne, London, Amsterdam & St Tropez. After or before the champagne funeral.
Brett & other friends being invited to the jolly ups.
WHF being cleared out of it's valuble possessions during this time & Bamber setting up a base at Sheila's flat.
Yes, I am finding it very difficult to believe Brett was not involved. Like Julie's involvement, it's another one of those 'elephants in the room' that this case throws up. I think you would have to be pretty obtuse not to see it really.
-
Yes, I am finding it very difficult to believe Brett was not involved. Like Julie's involvement, it's another one of those 'elephants in the room' that this case throws up. I think you would have to be pretty obtuse not to see it really.
Not at all, obviously I don’t believe either Julie Mugford or Brett Collins but hopefully the new evidence wrongly withheld will give you the answers regarding Jeremys innocence or guilt.
If you have some kind of superhuman power that you can tell when the pair above are telling the truth or telling lies please share. I am excited to know
-
Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.
I just don’t get what you mean Roch, Those shoring up conviction, “when they get going they don’t mess about”? who are you actually referring to? Do you honestly think this article or drama will be used or have some sort of sway in Bambers appeal? I would say Hardly anyone debates the Bamber case, you’ve got a hand full on here and a hand full on Red. Do you honestly think that the drama was brought out to coincide with any Bamber appeal? By who, who is this body of people, you obviously believe that there is an Orchestrated effort by some sort of task force set up against Bamber? WHF drama series was broadcast worldwide by All3Media are they in on it as well as the journalist?
-
I just don’t get what you mean Roch, Those shoring up conviction, “when they get going they don’t mess about”? who are you actually referring to? Do you honestly think this article or drama will be used or have some sort of sway in Bambers appeal? I would say Hardly anyone debates the Bamber case, you’ve got a hand full on here and a hand full on Red. Do you honestly think that the drama was brought out to coincide with any Bamber appeal? By who, who is this body of people, you obviously believe that there is an Orchestrated effort by some sort of task force set up against Bamber? WHF drama series was broadcast worldwide by All3Media are they in on it as well as the journalist?
I will explain later RJ. I think you approach it wrong.
-
I just don’t get what you mean Roch, Those shoring up conviction, “when they get going they don’t mess about”? who are you actually referring to? Do you honestly think this article or drama will be used or have some sort of sway in Bambers appeal? I would say Hardly anyone debates the Bamber case, you’ve got a hand full on here and a hand full on Red. Do you honestly think that the drama was brought out to coincide with any Bamber appeal? By who, who is this body of people, you obviously believe that there is an Orchestrated effort by some sort of task force set up against Bamber? WHF drama series was broadcast worldwide by All3Media are they in on it as well as the journalist?
🛸 👽 🐑 👽 🛸
-
🛸 👽 🐑 👽 🛸
I was waiting for that response from you. Was it aliens who also set up the unscrutinised PPE deals worth millions. With respect, you don't know how this country works.
-
I was waiting for that response from you. Was it aliens who also set up the unscrutinised PPE deals worth millions. With respect, you don't know how this country works.
How do you know I'm not this countries illuminati Rothschild Cyborg ET overlord?
-
How do you know I'm not this countries illuminati Rothschild Cyborg ET overlord?
:))
-
How do you know I'm not this countries illuminati Rothschild Cyborg ET overlord?
You're not fooling us with this double-bluff, David. I've seen the Richie Hall videos. I've already exposed NGB as one of Them and I now realise that 'David' is also code and stands for Dalek Anvil of Intergalactic Destruction.
We're on to you lizards! Oh yes! I know Adam has information and he's starting a new thread: 75 Pieces Of Evidence That Prove The Lizards Are Here.
Anyway thanks David, I mean, Dalek.
-
They've hoyed up two new podcasts. The Emami statement; and Grimster's statement at trial.
-
They've hoyed up two new podcasts. The Emami statement; and Grimster's statement at trial.
..and both totally irrelevant to Jeremy's actions in the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985.
-
They've hoyed up two new podcasts. The Emami statement; and Grimster's statement at trial.
Yes, I've listened to them both Roch. Sounds as though Sheila had been in a bad way at those points, in fact worse than was made out because of the family's attitude of keeping things private. My guess is that they were going through absolute Hell with her and said nothing to anyone.
-
Bit of a hit job that. A few glaring errors to boot. If he knew all this back in the day, why would he ever have believed in JB's innocence? I think this was an orchestrated 30 pieces of silver article, to accompany the drama. You have to hand it to those tasked with shoring up the conviction. When they get going, they don't mess about.
Propaganda at it finest
Jeremy Bamber: ‘My personal opinion is very much that he’s guilty’ – author Carol Ann Lee
ITV drama about horrific Essex murders starts tonight (9pm).
It draws partly on Carol Ann Lee’s book ?????
Author Carol Ann Lee. 'For me, it was really a story that hinged on the relationship dynamics between the family members' ??????
Carol Ann Lee exchanged regular letters with multiple-killer Jeremy Bamber as she conducted the detailed research ????? required for her true-crime book.
In print, she walked a straight line - setting out to be scrupulously fair and careful not to colour readers' opinions with her own verdict ?????
Now, though, she's happy to give an unequivocal answer to the obvious question: did he shoot dead his parents, sister and his two young nephews?
"My personal opinion is very much that he's guilty." ????
Totally convinced? "Yes, I am. He's been in prison for 30 years and the evidence he was convicted on has not been overturned.
He's been appealing ever since he's been in prison and nothing has come out that has been able to overturn that conviction.
"And for me the overriding piece of evidence, if you like, was looking at the original crime scene photographs. Without going into detail, ?????
it was obvious from one of the photographs in particular, that has never been published and should never be published, ?????
that those murders were committed by somebody who was extremely adept with a gun - who knew what they were doing. ?????
Sheila" - his sister, and initially suspected of killing the others, before committing suicide - "didn't. She was also on medication for her illness, which made her very un-coordinated.
"I met her best friend, actually. I remember going to see her at her house. I sat on the sofa, and she said to me 'The last time I saw Sheila was a few days ????? before the murders. She was sat exactly where you are now and she was so knocked out by her medication I had to help her get up from the sofa.
There's also a witness statement from a shop owner in Witham, where he talks about how slowly she was moving, and the fact that when the family went out of the shop, he said goodbye, she turned and smiled, and her make-up was all smeared over her teeth. ?????
"There's no question of her being skilful with a gun that particular night." ??????
Carol also has no doubts that Sheila adored her six-year-old twin boys.
"Yes, she had mental health issues, but that certainly didn't impinge on her love for them." ?????
The author also insists there are no independent accounts of Sheila ever hurting her children. ??????
Night of horror
It was in August, 1985, that five members of the same family were found dead at a farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, near Maldon.
The initial theory was that 28-year-old divorcee Sheila had shot twin sons Nicholas and Daniel in their beds; then her father Nevill and mother June, both in their early 60s.
Finally, Sheila - who suffered from schizophrenia - was believed to have killed herself.
Those of us around at the time remember all the stories (true or not) that came out about the woman nicknamed "Bambi" and the way the Bamber family was dubbed the local "Archers" - after the long-running BBC Radio 4 series.
Less than two months later, Sheila's brother, 24-year-old Jeremy, was charged with the killings.
In the autumn of 1986, a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court found him guilty by a majority verdict. He was told he'd be behind bars for at least 25 years, but in 1988 this was raised to "life".
Since then, he's consistently proclaimed his innocence.
Done with compassion
Carol was involved from the start with the project to make a six-episode drama series. ??????
"White House Farm" begins at 9pm tonight (Wednesday, January 8) on ITV and draws on her book ????
Released originally in 2015, it's been updated and published as a tie-in edition.
Carol was sent the whole series before Christmas.
"I'm very pleased with it. I think they've done a tremendous job with some very difficult and sensitive material ???
They've done it with huge skill and compassion, I would say."
Does she have qualms about the tragedy being put under the spotlight anew, when family and friends might well prefer it not to be?
The father of the twin boys has been part of the process too, ????? she says. "If he's fine with it - which he is; ????
he's been involved with it and he's pleased how it's been made ???? and feels that it's been sensitively done - then that's good enough for me."
By 2012 Carol had several true-crime books to her credit. A lot of information was emerging about the Bamber case - he was trying to appeal again, and there had been an ITV special. "I thought 'I remember that. I'm going to have a look into it'."
She wrote to Bamber and received a reply in early summer. After that, she'd send questions and the prisoner "would reply promptly in his trademark capitals. His letters varied in length from a couple of pages to fifteen or more sides of A4 paper".
By the spring of 2014, working on a potential appeal, he was saying that he didn't expect to be in jail much longer. Bamber wrote his last letter to the author late that year.
Today, he remains a prisoner.
Family dynamics
Carol interviewed a lot of people for the book, and was given access to thousands of documents and photographs.
"For me, it was really a story that hinged on the relationship dynamics between the family members. That's what interested me more than the police investigation and what came after."
She's pleased that, after 30-odd years, a wider range of people are finally having their voices "heard" - through the TV drama.
"I wanted people to get to know the personalities involved - and I think that informs the case itself when it comes to the actual murders. It tells you much more about who it might have been; who it could have been."
Meanwhile, the "compelling and convincing" murderer, Jeremy, still dreams of overturning his conviction.
"I know people say 'He's still proclaiming his innocence. Why would he be doing that?' (if he were guilty). Why wouldn't he? He's not going to want to come out on parole as a child-killer. That's why he's not admitted his guilt. He wants to come out as the innocent victim that people who support him believe him to be."
-
Propaganda at it finest
Jeremy Bamber: ‘My personal opinion is very much that he’s guilty’ – author Carol Ann Lee
ITV drama about horrific Essex murders starts tonight (9pm).
It draws partly on Carol Ann Lee’s book ?????
Author Carol Ann Lee. 'For me, it was really a story that hinged on the relationship dynamics between the family members' ??????
Carol Ann Lee exchanged regular letters with multiple-killer Jeremy Bamber as she conducted the detailed research ????? required for her true-crime book.
In print, she walked a straight line - setting out to be scrupulously fair and careful not to colour readers' opinions with her own verdict ?????
Now, though, she's happy to give an unequivocal answer to the obvious question: did he shoot dead his parents, sister and his two young nephews?
"My personal opinion is very much that he's guilty." ????
Totally convinced? "Yes, I am. He's been in prison for 30 years and the evidence he was convicted on has not been overturned.
He's been appealing ever since he's been in prison and nothing has come out that has been able to overturn that conviction.
"And for me the overriding piece of evidence, if you like, was looking at the original crime scene photographs. Without going into detail, ?????
it was obvious from one of the photographs in particular, that has never been published and should never be published, ?????
that those murders were committed by somebody who was extremely adept with a gun - who knew what they were doing. ?????
Sheila" - his sister, and initially suspected of killing the others, before committing suicide - "didn't. She was also on medication for her illness, which made her very un-coordinated.
"I met her best friend, actually. I remember going to see her at her house. I sat on the sofa, and she said to me 'The last time I saw Sheila was a few days ????? before the murders. She was sat exactly where you are now and she was so knocked out by her medication I had to help her get up from the sofa.
There's also a witness statement from a shop owner in Witham, where he talks about how slowly she was moving, and the fact that when the family went out of the shop, he said goodbye, she turned and smiled, and her make-up was all smeared over her teeth. ?????
"There's no question of her being skilful with a gun that particular night." ??????
Carol also has no doubts that Sheila adored her six-year-old twin boys.
"Yes, she had mental health issues, but that certainly didn't impinge on her love for them." ?????
The author also insists there are no independent accounts of Sheila ever hurting her children. ??????
Night of horror
It was in August, 1985, that five members of the same family were found dead at a farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, near Maldon.
The initial theory was that 28-year-old divorcee Sheila had shot twin sons Nicholas and Daniel in their beds; then her father Nevill and mother June, both in their early 60s.
Finally, Sheila - who suffered from schizophrenia - was believed to have killed herself.
Those of us around at the time remember all the stories (true or not) that came out about the woman nicknamed "Bambi" and the way the Bamber family was dubbed the local "Archers" - after the long-running BBC Radio 4 series.
Less than two months later, Sheila's brother, 24-year-old Jeremy, was charged with the killings.
In the autumn of 1986, a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court found him guilty by a majority verdict. He was told he'd be behind bars for at least 25 years, but in 1988 this was raised to "life".
Since then, he's consistently proclaimed his innocence.
Done with compassion
Carol was involved from the start with the project to make a six-episode drama series. ??????
"White House Farm" begins at 9pm tonight (Wednesday, January 8) on ITV and draws on her book ????
Released originally in 2015, it's been updated and published as a tie-in edition.
Carol was sent the whole series before Christmas.
"I'm very pleased with it. I think they've done a tremendous job with some very difficult and sensitive material ???
They've done it with huge skill and compassion, I would say."
Does she have qualms about the tragedy being put under the spotlight anew, when family and friends might well prefer it not to be?
The father of the twin boys has been part of the process too, ????? she says. "If he's fine with it - which he is; ????
he's been involved with it and he's pleased how it's been made ???? and feels that it's been sensitively done - then that's good enough for me."
By 2012 Carol had several true-crime books to her credit. A lot of information was emerging about the Bamber case - he was trying to appeal again, and there had been an ITV special. "I thought 'I remember that. I'm going to have a look into it'."
She wrote to Bamber and received a reply in early summer. After that, she'd send questions and the prisoner "would reply promptly in his trademark capitals. His letters varied in length from a couple of pages to fifteen or more sides of A4 paper".
By the spring of 2014, working on a potential appeal, he was saying that he didn't expect to be in jail much longer. Bamber wrote his last letter to the author late that year.
Today, he remains a prisoner.
Family dynamics
Carol interviewed a lot of people for the book, and was given access to thousands of documents and photographs.
"For me, it was really a story that hinged on the relationship dynamics between the family members. That's what interested me more than the police investigation and what came after."
She's pleased that, after 30-odd years, a wider range of people are finally having their voices "heard" - through the TV drama.
"I wanted people to get to know the personalities involved - and I think that informs the case itself when it comes to the actual murders. It tells you much more about who it might have been; who it could have been."
Meanwhile, the "compelling and convincing" murderer, Jeremy, still dreams of overturning his conviction.
"I know people say 'He's still proclaiming his innocence. Why would he be doing that?' (if he were guilty). Why wouldn't he? He's not going to want to come out on parole as a child-killer. That's why he's not admitted his guilt. He wants to come out as the innocent victim that people who support him believe him to be."
There's nothing to say that 24/7 she would be zonked out. The killings happened in the early hours. Isn't there some testimony about the kids having to get her out of bed on a morning? If so, she may have been a night owl to some extent. None of the witnesses providing opinion about her alertness are recounting incidents that were set during the early hours.
Carol Ann Lee is a bit dim at times. Sheila wouldnt have killed her children because she didn't 'adore' them. Imo, she killed her children with the aim of joining them on the other side. Nobody knows whether or not the point where June and Nevill intervened was at the stage where Sheila was going to take her own life, to join the twins. Nobody knows whether June and Nevill might have survived, had they not intervened.
-
How far from the farm was the nearest cottage ?
-
There's nothing to say that 24/7 she would be zonked out. The killings happened in the early hours. Isn't there some testimony about the kids having to get her out of bed on a morning? If so, she may have been a night owl to some extent. None of the witnesses providing opinion about her alertness are recounting incidents that were set during the early hours.
Carol Ann Lee is a bit dim at times. Sheila wouldnt have killed her children because she didn't 'adore' them. Imo, she killed her children with the aim of joining them on the other side. Nobody knows whether or not the point where June and Nevill intervened was at the stage where Sheila was going to take her own life, to join the twins. Nobody knows whether June and Nevill might have survived, had they not intervened.
The bit that is laughable is she knew Jeremy was guilty because of a photo??? Was he in it ??
-
The bit that is laughable is she knew Jeremy was guilty because of a photo??? Was he in it ??
She's referring to gunshot wounds on one of the victims. She thinks only a sharpshooter could have inflicted the wounds (with what she sees as accuracy).
-
She's referring to gunshot wounds on one of the victims. She thinks only a sharpshooter could have inflicted the wounds (with what she sees as accuracy).
Does she realise the shooter was more or less standing over the target?
-
Does she realise the shooter was more or less standing over the target?
Not sure David. I think she is either referring to June or one of the twins.
-
She's referring to gunshot wounds on one of the victims. She thinks only a sharpshooter could have inflicted the wounds (with what she sees as accuracy).
So have the relevant people dealing with the case seen this photo?
-
So have the relevant people dealing with the case seen this photo?
I don't know Jackie. Not sure if it is among the negatives provided to the defence or not.
-
I just don’t get what you mean Roch, Those shoring up conviction, “when they get going they don’t mess about”? who are you actually referring to? Do you honestly think this article or drama will be used or have some sort of sway in Bambers appeal? I would say Hardly anyone debates the Bamber case, you’ve got a hand full on here and a hand full on Red. Do you honestly think that the drama was brought out to coincide with any Bamber appeal? By who, who is this body of people, you obviously believe that there is an Orchestrated effort by some sort of task force set up against Bamber? WHF drama series was broadcast worldwide by All3Media are they in on it as well as the journalist?
Haven't forgot this RJ. Just never had a chance to properly respond. However, I would also be interested in Gringo's views on this.
-
I don't know Jackie. Not sure if it is among the negatives provided to the defence or not.
I think the pointI was trying to make is you would have to be blind deaf and dumb not to realise the timing of propaganda surrounding this case
Carol Anne Lee is a run of the mill author yet she openly published she had access through Essex Police to information/documentation not available to other parties
Why are Essex Police allowed to put their spin on the case through a writer
Just further proof this is an unsafe conviction and throw a bit of Colin Caffells take on everything for good measure
Essex Police must be up to their neck in trouble
-
Haven't forgot this RJ. Just never had a chance to properly respond. However, I would also be interested in Gringo's views on this.
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/560dfd82e4b0a8e48bb6eb5c/1569993556153-3KWGIFM6PH3EI28A5BET/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMuDzU05ypvvJ17XnAwJGPN7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmHnJhP0jqhHn3BJaadq_pvHi6UYZ4lPna6PgVzDPezk_T2sE8YnQ3wXKOVdd_wdGS/alien.gif)
-
Where is Gringo, I miss him
-
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/560dfd82e4b0a8e48bb6eb5c/1569993556153-3KWGIFM6PH3EI28A5BET/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kMuDzU05ypvvJ17XnAwJGPN7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z5QHyNOqBUUEtDDsRWrJLTmHnJhP0jqhHn3BJaadq_pvHi6UYZ4lPna6PgVzDPezk_T2sE8YnQ3wXKOVdd_wdGS/alien.gif)
Put yourself in the shoes of the authorities. Who's going to volunteer to go on telly and explain how two appeals and three police enquiries failed to expose a wrongful conviction?
-
Put yourself in the shoes of the authorities. Who's going to volunteer to go on telly and explain how two appeals and three police enquiries failed to expose a wrongful conviction?
I anticipate that any public outrage with be predominantly directed at Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton and David Boutflour rather than the authorities.
-
I anticipate that any public outrage with be predominantly directed at Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton and David Boutflour rather than the authorities.
Will certainly be some questions directed at those two.
They submitted 24 & 73 page WS's!
-
How far from the farm was the nearest cottage ?
There were four farm cottages on Pages Lane a few hundred yards away.
-
There were four farm cottages on Pages Lane a few hundred yards away.
So not too far really to have summoned help by one of the 3 adults.
-
So not too far really to have summoned help by one of the 3 adults.
Why summon help or wake June at 3am when Jeremy is only 3 miles away and Chelmsford police only 21 miles away?
-
Why summon help or wake June at 3am when Jeremy is only 3 miles away and Chelmsford police only 21 miles away?
Why not ? They were farm workers and would have been nearly ready to rise for work during the harvest.
A few shots fired into the air would have brought help from them.
-
Roch, todays podcast is interesting and read by DeeDee Sadler. All about what happened inside the farmhouse that night.
-
Roch, todays podcast is interesting and read by DeeDee Sadler. All about what happened inside the farmhouse that night.
Yes: mendacious propaganda at its most accomplished..https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/-home
-
Yes: mendacious propaganda at its most accomplished..https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/-home
A lot of what was spoken about was from police logs/ information as it can't be afforded at this juncture to be using propaganda in submissions to the CCRC since they've "seen it all before" in the past. It wouldn't be allowed anyway.
-
A lot of what was spoken about was from police logs/ information as it can't be afforded at this juncture to be using propaganda in submissions to the CCRC since they've "seen it all before" in the past. It wouldn't be allowed anyway.
I'll be looking forward to the substantial new information (or however they have worded it) concerning the telephone calls. This can't be fudged, spun or falsified as this latest podcast has (admittedly) with a modicum of success striven to do.
-
Ok Steve, I found this from Adam in an earlier post, Barbara Wilson said the family knew about the caravan break in. Neville probably suspected and Jeremy admitted it, confident it would be kept private. This would have further strained relations within the family.
I thought I’d read somewhere that his Father paid the money back and Jeremy was supposed to repay his father?
Have you got a source that his family knew?
Mind you it wouldn't take much working out. A petty thief wouldn't bother breaking in. Only someone who knew there was money inside would.
-
Have you got a source that his family knew?
Mind you it wouldn't take much working out. A petty thief wouldn't bother breaking in. Only someone who knew there was money inside would.
There was no definite proof at the time but it had to be someone who knew James Carr was off sick that particular weekend, knew where to retrieve the key and knew the risks were worthwhile as Jeremy had persuaded his father not to bank the money.
Of course as events turned out Jeremy admitted to the lesser crime, sticking to his adage that "it's important to tell the truth wherever possible.."
-
And in doing so, it's got him 35 years so far ( telling the truth, that is )
-
Roch, todays podcast is interesting and read by DeeDee Sadler. All about what happened inside the farmhouse that night.
Probably the best one I have heard so far, though I suspect it may only be 70% accurate. Nevertheless, that in itself is 100% more accurate than the conviction. Personally, I feel vindicated regarding most of wounds mentioned. The claim of hand prints on June's person is interesting.
Sadly though, it will likely be any inaccuracies that count the most, rather than any new accuracies.
-
Probably the best one I have heard so far, though I suspect it may only be 70% accurate. Nevertheless, that in itself is 100% more accurate than the conviction. Personally, I feel vindicated regarding most of wounds mentioned. The claim of hand prints on June's person is interesting.
Sadly though, it will likely be any inaccuracies that count the most, rather than any new accuracies.
What wounds are you talking about?
-
What wounds are you talking about?
You wil have to listen to the podcast. Just grimace at the bits you don't agree with. This is why I asked for your walkthrough - for comparison.
-
You wil have to listen to the podcast. Just grimace at the bits you don't agree with. This is why I asked for your walkthrough - for comparison.
Bills claim of 37 wounds on Sheila is laughable. All that is on Sheila's arm is blood drops and runs of blood. There are two tiny cuts on Sheila's hand and thats it.
-
Bills claim of 37 wounds on Sheila is laughable. All that is on Sheila's arm is blood drops and runs of blood. There are two tiny cuts on Sheila's hand and thats it.
It’s 28 wounds, not 37. Clearly visible on high definition crime scene photographs and verified by independent forensic experts. All will be revealed at the Court of Appeal. Then, Vanezis will have to face the consequences of his false testimony.
As Confucius says, he who laughs last laughs loudest. You won’t be laughing then.
-
Bills claim of 37 wounds on Sheila is laughable. All that is on Sheila's arm is blood drops and runs of blood. There are two tiny cuts on Sheila's hand and thats it.
I disagree with you that wounds aren't present David. There are some things we just have to agree to disagree. I am less confident on some of the other claims made in the podcasts overall. It may be that in those matters, I would find my position closer to yours or other supporters.
-
It’s 28 wounds, not 37. Clearly visible on high definition crime scene photographs and verified by independent forensic experts. All will be revealed at the Court of Appeal. Then, Vanezis will have to face the consequences of his false testimony.
As Confucius says, he who laughs last laughs loudest. You won’t be laughing then.
I have the same photos in my possession, I can see what they are.
Who ever has told you this has been verified is either pulling your leg or they have hired a dishonest clown.
How do you explain these 28 "wounds" not being mentioned in Vanezis autopsy notes written on the very same day as the tragedy?. DI Cook and two other officers were also present at the autopsy how did they not see all these wounds also?
-
I'm sorry but this has to be said: the latest podcast is a South Sea Bubble of lies.
-
I have the same photos in my possession, I can see what they are.
Who ever has told you this has been verified is either pulling your leg or they have hired a dishonest clown.
How do you explain these 28 "wounds" not being mentioned in Vanezis autopsy notes written on the very same day as the tragedy?. DI Cook and two other officers were also present at the autopsy how did they not see all these wounds also?
Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?
Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?
-
DI Cook and two other officers were also present at the autopsy how did they not see all these wounds also?
They will have seen the wounds, as will have some of the police at the crime scene. Some had an up close view, e.g. SOCO, crime scene photography etc.
To be fair David, as late as 6th Sept. Kenneally reported to top brass, that the evidence pointed to Sheila. I suspect that marks and wounds on victims, were given consideration by Kenneally, when coming to this conclusion.
-
Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?
Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?
I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.
-
I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.
I don't necessarily believe the case will be referred. I always tend towards pessimism. I could be wrong. I certainly hope I am wrong. I am trying to keep an open mind. I suspect that within the submissions there wiil possibly be dissmissable grounds, whether that be due to difference of interpretation / misinterpretation of evidence, or whether it be on a technicalities regarding legal processes. I also suspect there will be material that is worrying in terms of the safety of the conviction. The test for me regarding the CCRC, is whether they will sacrifice the material that is worrying or whether they will sacrifice the material that is potentially dissmissable. If they choose the latter, I think they will raise their profile in terms of trust and integrity.
What exactly is it Steve that you don't believe?
-
I don't believe Peter Vanezis falsified his evidence for a start. I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents. I don't believe she was capable of reloading an Anschütz rifle. I don't believe Julie lied.
-
I don't believe you. You will disappear from this site as quickly as you appeared, as is your wont.
You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".
There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.
Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.
The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.
Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.
I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.
Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.
-
I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents.
Just suppose that she did have 28 or more defensive wounds not mentioned in Court. And, June had 10 or more wounds not mentioned by Vanezis. How does that affect the conviction of Jeremy?
-
You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".
There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.
Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.
The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.
Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.
I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.
Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.
So Sheila has 28 wounds and you're claiming they are contact wounds, gouge marks resulting from some life and death struggle altercation, yet none of the marks impact her face? How strange and how convenient (where are the photographs of Sheila's face online by the way..they seem to have disappeared)?
You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis), you haven't a clue about a dilemma between young love and diabolical forces (Julie), you don't understand the banality of evil (to coin a phrase) of someone who blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys because he preferred a £38,000 Porsche to a Vauxhall Astra, you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.
-
Just suppose that she did have 28 or more defensive wounds not mentioned in Court. And, June had 10 or more wounds not mentioned by Vanezis. How does that affect the conviction of Jeremy?
Please refer to the above post.
-
I don't believe Peter Vanezis falsified his evidence for a start. I don't believe Sheila had defensive wounds on her sustained by a struggle with her parents. I don't believe she was capable of reloading an Anschütz rifle. I don't believe Julie lied.
You don’t believe Julie lied??? I take that is a joke???
So you don’t believed Julie lied about the cheque book fraud?
Maybe you would like to enlighten the forum exactly how and what Julie did during the cheque book fraud??
If you ‘believe’ Jeremy is guilty do you think Julie lied to Colin
Do you think Julie lied when she said she couldn’t remember what date she signed the NOTW deal?
-
So Sheila has 28 wounds and you're claiming they are contact wounds, gouge marks resulting from some life and death struggle altercation, yet none of the marks impact her face? How strange and how convenient (where are the photographs of Sheila's face online by the way..they seem to have disappeared)?
You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis), you haven't a clue about a dilemma between young love and diabolical forces (Julie), you don't understand the banality of evil (to coin a phrase) of someone who blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys because he preferred a £38,000 Porsche to a Vauxhall Astra, you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.
Here we go again what Porche exactly and I expect you to be able to back up your claim
Your getting your knickers in a twist again because Julies been mentioned again
-
For obvious reasons we weren't afforded the viewing of Sheila's back where wounds could well have been because of blood that was visible on the back of her nightdress and the pattern of it. Why the back and not the front ?
The " wound " in the lower part of her body was presumably hidden by a dressing but how do we know it didn't occur that night or the night before when there'd been a to do ?
There'll be a heck of a lot that's been hidden that we know nothing about and it's criminal to hold back the truth in a case as big as this was. I'm prepared to be further disgusted at what finally comes to light. It says a lot about those who've condemned Jeremy !
Let's not forget about Nevill's broken arm that he probably received on his way downstairs from the bedroom. How easy for an attacker to tackle someone whose arm is already broken regardless of their size etc. Sheila would have had no trouble taking down her father.
-
Here we go again what Porche exactly and I expect you to be able to back up your claim
Your getting your knickers in a twist again because Julies been mentioned again
He told PC Robert Lay standing outside White House Farm that August morning before the bodies were discovered that he was going to buy a £38000 Porsche (w/s 1 October 1985).
-
For obvious reasons we weren't afforded the viewing of Sheila's back where wounds could well have been because of blood that was visible on the back of her nightdress and the pattern of it. Why the back and not the front ?
The " wound " in the lower part of her body was presumably hidden by a dressing but how do we know it didn't occur that night or the night before when there'd been a to do ?
There'll be a heck of a lot that's been hidden that we know nothing about and it's criminal to hold back the truth in a case as big as this was. I'm prepared to be further disgusted at what finally comes to light. It says a lot about those who've condemned Jeremy !
Let's not forget about Nevill's broken arm that he probably received on his way downstairs from the bedroom. How easy for an attacker to tackle someone whose arm is already broken regardless of their size etc. Sheila would have had no trouble taking down her father.
But reloading a rifle lookout? She couldn't even drive a car.
-
He told PC Robert Lay standing outside White House Farm that August morning before the bodies were discovered that he was going to buy a £38000 Porsche (w/s 1 October 1985).
I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof
-
You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".
There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.
Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.
The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.
Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.
I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.
Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.
Bill I don’t know if you know the answer to this but I wondered if it’s proved Julie lied about Jeremy can the powers that be get forced to supply all her statements and notes
-
I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof
It was PC Myall who brought the subject up. Its in the trial transcripts.
-
But reloading a rifle lookout? She couldn't even drive a car.
Bit of a difference Steve.
-
You don’t believe Julie lied??? I take that is a joke???
So you don’t believed Julie lied about the cheque book fraud?
Maybe you would like to enlighten the forum exactly how and what Julie did during the cheque book fraud??
If you ‘believe’ Jeremy is guilty do you think Julie lied to Colin
Do you think Julie lied when she said she couldn’t remember what date she signed the NOTW deal?
The solicitor whom she went to would have been aware of the law. Julie admitted the cheque book fraud before and during the trial. She was at breaking point as most people would have been when she observed how stoically Colin was handling the situation on 10 August, but finally told Susan Battersby of the crimes (not the police) on 27 August.
-
I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof
I've just given you proof. The glossy brochures were already laid out on the coffee table at Bourtree Cottage. The kit car was spin par excellence.
-
It was PC Myall who brought the subject up. Its in the trial transcripts.
He did not. He was told by a superior to make conversation with him to take his mind off the carnage he himself had created.
-
Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?
Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?
I was given several high resolution crime scene photos of Sheila back in 2016. These photos are not in the public domain.
What you think are 28 wounds is nothing but dried up blood stains that have dripped and run on Sheila's skin.
Saying Ainsley got Vanesiz to rewrite his notes is not an argument that any reasonable person will accept. That's almost as ridiculous as the idea of Ainsley re-writing Wests statements to omit a 999 call from Nevil.
When the bigger picture does not fit your theory, saying Ainsley and Co must have edited everything is not going to work.
-
For obvious reasons we weren't afforded the viewing of Sheila's back where wounds could well have been because of blood that was visible on the back of her nightdress and the pattern of it. Why the back and not the front ?
The " wound " in the lower part of her body was presumably hidden by a dressing but how do we know it didn't occur that night or the night before when there'd been a to do ?
There'll be a heck of a lot that's been hidden that we know nothing about and it's criminal to hold back the truth in a case as big as this was. I'm prepared to be further disgusted at what finally comes to light. It says a lot about those who've condemned Jeremy !
Let's not forget about Nevill's broken arm that he probably received on his way downstairs from the bedroom. How easy for an attacker to tackle someone whose arm is already broken regardless of their size etc. Sheila would have had no trouble taking down her father.
If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.
Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit. 🙄
-
If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.
Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit. 🙄
I'm not aware of there being any back injuries.
-
You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis)
Peter Vanezis has no professional integrity, just an overblown ego and an ability to secure high profile cases which has now deserted him (he is no longer a Home Office approved pathologist)
In 1996 a deaf elderly woman was murdered in her home. Forensics teams found an impression on the patio door made by the assailant’s ear. The unfortunate Mark Dallagher was arrested and Dr Vanezis gave evidence in which he stated the ear print taken from the glass matched that of the accused, qualifying it as “Unique” the same as a fingerprint would be. Based on this evidence Dallagher was imprisoned for life in 1998. On Appeal after the advancement of DNA it was proven that the ear print did not match the DNA profile of the convicted man and his conviction was quashed and in 2004 he was released after serving seven years in jail.
Vanezis gave evidence in relation to the evidential worth of ‘ear-prints’ that consisted of the statement “My conclusion was that it was the closest match for the overall fit of the prints. That is both left and right. All I can say is that bearing in mind that we have left and right ear prints and with the paucity of knowledge etc., I am prepared to go so far as to say that there is a remote possibility .... That they may have been left by someone else, but it is remote. .... I am of the firm opinion that it is very likely to be the same person, (Dallagher) but I cannot be 100% positive.”
In fact, his conclusion was entirely incorrect and an innocent man was convicted of murder, serving seven years in jail before the error was corrected. Thus, we might reasonably conclude that Vanezis was reckless about the possibility that his testimony was false and he has a track record of involvement in assisting the police with the locking up of innocent men.
-
He told PC Robert Lay standing outside White House Farm that August morning before the bodies were discovered that he was going to buy a £38000 Porsche (w/s 1 October 1985).
No he didn't, you are making it up. According to the witness statement he said, "I'm going to get a £38,000 Porche, a dream car from my dad - or words to that effect". " "He was only earning farm wages and the car was a perk - a means of boosting his wages" so Jeremy did not say that he was going to buy it, the clear implication is that it would have been a gift from Nevill.
I doubt that there is any truth in PC Lay's statement at all.
-
Bill I don’t know if you know the answer to this but I wondered if it’s proved Julie lied about Jeremy can the powers that be get forced to supply all her statements and notes
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I know that if Jeremy is released there will be demands from Jeremy's lawyers for a public enquiry and a requirement for full disclosure of all evidence withheld.
-
If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.
Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit. 🙄
No---they burnt it instead.
-
Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit. 🙄
The interesting thing about the nightdress is that in the evidence of Vanezis there is no mention of the large earring that was snagged close to the right armpit, it was big enough, about an inch long, that nobody could have missed it. It is not listed as an exhibit either. It is just one example among many of how evidence was not mentioned, or disappeared.
I'm not aware of any wound to Sheila's back by the way, but I haven't seen it.
-
The solicitor whom she went to would have been aware of the law. Julie admitted the cheque book fraud before and during the trial. She was at breaking point as most people would have been when she observed how stoically Colin was handling the situation on 10 August, but finally told Susan Battersby of the crimes (not the police) on 27 August.
The she’s a liar. Simple. Fact
She lied to get stolen goods fact
-
No he didn't, you are making it up. According to the witness statement he said, "I'm going to get a £38,000 Porche, a dream car from my dad - or words to that effect". " "He was only earning farm wages and the car was a perk - a means of boosting his wages" so Jeremy did not say that he was going to buy it, the clear implication is that it would have been a gift from Nevill.
I doubt that there is any truth in PC Lay's statement at all.
There you go Steve the facts
The interesting thing in that statement would have been Jeremy referring to his dad as if he was still alive.
-
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I know that if Jeremy is released there will be demands from Jeremy's lawyers for a public enquiry and a requirement for full disclosure of all evidence withheld.
I think it has to be made clear if she made the whole think up so she can face similar consequences as Jeremy.
-
The interesting thing about the nightdress is that in the evidence of Vanezis there is no mention of the large earring that was snagged close to the right armpit, it was big enough, about an inch long, that nobody could have missed it. It is not listed as an exhibit either. It is just one example among many of how evidence was not mentioned, or disappeared.
I'm not aware of any wound to Sheila's back by the way, but I haven't seen it.
How likely is it, that if Sheila was involved in a life or death struggle (on the part of both June and Nevill), that she might have ended up with marks on her back? There must be autopsy images of her back.
The snagged earring component can be seen in image ms33, on page 2 of images thread (started by Alias) in Archive and Library. It is in the folds of her night dress. It may also be present in more images, not sure.
-
I think most are clear about Sheila having been still alive before the police arrived at the farmhouse. JB was with police at the time, so if he'd been the killer, why would he leave a person alive ?
-
Bill, what do you think of the latest podcast. It is full of supposition; and some of the claims made may cause consternation among supporters who take a more conservative, cautious and restrained view of evidence available to us (in comparison to YH / the CT's interpretations of that same evidence). Who challenges their interpretations?
-
Peter Vanezis has no professional integrity, just an overblown ego and an ability to secure high profile cases which has now deserted him (he is no longer a Home Office approved pathologist)
In 1996 a deaf elderly woman was murdered in her home. Forensics teams found an impression on the patio door made by the assailant’s ear. The unfortunate Mark Dallagher was arrested and Dr Vanezis gave evidence in which he stated the ear print taken from the glass matched that of the accused, qualifying it as “Unique” the same as a fingerprint would be. Based on this evidence Dallagher was imprisoned for life in 1998. On Appeal after the advancement of DNA it was proven that the ear print did not match the DNA profile of the convicted man and his conviction was quashed and in 2004 he was released after serving seven years in jail.
Vanezis gave evidence in relation to the evidential worth of ‘ear-prints’ that consisted of the statement “My conclusion was that it was the closest match for the overall fit of the prints. That is both left and right. All I can say is that bearing in mind that we have left and right ear prints and with the paucity of knowledge etc., I am prepared to go so far as to say that there is a remote possibility .... That they may have been left by someone else, but it is remote. .... I am of the firm opinion that it is very likely to be the same person, (Dallagher) but I cannot be 100% positive.”
In fact, his conclusion was entirely incorrect and an innocent man was convicted of murder, serving seven years in jail before the error was corrected. Thus, we might reasonably conclude that Vanezis was reckless about the possibility that his testimony was false and he has a track record of involvement in assisting the police with the locking up of innocent men.
I think you've got the wrong person. It was a Dutch policeman who testified in that case. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/expert-s-unique-earprint-evidence-overturned-as-courts-clear-man-of-murder-74963.html
-
How likely is it, that if Sheila was involved in a life or death struggle (on the part of both June and Nevill), that she might have ended up with marks on her back? There must be autopsy images of her back.
The snagged earring component can be seen in image ms33, on page 2 of images thread (started by Alias) in Archive and Library. It is in the folds of her night dress. It may also be present in more images, not sure.
How likely is it that Sheila let someone inflict 28 injuries on her, before she decided to shoot them? Zero.
How likely is it that Ainsley would cover up these alleged 28 injuries and not destroy the photos of them? Zero.
-
Bill, what do you think of the latest podcast. It is full of supposition; and some of the claims made may cause consternation among supporters who take a more conservative, cautious and restrained view of evidence available to us (in comparison to YH / the CT's interpretations of that same evidence). Who challenges their interpretations?
I think that it is about 60-70% accurate and we will never get any closer than that unless the contents of Taff Jones’s investigation becomes available. There are quite a few suppositions that I would have reservations over. I don’t know if anyone challenges the scripts I’m not sure what the roles of the CT are these days. I recognize some of my work in the scripts, it seems to be a cut and paste job from various sources. I suppose that the podcasts are in effect there to keep interest alive in the case while the CCRC deliberates the submission.
-
I think you've got the wrong person. It was a Dutch policeman who testified in that case. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/expert-s-unique-earprint-evidence-overturned-as-courts-clear-man-of-murder-74963.html
They both testified
-
They both testified
So out of the 1500 suspected homicides Vanezis has been involved with since 1974 he's got two wrong. That's if you believe the Dallagher case and White House Farm murders fall into a similar category.
-
How likely is it that Sheila let someone inflict 28 injuries on her, before she decided to shoot them? Zero.
How likely is it that Ainsley would cover up these alleged 28 injuries and not destroy the photos of them? Zero.
I think you have to imagine a life or death struggle with somebody who has got hold of a gun and won't let go of it. How quickly would June become exhausted and how quickly might she be flung off? Was she already injured prior to the struggle commencing? Was Sheila off balance at anytime and could any wounds be friction related, ie caused by inanimate objects situated in the room? Think outside the box David. Push the envelope. Brainstorm it.
-
you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.
How do you know? Do you know Colin? Have you met him?
-
How do you know? Do you know Colin? Have you met him?
Is Jeremy a predator QCC..
-
Is Jeremy a predator QCC..
I think I said that I don't believe he is. What I did not say is that I know he isn't, nor did I give the impression that I have met him or know him, nor have I ever implied this.
Once again, for somebody with your academic and professional qualifications, your reading comprehension and ability to understand nuance are quite dire.
Back to my questions. Your answer is? You give us the impression you know Colin. Do you?
Can I also request that you stop mentioning the 'predator' issue given that I have already explained it at length and you have ignored the explanation, it is not relevant to the threads you are bringing it up on, and it is just goading on your part, and as such a breach of the Forum Rules. If you do have an issue with it, you should start a new thread setting out what your issue is.
-
Back to my questions. Your answer is? You give us the impression you know Colin. Do you?
I've always equated Steve with JM. Sorry for talking about you as if you're not here Steve. For some reason I have it that Steve may have been an ex or went college with JM or some other (possibly Northern) connection?
-
You haven't a clue about professional integrity (Doctor Peter Vanezis), you haven't a clue about a dilemma between young love and diabolical forces (Julie), you don't understand the banality of evil (to coin a phrase) of someone who blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys because he preferred a £38,000 Porsche to a Vauxhall Astra, you haven't a clue what all this muckraking is doing to Colin or you would desist and hang your head in shame along with the makers of the podcasts, who are similarly clueless as to the true facts of the case.
Can I add that I think the above reply you made to Bill is appalling. You have been arrogant and rude throughout this thread. Although it is something for Bill to raise, I think it is relevant to the way you speak to me here as well. I would do the same if Bill was anti-Jeremy or neutral like me. You are not the font of all knowledge on this case and you are not a spokesman for Colin or Julie, nor do you have a channel into their inner thoughts.
-
Can I add that I think the above reply you made to Bill is appalling. You have been arrogant and rude throughout this thread. Although it is something for Bill to raise, I think it is relevant to the way you speak to me here as well. I would do the same if Bill was anti-Jeremy or neutral like me. You are not the font of all knowledge on this case and you are not a spokesman for Colin or Julie, nor do you have a channel into their inner thoughts.
Why do you think I have this weirdo on ignore? The forum has been a much more pleasant experience since. 8)
-
I've always equated Steve with JM. Sorry for talking about you as if you're not here Steve. For some reason I have it that Steve may have been an ex or went college with JM or some other (possibly Northern) connection?
Frankly, I couldn't give a monkey's who he is, but my question is genuine and relevant. He clearly gives the impression that he knows Colin and he has some sort of connection to Colin and Julie. He clearly gets very agitated and upset whenever Julie is mentioned on here in adverse terms. I am sorry but it is just not normal behaviour for a stranger who doesn't know Julie.
Does he know these people or is he just Colin and Julie's Number One Fan?
-
Why do you think I have this weirdo on ignore? The forum has been a much more pleasant experience since. 8)
I don't have anyone on ignore. Until recently, I used to have Adam on ignore - but that was more because I couldn't be arsed to go in to my profile and remove the ignore status.
-
I think that it is about 60-70% accurate and we will never get any closer than that unless the contents of Taff Jones’s investigation becomes available. There are quite a few suppositions that I would have reservations over. I don’t know if anyone challenges the scripts I’m not sure what the roles of the CT are these days. I recognize some of my work in the scripts, it seems to be a cut and paste job from various sources. I suppose that the podcasts are in effect there to keep interest alive in the case while the CCRC deliberates the submission.
Thanks for response. In an ideal world, I think somebody more neutral should have been embedded within the CT for the purpose of counter-interpretation of material. But we don't live in an ideal world. I would like to think Newby and Stone may have partially fulfilled this 'pushing back against the CT' role. Perhaps the length of time taken to reach the submissions stage tells us that to some extent they have done exactly this. We'll just have to wait and see.
-
I think you have to imagine a life or death struggle with somebody who has got hold of a gun and won't let go of it. How quickly would June become exhausted and how quickly might she be flung off? Was she already injured prior to the struggle commencing? Was Sheila off balance at anytime and could any wounds be friction related, ie caused by inanimate objects situated in the room? Think outside the box David. Push the envelope. Brainstorm it.
June was shot five times while in bed. She then collapsed in a few seconds after she got out of bed. The blood patterns consisting of Junes blood in the master bedroom make this irrefutable. Hence its not possible for June to have been in such an altercation.
Brainstorming and thinking outside the box is useful when it comes to business, innovation and creativity but has no place in solving crimes.
-
June was shot five times while in bed. She then collapsed in a few seconds after she got out of bed. The blood patterns consisting of Junes blood in the master bedroom make this irrefutable. Hence its not possible for June to have been in such an altercation.
Brainstorming and thinking outside the box is useful when it comes to business, innovation and creativity but has no place in solving crimes.
How much of the carpet have you seen? They were burned weren't they? June had other wounds as well as gun shots. How do we know all five shots were received in quick succession in that manner? How do we know she didn't end up on the bed a second time, after having originally got off the bed?
-
June was shot five times while in bed. She then collapsed in a few seconds after she got out of bed. The blood patterns consisting of Junes blood in the master bedroom make this irrefutable. Hence its not possible for June to have been in such an altercation.
I cannot find any reference in Vanezis notes, testimony or witness statement to June being shot 5 times while in bed and I would be grateful for a precise reference for this.
June's blood was found all around the floor in the bedroom, there were hundreds of individual spots of June's blood around the floor. When dead, Sheila lay on top of many spots of blood from June. So June did move around considerably before being killed.
June also suffered gouge and cut injuries indicative of having been in close-quarters combat with Sheila. June was cut on the left hand and on the chin; she was also cut on both legs. She had six small gouges or cuts on her left hand. Their fight would not have lasted long, maybe two minutes at most, but it was sufficient for both women to cause numerous wounds to each other.
-
Thanks for response. In an ideal world, I think somebody more neutral should have been embedded within the CT for the purpose of counter-interpretation of material. But we don't live in an ideal world. I would like to think Newby and Stone may have partially fulfilled this 'pushing back against the CT' role. Perhaps the length of time taken to reach the submissions stage tells us that to some extent they have done exactly this. We'll just have to wait and see.
Yes, I agree. To give one example, a small quibble, but I don't think anyone would carry around .22 bullets in the shotgun bandolier that was on the staircase, the loops on the bandolier are for shotgun cartridges and the bullets would just fall through the loops. Far more likely, Sheila carried bullets in a white plastic carrier bag that is lying on the floor in the main bedroom. I think it detracts from the credibility of the podcast. There were a few other things that stuck me as odd when I listened, but due to my dementia I can't remember what they were!
-
Maybe Sheila and June were having a fight upstairs while Nevill was phoning Jeremy and Chelmsford police.
June got back into bed because she was feeling tired. Then Sheila shot her 5 times.
-
I cannot find any reference in Vanezis notes, testimony or witness statement to June being shot 5 times while in bed and I would be grateful for a precise reference for this.
Its in Vanezis trial testimony, I will find it when I have more time. The inference can also be drawn from the fact they recovered several bullets that had gone into Junes pillow and mattress via Junes exit wounds as well as her side of the bed being covered in blood.
June's blood was found all around the floor in the bedroom, there were hundreds of individual spots of June's blood around the floor. When dead, Sheila lay on top of many spots of blood from June. So June did move around considerably before being killed.
June got out of bed and ran round it before going back round after realizing the shooter had gone after Nevil down the stairs. This takes a matter of seconds.
June also suffered gouge and cut injuries indicative of having been in close-quarters combat with Sheila. June was cut on the left hand and on the chin; she was also cut on both legs. She had six small gouges or cuts on her left hand. Their fight would not have lasted long, maybe two minutes at most, but it was sufficient for both women to cause numerous wounds to each other.
There are no such Injuries on June. What you are looking at is drips, smears and runs of dried blood on the surface of the skin.
-
June also suffered gouge and cut injuries indicative of having been in close-quarters combat with Sheila. June was cut on the left hand and on the chin; she was also cut on both legs. She had six small gouges or cuts on her left hand. Their fight would not have lasted long, maybe two minutes at most, but it was sufficient for both women to cause numerous wounds to each other.
If I remember correctly, the cuts to June's hand are very fine. The chin wound is visible in forum images but the images are very low definition. Regarding the marks on her shins, I couldn't work them out.
-
June had fingermarks around her throat---which should have been tested for size etc which would have told the pathologist if it had been male or female prints.
-
June got out of bed and ran round it before going back round after realizing the shooter had gone after Nevil down the stairs. This takes a matter of seconds.
There are no such Injuries on June. What you are looking at is drips, smears and runs of dried blood on the surface of the skin.
Nobody knows what June did when she got out of bed; your theory is one among many as to what may have happened.
If you have a high definition photo of June you can hardly miss a bloody great cut on her chin, half an inch long at least. With a little more effort you can see the cuts on her left hand.
Subject has become tedious, you are clearly convinced that only you know what happened, so no point in further discussion.
-
Nobody knows what June did when she got out of bed; your theory is one among many as to what may have happened.
If you have a high definition photo of June you can hardly miss a bloody great cut on her chin, half an inch long at least. With a little more effort you can see the cuts on her left hand.
Subject has become tedious, you are clearly convinced that only you know what happened, so no point in further discussion.
I think the problem for David is that while he believes in JB's innocence, he is very resistant towards the notion that a pathologist could be induced or coerced in to withholding details. Primary in this, is the few handwritten notes we have that are allegedly PV's original PM notes. For David and others, because such marks are not mentioned, this must mean that they can not have existed in the form of wounds, as the notes related to immediately after the killings, when JB was not an official suspect. Were David to acquiesce (say for example accept the chin wound) - he would then be forced to reconsider all the other claims being made regarding other wounds. This would be uncomfortable for anyone who has taken up his position. Similarly if Jeremy Bamber confessed to being responsible, we would find it bewildering given our understanding of the case - possibly leading to a period of denial, where we refused to accept his confession.
-
Maybe Sheila and June were having a fight upstairs while Nevill was phoning Jeremy and Chelmsford police.
June got back into bed because she was feeling tired. Then Sheila shot her 5 times.
June would not go back to bed with Sheila in possession of a firearm.
I think the only way a Sheila scenario works is if Sheila is present when Nevill makes the call to Jeremy and Nevill ends that call because Sheila goes for the stairs.
I cannot think of any other way a Sheila scenario could work logically. For instance, if you place Sheila downstairs and Nevill upstairs, then how does the call to Jeremy happen?
-
June would not go back to bed with Sheila in possession of a firearm.
I think the only way a Sheila scenario works is if Sheila is present when Nevill makes the call to Jeremy and Nevill ends that call because Sheila goes for the stairs.
I cannot think of any other way a Sheila scenario could work logically. For instance, if you place Sheila downstairs and Nevill upstairs, then how does the call to Jeremy happen?
The upstairs office phone.
-
When phones run off the same line and one is activated, the other phone gives a tinkle noise so if Sheila had been upstairs when Nevill was downstairs phoning Jeremy she'd have heard the phone being activated. Which is why she'd have darted downstairs as soon as she heard that sound, knowing that her father was phoning someone. It wouldn't do that if they were wired separately/ individually.
-
By having a few phones on the one inlet it weakens the signal though. Handy for using as an intercom system if you live in a large house.
-
ACC Simpson gave Keanally the task of reinvestiating the case. The conclusion being that Sheila was responsible. ACC Simpson, Taff Jones, Ainsley and Keanally then all had a meeting with Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton on the 31st of August to tell them this.
This begs the question as to why these 28 alleged wounds were never disclosed to RWB. Much like the fact he was never informed of Nevills alleged 999 call. The logical deduction being there was nothing to report or disclose in the first place.
-
Why do you think I have this weirdo on ignore? The forum has been a much more pleasant experience since. 8)
A weirdo..now were do you get that idea from..
-
ACC Simpson gave Keanally the task of reinvestiating the case. The conclusion being that Sheila was responsible. ACC Simpson, Taff Jones Ainsley and Keanally then all had a meeting with Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton on the 31st of August to tell them this.
This begs the question as to why these 28 alleged wounds were never disclosed to RWB. Much like the fact he was never informed of Nevills alleged 999 call. The logical deduction being there was nothing to report or disclose in the first place.
You've got the dates wrong. ACC Simpson didn't meet Robert Boutflour until Thursday 5 September, but as I'm on ignore you can live in perpetual ignorance as far as I care.
-
When phones run off the same line and one is activated, the other phone gives a tinkle noise so if Sheila had been upstairs when Nevill was downstairs phoning Jeremy she'd have heard the phone being activated. Which is why she'd have darted downstairs as soon as she heard that sound, knowing that her father was phoning someone. It wouldn't do that if they were wired separately/ individually.
It was a Georgian mansion lookout with thick walls. Are you quite sure such a sound would have been audible?
-
I think the problem for David is that while he believes in JB's innocence, he is very resistant towards the notion that a pathologist could be induced or coerced in to withholding details. Primary in this, is the few handwritten notes we have that are allegedly PV's original PM notes. For David and others, because such marks are not mentioned, this must mean that they can not have existed in the form of wounds, as the notes related to immediately after the killings, when JB was not an official suspect. Were David to acquiesce (say for example accept the chin wound) - he would then be forced to reconsider all the other claims being made regarding other wounds. This would be uncomfortable for anyone who has taken up his position. Similarly if Jeremy Bamber confessed to being responsible, we would find it bewildering given our understanding of the case - possibly leading to a period of denial, where we refused to accept his confession.
How about showing us the photos..
-
How about showing us the photos..
The forum was given a clear photo of the nail gouges / scrape on SC's right hand. Also the scab / indent along the inside of right hand. Some people could clearly see they were wounds. However, because Vanezis hasn't labelled them as such, other people simply refused to see that they were wounds. It seems that people will go to the extent of doubting their own eyes, if told the contrary by a person of authority. Like Bill has pointed out, Mark D paid the price for Vanezis' ear print claims. Vanezis is not infallible.
-
ACC Simpson gave Keanally the task of reinvestiating the case. The conclusion being that Sheila was responsible. ACC Simpson, Taff Jones, Ainsley and Keanally then all had a meeting with Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton on the 31st of August to tell them this.
This begs the question as to why these 28 alleged wounds were never disclosed to RWB. Much like the fact he was never informed of Nevills alleged 999 call. The logical deduction being there was nothing to report or disclose in the first place.
I thought Ainsley had returned from leave and asked Kenneally to review. But what I don't understand is that this coincided with RB's meeting with Simpson - ie it was the same day, 6th Sept? If that is the case, Ainsley must have been thrown in to the fray immediately (at the expense of Taff?). I hope he won't mind me saying, but I seem to recall ngb1066 telling me that when Kenneally presented his report to Bunyard, Simpson and Ainsley, apparently Simpson was furious. If that is the case, it seems that Simpson urgently wanted the case to go down the route of JB (the same day as he had his meeting with RWB?).
-
It was a Georgian mansion lookout with thick walls. Are you quite sure such a sound would have been audible?
Within the property, yes. It was dead of night remember so no other sounds that we know of.
-
Its in Vanezis trial testimony, I will find it when I have more time. The inference can also be drawn from the fact they recovered several bullets that had gone into Junes pillow and mattress via Junes exit wounds as well as her side of the bed being covered in blood.
I have checked Vanezis' trial testimony and it does not mention anywhere how many shots June received while in bed, there is no mention of this at all.
-
The upstairs office phone.
I've thought of that. It doesn't work, I'm afraid.
-
I have checked Vanezis' trial testimony and it does not mention anywhere how many shots June received while in bed, there is no mention of this at all.
The trajectories are mentioned in detail. They all entered her body at a downward angle thus the shooter was standing above the target. Combine this with the fact there was blood and bullets holes on Junes side of the bed. What more proof do you need?
-
I think the problem for David is that while he believes in JB's innocence, he is very resistant towards the notion that a pathologist could be induced or coerced in to withholding details. Primary in this, is the few handwritten notes we have that are allegedly PV's original PM notes. For David and others, because such marks are not mentioned, this must mean that they can not have existed in the form of wounds, as the notes related to immediately after the killings, when JB was not an official suspect.
On the contrary. Vanezis original handwritten notes states that Sheila's palms were covered in blood. Yet this is absent from his later statements, and during Jeremy's trial he told the Jury that Sheila's palms were clean.
That is a discrepancy no doubt. Why Vanezis contradicted himself I do not know. But the fact its written in his original notes and deviates from his later claims is proof that his notes have not been edited and censored by Ainsley or UFOs etc etc.
-
On the contrary. Vanezis original handwritten notes states that Sheila's palms were covered in blood. Yet this is absent from his later statements, and during Jeremy's trial he told the Jury that Sheila's palms were clean.
That is a discrepancy no doubt. Why Vanezis contradicted himself I do not know. But the fact its written in his original notes and deviates from his later claims is proof that his notes have not been edited and censored by Ainsley or UFOs etc etc.
How did you know about the UFOs? I thought me, Mike and Adam had kept that under wraps for the CCRC.
Anyway, one for the appeal file. Thanks David.
-
On the contrary. Vanezis original handwritten notes states that Sheila's palms were covered in blood. Yet this is absent from his later statements, and during Jeremy's trial he told the Jury that Sheila's palms were clean.
That is a discrepancy no doubt. Why Vanezis contradicted himself I do not know. But the fact its written in his original notes and deviates from his later claims is proof that his notes have not been edited and censored by Ainsley or UFOs etc etc.
Please go to the forum crime scene pictures of June. Look at her chin. Please show me were Vanezis mentions June's chin, either in his notes, statements or trial testimony. Imo, what is being presented as Vanezis handwritten notes, are not complete.
-
The trajectories are mentioned in detail. They all entered her body at a downward angle thus the shooter was standing above the target. Combine this with the fact there was blood and bullets holes on Junes side of the bed. What more proof do you need?
Newby & co sound like they have a lot of info regarding bullets, casings, wounds, bodies etc. Even if we dismiss the marks on June's shins as smears (debatable imo), are you suggesting that the soft furnishings of the bed placed fine cuts on her hand?
-
The trajectories are mentioned in detail. They all entered her body at a downward angle thus the shooter was standing above the target. Combine this with the fact there was blood and bullets holes on Junes side of the bed. What more proof do you need?
Tedious in extremis to have to keep returning to this topic, but I wonder if you can accept that the downward angle of shots simply means that Sheila was standing at an elevated position in relation to June. This does not mean that all of the shots to June occurred while she was in bed.
My understanding is that two bullets were discovered in pillows and I assume these were the first shots, passing through June's right shoulder area. The rest of her injuries were sustained while she was out of bed.
-
Tedious in extremis to have to keep returning to this topic, but I wonder if you can accept that the downward angle of shots simply means that Sheila was standing at an elevated position in relation to June. This does not mean that all of the shots to June occurred while she was in bed.
My understanding is that two bullets were discovered in pillows and I assume these were the first shots, passing through June's right shoulder area. The rest of her injuries were sustained while she was out of bed.
Jeremy shot June 5 times in bed. Then two more times when he returned upstairs.
-
It seems Roch and Bill are alone here in believing this (yet another) conspiracy theory.
But what I would like to know is who is leading Bill on into thinking this has been substantiated "by forensic experts".
-
It seems Roch and Bill are alone here in believing this (yet another) conspiracy theory.
But what I would like to know is who is leading Bill on into thinking this has been substantiated "by forensic experts".
What exactly are you labelling a 'conspiracy theory'?
-
What exactly are you labelling a 'conspiracy theory'?
The police and pathologists omitting and altering evidence en masse and on a significant scale to cover up what you perceive as cuts and defence wounds on June and Sheila.
🛸 👽 🐑 👽 🛸
-
The police and pathologists omitting and altering evidence en masse and on a significant scale to cover up what you perceive as cuts and defence wounds on June and Sheila.
🛸 👽 🐑 👽 🛸
How else would they falsely convict JB? You do understand, that your own stance is that Sheila convicted the massacre. How did manage she do it while remaining completely unscathed? The simple answer is, she didn't. Which poses a huge problem if you want or need to convict JB.
-
The following experts (four pathologists and one blood pattern expert)
Bernard Knight
Herbert Leon MacDonnell
Marco Meloni
Professor Cavalli
Dr David Fowler
Have all examined and reviewed the photos of Sheila on behalf of JBs defence. I guess Ainsley and dark extraterrestrial forces made them be silent over the alleged cuts and wounds also.
🛸👽 🐑 👽 🛸
-
The following experts (four pathologists and one blood pattern expert)
Bernard Knight
Herbert Leon MacDonnell
Marco Meloni
Professor Cavalli
Dr David Fowler
Have all examined and reviewed the photos of Sheila on behalf of JBs defence. I guess Ainsley and dark extraterrestrial forces made them be silent over the alleged cuts and wounds also.
🛸👽 🐑 👽 🛸
Would depend upon the quality and selection of crime scene photographs. It's only since the Di-Stefano era that a lot of images have become available. It's only since the McKay era (or afterwards?) since students protested outside the CCRC and EP handed over more negatives to the CCRC which were then released to the defence for lab blow up. The defence have had to fight all the way for negatives. Have you factored that in, in your reasoning? ::)
-
How else would they falsely convict JB? You do understand, that your own stance is that Sheila convicted the massacre. How did manage she do it while remaining completely unscathed? The simple answer is, she didn't. Which poses a huge problem if you want or need to convict JB.
Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things. I insist on the distinction. Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man. It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence. It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day. It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system. Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position. I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance. The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions. In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain. Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.
What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative. It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.
Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.
However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it. It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent. A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.
Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative. In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.
Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'. Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.
-
How else would they falsely convict JB?
They didn't. It was his relatives and Julie Mudford.
You do understand, that your own stance is that Sheila convicted the massacre. How did manage she do it while remaining completely unscathed? The simple answer is, she didn't.
The simple answer is, if you shoot dead unarmed defenceless people then you can't be scathed. How do you think Anders Brevik massacred 69 people on that island and remained completely unscathed? ::)
-
They didn't. It was his relatives and Julie Mudford.
The simple answer is, if you shoot dead unarmed defenceless people then you can't be scathed. How do you think Anders Brevik massacred 69 people on that island and remained completely unscathed? ::)
I know that it is your stance - ie regarding Mugford and the relatives. With regards to AB, I cannot possibly think why you would choose that incident as being comparable to WHF.
-
Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things. I insist on the distinction. Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man. It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence. It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day. It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system. Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position. I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance. The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions. In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain. Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.
What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative. It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.
Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.
However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it. It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent. A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.
Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative. In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.
Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'. Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.
I understand the points you make. However, we can dress up wrong doing as much we want. Even if some people merely went along with the flow in their limited role, without any intentional malice, somewhere, somebody knew that what they were doing was essentially 'wrong', even if they were doing it as some kind of 'ends justifies the means' mission, relating to their own beliefs, suspicions prejudices etc. Let's say that Ainsley doesn't like Jeremy and he does like 'Bobby' and he does empathise with the Boutflours and Eatons. And he can see why they think Jeremy is in some way responsible for the killings. That doesn't excuse any actions he undertook, to knowingly conceal facts or evidence that didn't fit with that narrative.
-
I know that it is your stance - ie regarding Mugford and the relatives. With regards to AB, I cannot possibly think why you would choose that incident as being comparable to WHF.
How did AB shoot dead 69 people while remaining unscathed? ::)
-
How did AB shoot dead 69 people while remaining unscathed? ::)
The two incidents are incomparable, Imo. They are vastly dissimilar. What weapons did AB have and what was his MO during the Incident? In addition, how large was the locality where the incident took place? Not forgetting, did he have no personal connection to those involved and might there have been some kind of 'herd panic'? Like QC, I may be inventing my own terminology here.
-
The two incidents are incomparable, Imo. They are vastly dissimilar. What weapons did AB have and what was his MO during the Incident? In addition, how large was the locality where the incident took place? Not forgetting, did he have no personal connection to those involved and might there have been some kind of 'herd panic'? Like QC, I may be inventing my own terminology here.
Answer the question.
If AB can shoot 69 people and remain unscathed. Then Sheila can shoot 2 elderly people and remain unscathed.
How many American mass shooters have anything more then their own self inflicted shots after they have committed the act? ::)
-
I understand the points you make. However, we can dress up wrong doing as much we want. Even if some people merely went along with the flow in their limited role, without any intentional malice, somewhere, somebody knew that what they were doing was essentially 'wrong', even if they were doing it as some kind of 'ends justifies the means' mission, relating to their own beliefs, suspicions prejudices etc. Let's say that Ainsley doesn't like Jeremy and he does like 'Bobby' and he does empathise with the Boutflours and Eatons. And he can see why they think Jeremy is in some way responsible for the killings. That doesn't excuse any actions he undertook, to knowingly conceal facts or evidence that didn't fit with that narrative.
Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened. For me, that's a bit of a stretch.
-
Answer the question.
If AB can shoot 69 people and remain unscathed. Then Sheila can shoot 2 elderly people and remain unscathed.
How many American mass shooters have anything more then their own self inflicted shots after they have committed the act? ::)
I do not think the incidents are comparable is my answer. Perhaps another member will give an opinion.
-
Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened. For me, that's a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure I agree. He was a detective. He would know what wounds are. If he in any way attempted to conceal them, either by sleight of hand with crime scene images or cajoling a pathologist - arguably, he deliberately, knowingly contributed to the framing of a person, when evidence pointed away from that person.
-
Of course, but that's not the same as police intentionally framing somebody they know to be innocent, which is what some people on here have suggested happened. For me, that's a bit of a stretch.
A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.
-
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).
Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.
-
A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.
How can you possibly know whether they had no motive?
-
Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).
Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.
This is where I think you do well. Exposing AE and also JM.
-
Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).
Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.
Stop being over dramatic.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
..........
That is after having the idea in the first place.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
........
I could go through all your list, but just to concentrate on the above two, you are actually contradicting your own argument. If it's true that this needed to be known for somebody to introduce the silencer into evidence, then why did the silencer come into play at all, whether genuinely or otherwise?
In reality, they would not have needed to know the things you mention or even had an appreciation of the silencer's relevance. What happened is that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard, and they say it was 'sticky' and had blood on it, and they realised it belonged to the rifle.
If they did plant the silencer, that would mean all they needed to figure out was that the detection of any blood at all in the silencer could potentially be incriminating, regardless of whose blood it was.
-
A bit? It would mean they knowingly framed an innocent man after they concluded themselves that Sheila was responsible and with absolutely no motive. Its almost as big a stretch as Aliens abducting sheep.
But there's another half to what I said in the original post that this refers back to.
I said there would have to be a vital interest, and I also said that there would need to be convincing evidence of this vital interest.
What is your evidence for the above? I asked at the time and drew a blank from the Forum.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
..........
That is after having the idea in the first place.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
I could go through all your list, but just to concentrate on the above two, you are actually contradicting your own argument. If it's true that this needed to be known for somebody to introduce the silencer into evidence, then why did the silencer come into play at all, whether genuinely or otherwise?
In reality, they would not have needed to know the things you mention or even had an appreciation of the silencer's relevance. What happened is that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard, and they say it was 'sticky' and had blood on it, and they realised it belonged to the rifle.
If they did plant the silencer, that would mean all they needed to figure out was that the detection of any blood at all in the silencer could potentially be incriminating, regardless of whose blood it was.
They had overheard Jeremy telling Taff Jones he left the gun out without the silencer attached on the rifle. That's all they needed to know in order contradict his version of events.
-
I'm not sure I agree. He was a detective. He would know what wounds are. If he in any way attempted to conceal them, either by sleight of hand with crime scene images or cajoling a pathologist - arguably, he deliberately, knowingly contributed to the framing of a person, when evidence pointed away from that person.
But this brings me to another point: wounds can be missed and overlooked, even by experienced detectives, crime scene officers and pathologists.
I have to say, I am not entirely sure which photographs you are talking about. You did send me a link, but that was a general link to an entire thread, so I am at a disadvantage in this discussion as I am not clear what wounds precisely are being referred to. It would be really helpful if somebody could start a new thread for this discussion with the photos in the original post, so we can all see what is being talked about.
However, if I am right, I think you are talking about cuts to her arm. If so, those wounds would have been relatively minor in nature (the key point for the defence is not the severity of the wounds, but the type, location and number of them), and these wounds would have been covered or obscured by dried blood and so maybe for that reason not reported initially at the scene. It is easy to miss cuts and abrasions if slight or minor. I think an honest pathologist could quite easily have missed such evidence.
-
They had overheard Jeremy telling Taff Jones he left the gun out without the silencer attached on the rifle. That's all they needed to know in order contradict his version of events.
Thanks. A useful point. Sorry, remind me: is that in one of the witness statements?
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
..........
That is after having the idea in the first place.
David has no answer to this. Or the COA forensic evidence, 95% of which the CT have not disputed.
All he can do is copy and paste someone else's quote.
-
David has no answer to this. Or the COA forensic evidence, 95% of which the CT have not disputed.
All he can do is copy and paste someone else's quote.
Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam.
My pleasure.
It's alright saying the relatives put blood and paint in the silencer. The impossible part is adequately addressing my 20 points.
-
My pleasure.
It's alright saying the relatives put blood and paint in the silencer. The impossible part is adequately addressing my 20 points.
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Now that Adam has changed his position, we may see more stance changes.
It's getting exciting.
-
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Now that Adam has changed his position, we may see more stance changes.
It's getting exciting.
What do you think of David's theory that the relatives got diluted period blood in a bucket of water & put it inside the silencer?
-
Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things. I insist on the distinction. Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man. It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence. It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day. It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system. Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position. I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance. The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions. In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain. Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.
What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative. It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.
Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.
However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it. It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent. A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.
Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative. In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.
Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'. Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.
Going by some of the evidence that has been withheld for over 30 years for no reason I believe you are wrong. That in itself is a miscarriage of justice. We are not talking about someone doing 12 months in prison we are talking about someone on a full life tariff convicted on circumstantial evidence. I believe Jeremy has been a victim because a bunch of people acted for there own personal gain and I include the police, Mugford, the relatives and anyone else where documentation has discrepancies.
-
Going by some of the evidence that has been withheld for over 30 years for no reason I believe you are wrong. That in itself is a miscarriage of justice. We are not talking about someone doing 12 months in prison we are talking about someone on a full life tariff convicted on circumstantial evidence. I believe Jeremy has been a victim because a bunch of people acted for there own personal gain and I include the police, Mugford, the relatives and anyone else where documentation has discrepancies.
What withheld evidence?
-
Falsely convict and wrongly convict are not the same things. I insist on the distinction. Even if Jeremy is innocent, you would need to meet a pretty overwhelming evidential bar to persuade me that any police officer or pathologist intentionally framed an innocent man. It's much more likely - and realistic - to conclude that they simply made a mistake and pursued Jeremy under the steam of their own self-righteous enthusiasm, blinding themselves to contrary facts and evidence. It's a very common phenomenon - we see it on this Forum every day. It's just human nature and represents a flaw in any human system. Yes, as part of such a catastrophe, influential individuals may tell lies and untruths, but again I emphasise that this is not the same as intentionally framing somebody who is innocent.
The relatives are a different matter, and I think some of the evidence is consistent with the silencer having been planted, but I've set out my criteria: it would need to be demonstrated that 'vital interests' were at stake for the family before I could believe it was anything more than a misconceived desire for justice that motivated them.
Somewhat against what I have just said, I will now offer a qualified defence of your position. I agree with you that people like David and Adam underestimate the potential for a group culture that leads to malfeasance. The culture could be found in a tight-knit and cohesive group or distributed over several agencies and institutions. In either case, there is the potential for systemised malfeasance or 'constructive malfeasance' - I am having to invent my own vocabulary here because it is a difficult phenomenon to describe and explain. Probably you would need an organisational psychologist, systems analyst or management consultant, or somebody like that to explain it properly.
What happens is that the people involved are not necessarily part of an agenda, but they tell small or technical lies or untruths that in and of themselves seems trivial yet contribute to an overarching narrative. It could be that, as you explained in one of your previous posts, the narrative ('ethos') is set by a small group of influential people and this drives everything and frames the perceptions and interpretations of everybody in the case, even the defence, from that point onwards.
Even estimable pathologists could be influenced in this way, and this is where I come to a point of disagreement with you.
However, just as David and Adam underestimate the scope for group malfeasance, I think that you may over-state the case for it. It is not necessary for the pathologist or forensic scientists to have been part of some scheme of corruption in order for Jeremy to be innocent. A lot of forensic evidence is down to interpretation or involves applying a certain method that can turn out to be flawed because it was influenced by the 'ethos'/narrative of the investigative team.
Furthermore, when I use the phrase 'systemised malfeasance', I have in mind a situation where people tell what they think are small or technical lies or untruths thinking that these are trivial in and of themselves without really appreciating that by doing so they are aligning the evidence with the overarching ethos/narrative. In that scenario, the whole management of the case becomes like a factory or machine in which everybody is expected to produce results that meet a certain case goal so as to fulfil the original ethos/narrative set by the core group, but the individuals involved - even the core group - may not comprehend that what they are doing is wrong.
Essentially, the term I may be looking for is 'group think'. Detectives, scientists, lawyers, judges, etc., can lose their objectivity and detachment under strong psychological, social, economic and professional influences.
This certainly wasn't the case with Bamber, as it was quite clear DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones and DI Stan Jones had their own individual views from the outset. I also reject the idea that Peter Vanezis could be leant on to provide evidence which suited someone else's own agenda.
-
But there's another half to what I said in the original post that this refers back to.
I said there would have to be a vital interest, and I also said that there would need to be convincing evidence of this vital interest.
What is your evidence for the above? I asked at the time and drew a blank from the Forum.
I have explained this on the previous page
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117)
-
I have explained this on the previous page
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg490117.html#msg490117)
That's the very post I was replying to. You haven't included any evidence in that post. You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land. Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this? Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park? We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.
-
This certainly wasn't the case with Bamber, as it was quite clear DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones and DI Stan Jones had their own individual views from the outset.
Which then developed into two separate camps of opinion, with one eventually becoming the dominant narrative.
I also reject the idea that Peter Vanezis could be leant on to provide evidence which suited someone else's own agenda.
Peter Vanezis agreed to be pathologist even though he'd been ignored and not called to the scene, which means he was leant on from the start. He was basically presented with a narrative and confirmed it.
He then changed his mind when another narrative took hold.
Anybody can be manipulated for someone else's agenda in the right circumstances, and they needn't be 'leant on'.
-
That's the very post I was replying to. You haven't included any evidence in that post. You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land. Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this? Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park? We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.
Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
-
Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
That is hard to read. I will translate the last paragraph, which is the only thing relevant.
-
'Peter later discovered that the land his brother was farming on was to be sold to property developers in London. So a confidential approach was made to Nevill who had purchased the land to allow Peter and Ann to farm it. No mention by Nevill to anyone about him purchasing the land - not even to June.'
----------
Not sure how this prompted the relatives to attempt to frame an innocent man of murdering his own family. In an impossible frame a few days after the massacre.
-
The relatives already had land they were farming on. They would not know what Bamber's plans would be for the other land.
A dead duck.
-
Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.
-
The Eatons had been farming for years. On their own land. Whether they farmed on land Peter's brother had been farming on was not make or break for them.
There is nothing about the Eaton's wanting to purchase this land.
The only motive to attempt the impossible frame would be that they thought Bamber was responsible. A belief they told the police of. Several times.
-
That's the very post I was replying to. You haven't included any evidence in that post. You simply assert that Jeremy would have controlled the Eatons' land. Where is the copy of the deeds of tenancy providing this? Where is the evidence that Jeremy would have had a controlling share in the caravan park? We would need to see a copy of wills, annual returns and articles of association.
Bamber may have had a controlling share of the caravan park. Assume Nevill had the biggest share.
However that would not change what AE's share was. So the Eaton's were no worse off.
-
Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.
David put up a hand written source on the Eaton's and hoped no one would read it.
-
Yet you think other people make stuff up, when they are arguing with you until they're blue in the face.
A handful of posters on here do make things up but I'm not going to divulge into that matter.
As for claims made by Bill and yourself, its rather a case of usubstanciated theories and conjecture that you express in good faith. Which is very different from dishonestly making things up.
-
Of course there is evidence for it. Why would I make that up?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
Where did I say you'd made it up? I merely asked you to provide evidence. You've provided a link to another 24-page thread. I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.
-
A handful of posters on here do make things up but I'm not going to divulge into that matter.
As for claims made by Bill and yourself, its rather a case of usubstanciated theories and conjecture that you express in good faith. Which is very different from dishonestly making things up.
Firstly, on the one technical issue where we have jointly stood stock still, I do not believe it is unsubstantiated theories or conjecture. That is your personal take on it (for which you cite the pathologist as evidence).
Secondly, on the Ainsley issue - he had oversight. If there was any wrongdoing regarding statements, exhibit labels, misleading information, holding back information etc., the buck stops with him. If that was the culture of the second investigation, it was a culture that he fostered (and no doubt expected compliance from those under him).
-
Where did I say you'd made it up? I merely asked you to provide evidence. You've provided a link to another 24-page thread. I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.
David is referring to Mike's thread post. Which has hand written notes.
I have already dismissed the only barely relevant 8 lines.
-
Bamber may have had a controlling share of the caravan park. Assume Nevill had the biggest share.
However that would not change what AE's share was. So the Eaton's were no worse off.
I thought it was Jean and that she and Ann were at par? Nevill was certainly involved, as was Robert, but I always thought the shares were in the names of the two women, Jean and Ann, and Jeremy was brought in as part of giving him a stake in things. I note that the family have continued that tradition of female-direction of the holiday park up to this day.
I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that Jeremy already had a share, but that could have been taken from Jean's share, so it's not necessarily the case that he more than Ann, and even if he did, company law doesn't quite work that way. To control a company, a shareholder would need at least greater than 50%, and preferably at least 75%, otherwise he can be hindered by minority shareholders. It could also be that the constitution of the company - its Articles of Association - were crafted by lawyers to allow for a cross-family management situation such as this.
This is why I think the whole thing needs deeper investigation, not just off-hand glib utterances of 'he controlled this, he controlled that'. I appreciate the Eatons and Boutflours were not lawyers and may have made certain assumptions that drove their motives, but they were businesspeople and would have had regular consultations with their private lawyers and developed some understanding of the true situation.
-
Where did I say you'd made it up? I merely asked you to provide evidence. You've provided a link to another 24-page thread. I'm not sure I have time to wade through that to find whatever it is you consider evidence for your assertions.
You don't need to read 24 forum pages. Just Peter Eaton's COLP interview Mike attached at the beginning.
-
Firstly, on the one technical issue where we have jointly stood stock still, I do not believe it is unsubstantiated theories or conjecture. That is your personal take on it (for which you cite the pathologist as evidence).
Secondly, on the Ainsley issue - he had oversight. If there was any wrongdoing regarding statements, exhibit labels, misleading information, holding back information etc., the buck stops with him. If that was the culture of the second investigation, it was a culture that he fostered (and no doubt expected compliance from those under him).
Again unsubstantiated conjecture. Saying Ainsley changed all the evidence because it doesn't suit your conspiracy theory isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
You don't need to read 24 forum pages. Just Peter Eaton's COLP interview Mike attached at the beginning.
I've read it. What do you think it is saying? I ask because it isn't saying to me what you appear to think it is saying.
-
There is a bit at the end that mentions Nevill's purchase of land for Peter.
That was a third of a third of Peter's mother's land that the brother had inherited. This means that Peter and Ann retained their own third share that they had inherited from John Eaton (the one who punched Nevill).
But this means that even if Jeremy intended to sell the smaller portion of land, that's just the land inherited from his mother; Peter and Ann would still have retained the greater part of the land Peter inherited from John, regardless of what Jeremy intended.
Speaking of which, what is the evidence that Jeremy proposed to sell the land or communicated this to the Eatons? Come to mention of it, what is the evidence Jeremy even knew that Nevill owned the land? And were there title deeds?
There's also the legal dimension to this. I can't accept that Jeremy could have just thrown the Eatons off agricultural land they were working and that probably didn't even have planning consent for development. If Jeremy really did indicate he wished to sell, it's much more likely that this would have been put in the hands of lawyers and the Eatons would have ended up having to pay farm rent to Jeremy - an outcome Jeremy may even have preferred.
Overall, I don't see a strong motive for framing Jeremy as an innocent man, but I do accept that there could have been a motivating drive to make him a suspect in the belief he did it and that belief may have been driven by bias, and this bias may have had its root in a perception that the family's own interests conflicted with Jeremy's interests. In the end, the result is the same, so the distinction I am making may seem pedantic to some.
-
It is obvious that the relatives would have benefitted if Bamber was convicted. However even the CT says they were already rich.
David tries to paint a picture that Bamber was able to bankrupt them. His source is a scribbled note which says nothing.
-
Jeremy would have had a controlling stake in the caravan park that Ann Eaton was also a director of. More importantly Jeremy now owned most of Peter and Ann Eatons farmland that he was going to sell to pay death duties (inheritance tax).
Long story short, The Eaton's entire livelihood was in jeopardy. Vital interests at stake indeed.
Backing up my previous post.
-
'Peter later discovered that the land his brother was farming on was to be sold to property developers in London. So a confidential approach was made to Nevill who had purchased the land to allow Peter and Ann to farm it. No mention by Nevill to anyone about him purchasing the land - not even to June.'
----------
This seems to be saying the farm land PE's brother was farming on was going to be sold to property developers. Until it was sold PE asked Nevill if he could also farm on the land in the meantime.
PE accepted the land was going to be sold and made no offer to buy the land.
All very trivial
-
David needs to provide proof that -
Jeremy owned most of the relatives farm land.
Jeremy planned to sell the Eaton's farm land to pay death duties.
The relatives were aware of this days after the massacre.
Jeremy's extra stake in the caravan park effected the other relatives stake.
-
" no offer to buy the land " because they were broke !!
-
David needs to provide proof that -
Jeremy owned most of the relatives farm land.
Jeremy planned to sell the Eaton's farm land to pay death duties.
The relatives were aware of this days after the massacre.
Jeremy's extra stake in the caravan park effected the other relatives stake.
This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.
That is exactly what David needs to prove. I am pleased to say I agree.
As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.
And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.
-
Again unsubstantiated conjecture. Saying Ainsley changed all the evidence because it doesn't suit your conspiracy theory isn't going to get you anywhere.
I don't understand this. Please refer to the thread about Ainsley.
-
This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.
That is exactly what David needs to prove. I am pleased to say I agree.
As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.
And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.
This may be the first time I agree with one of your posts.
Where does the one-third come from?
-
This may be the first time I agree with one of your posts.
Where does the one-third come from?
On the first page of the thread David links to, Mike has posted up a note of the COLP interview of Peter Eaton.
What Peter told COLP about the land is this:
He, his brother and his mother inherited land from his father, John, split three ways. (As an aside, John was the one who punched Nevill, but that was an entirely separate incident, I believe. This is often wrongly blamed on Peter).
Peter and his brother split the mother's one-third equally - i.e. 50:50. (I incorrectly referred to it as one-third as for some reason I had in mind that there were three siblings, but on looking again in fact I see there were just two, so the split of the mother's land is half - it doesn't change the point, though).
The half of the mother's land that went to the brother, is what Peter persuaded Nevill to buy into order to stop his brother selling to property developers.
My point is that, when you take all this into account, it means that Peter and Ann Eaton own their own land, plus half of the land inherited from the mother. Even if Jeremy knew about the Eaton land that Nevill owned and intended to sell it, the Eatons retained ownership of most of their land. Jeremy could not have ended their livelihoods.
-
On the first page of the thread David links to, Mike has posted up a note of the COLP interview of Peter Eaton.
What Peter told COLP about the land is this:
He, his brother and his mother inherited land from his father, John, split three ways. (As an aside, John was the one who punched Nevill, but that was an entirely separate incident, I believe. This is often wrongly blamed on Peter).
Peter and his brother split the mother's one-third equally - i.e. 50:50. (I incorrectly referred to it as one-third as for some reason I had in mind that there were three siblings, but on looking again in fact I see there were just two, so the split of the mother's land is half - it doesn't change the point, though).
The half of the mother's land that went to the brother, is what Peter persuaded Nevill to buy into order to stop his brother selling to property developers.
My point is that, when you take all this into account, it means that Peter and Ann Eaton own their own land, plus half of the land inherited from the mother. Even if Jeremy knew about the Eaton land that Nevill owned and intended to sell it, the Eatons retained ownership of most of their land. Jeremy could not have ended their livelihoods.
Similar to David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & attempted quiet stance change, this months claim has been dismissed.
-
This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.
That is exactly what David needs to prove. I am pleased to say I agree.
As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.
And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.
Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript
In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.
In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.
The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.
-
Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript
In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.
In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.
The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.
I thought the wallpaper incident was over Vaulty Manor? Maybe I've misremembered what I read.
It seems reasonable that Jeremy would ask the Eatons to pay back the land, but I wonder why he didn't just rent it to them? A lot seems to be made of the estate's inheritance tax bill and the need to liquidate capital to meet it, but surely the Bambers took advice on how to make arrangements so that the estate would be tax efficient? It's not difficult and any competent high street solicitor specialising in private client work and familiar with agricultural law would have assisted.
No need to look further at the letters. I have them all, so I'll look myself some time.
-
This may be the first occasion when I agree with one of your posts.
That is exactly what David needs to prove. I am pleased to say I agree.
As I mention in my post above, I think the whole theory may fall down on point 1: even if Jeremy inherited the one-third of Peter's mother's land that Nevill bought, that was still only a small part of the Eatons' land.
And that's before we get into the complexities of farm business tenancies, planning consents, land options, articles of association and so on, which the Eatons would have had some understanding of as working farmers and landowners.
Getting back to the trivial distraction of individually held case stances.. Are you still about 80-20 in favour of guilt? Or have you edged to 60-40?
-
Getting back to the trivial distraction of individually held case stances.. Are you still about 80-20 in favour of guilt? Or have you edged to 60-40?
I am above 90% but below 99%. I think I have listed my 10 reasons why I think he is likely guilty, but I have also said that I do not believe he should have been convicted, as there is reasonable doubt.
The way I see the percentages working is:
100% - Probably impossible to reach. Even if somebody is caught red-handed, you do not know for sure their state of mind. 100% is a philosophically-unattainable standard. That's why we say 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond doubt'.
99% - Beyond reasonable doubt/sure. To me, this is what is meant by saying you are 'sure' about something in a realistic sense.
Anything less than 99% is normally acquittal. The remaining 1% is residual/minor doubt that arises in virtually all cases.
98% normally must mean acquittal because as soon as you start to allow doubt to creep in to a conviction, it looks unsafe. Yet there is probably no definite identifiable red line when a conviction actually becomes unsafe, and maybe sometimes 98% is enough to convict. But it is a slippery slope because if you accept doubt about one thing and convict anyway then why not overlook doubt about something else? Percentages are an arbitrary representation of something that can't be reliably defined for all cases.
-
Well we know it wasn't a unanimous verdict, nor was it beyond reasonable doubt which for the type of crime that was carried out does leave questions unanswered.
-
I am above 90% but below 99%. I think I have listed my 10 reasons why I think he is likely guilty, but I have also said that I do not believe he should have been convicted, as there is reasonable doubt.
The way I see the percentages working is:
100% - Probably impossible to reach. Even if somebody is caught red-handed, you do not know for sure their state of mind. 100% is a philosophically-unattainable standard. That's why we say 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond doubt'.
99% - Beyond reasonable doubt/sure. To me, this is what is meant by saying you are 'sure' about something in a realistic sense.
Anything less than 99% is normally acquittal. The remaining 1% is residual/minor doubt that arises in virtually all cases.
98% normally must mean acquittal because as soon as you start to allow doubt to creep in to a conviction, it looks unsafe. Yet there is probably no definite identifiable red line when a conviction actually becomes unsafe, and maybe sometimes 98% is enough to convict. But it is a slippery slope because if you accept doubt about one thing and convict anyway then why not overlook doubt about something else? Percentages are an arbitrary representation of something that can't be reliably defined for all cases.
It always amazes me when I read this from you, as your posting record seems to indicate differently. You seem more inclined to empathise with us lot in the innocence camp. More often than not, your posts seem to undermine the guilter cause.
-
Well we know it wasn't a unanimous verdict, nor was it beyond reasonable doubt which for the type of crime that was carried out does leave questions unanswered.
This is a very important point. We must remember that it was not a unanimous verdict. Two jurors who heard the case throughout found reasonable doubt. In the past, he would have walked (and I think he should have done).
-
Whether it was not all the land is irrelevant. It was enough to send Ann Eaton in a frenzy whereby she then started ripping wallpaper off the wall. Source - Ann Eatons trial transcript
In Ann Eaton notes she wrote down a diagram of what farmland Jeremy was going to get. Source - Ann Eaton hand written notes.
In a letter from Jeremy to Mike, Jeremy writes that he had asked the Eatons to pay back the land after he had a meeting with the Accountant on the 9th of August.
The first two sources can be found in the archive under Ann Eaton. The particular letter from Jeremy to Mike is tricky to find as there are so many letters but I will find it for you when I have more time.
Here is the relevant letter. Page 3
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6295.msg277947.html#msg277947 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6295.msg277947.html#msg277947)
-
This is a very important point. We must remember that it was not a unanimous verdict. Two jurors who heard the case throughout found reasonable doubt. In the past, he would have walked (and I think he should have done).
What a ridiculous post
You are almost sure Jeremy carried out the murders but you think he should have walked ?????
-
What a ridiculous post
You are almost sure Jeremy carried out the murders but you think he should have walked ?????
Do you understand how the legal system works? Are you familiar with the burden of proof and presumption of innocence?
-
Do you understand how the legal system works? Are you familiar with the burden of proof and presumption of innocence?
Just to make my position crystal clear incase you haven’t grasped it yet. I believe Jeremy is innocent and I would not have wanted him to walk anywhere if I thought he had murdered his Mother, Father, Sister or two children
In all your long detailed posts you haven’t shown any clear proof that Jeremy is guilty considering your at 99%
-
Just to make my position crystal clear incase you haven’t grasped it yet. I believe Jeremy is innocent and I would not have wanted him to walk anywhere if I thought he had murdered his Mother, Father, Sister or two children
In all your long detailed posts you haven’t shown any clear proof that Jeremy is guilty considering your at 99%
I don't follow how this relates to what I have just said. You are entitled to take your own view, but I don't have to agree with everything you say or adopt your way of looking at things.
If a juror isn't sure, then he must vote to acquit. He must acquit even if he thinks the accused actually did it. He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is an absolute bastard. He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is very dangerous to the community. The jury has one job only.
That's the standard I am applying - i.e. the standard applied by the courts. It seems reasonable to me because this approach to things is the basis of all objective/neutral inquiry anyway. To my mind, your last two posts underline very clearly one of the flaws in the jury system, which is that the vast majority of people simply don't understand the burden of proof. Like you, most people think that what they think about a case counts or is important in some way. It doesn't. What counts is the evidence. A jury is supposed to put aside their own views, feelings and prejudices and just look at the evidence they have heard and make a decision.
This is why we had the unanimity rule for juries. The idea is that in every group of 12 or so people, you have an intelligent one or two people. That intelligent minority - i.e people like me - could block the mob majority and ensure that cases that didn't reach the standard of proof were thrown out. This was one of the protections against wrongful convictions. When two jurors in the Bamber case maintained their Not Guilty vote, Jeremy should have been acquitted on that basis alone.
My decision, so far as I am able 35 years later, is Not Guilty, because the evidence isn't quite enough. He may be a very dangerous person who killed five people in their own homes with a semi-automatic rifle. I'm still saying Not Guilty, because the evidence doesn't reach the bar that entitles me to convict him.
-
Your saying 99% ??? Jeremy didn’t walk did he and didn’t have the chance of a fair trial because as everyone knows thousands of documents were withheld from the jury not allowing them to come up with a fair decision.
Just the signing of the NOTW deal before trial would have been a major factor in the decision by all jurors and obviously the withholding of positive character references.
I will stick to my 99% based on all the information I have read and all the people I have spoken to who knew him growing up.
-
For me 90% would be enough to vote guilty.
Optimistic to expect 99% when 50% of the time there are highly skilled defence lawyers disputing everything and bringing up there own evidence & witnesses. The defendent has also pleaded 'not guilty'.
Obviously the Bamber case is 99.9%. Doubtful there is a case with so much incriminating evidence where the defendent has pleaded 'not guilty'. The 0.1% is due to the one in a million chance there was an industrial frame.
-
For me 90% would be enough to vote guilty.
Optimistic to expect 99% when 50% of the time there are highly skilled defence lawyers disputing everything and bringing up there own evidence & witnesses. The defendent has also pleaded 'not guilty'.
The evidence is either strong enough or it isn't. If it is, then the jury are entitled to convict. If it isn't, then the defendant is Not Guilty. That, in a nutshell, is the system we have.
My use of percentages is easy to mock, but as I've made clear already, it's just an arbitrary way of putting across the relevant concepts. We could say 90%, if it makes you feel better, but the point is that the remaining 10% must represent residual or trivial doubt only. That's why I prefer the 99%/1% way of explaining it.
If in everyday conversation you say to somebody: "I'm 99% sure", then that's taken to mean you are sure and that any doubt you may harbour is of a trivial sort. That, in simple of terms, sums up the burden of proof, and that's what I am trying to get across.
Obviously the Bamber case is 99.9%. Doubtful there is a case with so much incriminating evidence where the defendent has pleaded 'not guilty'. The 0.1% is due to the one in a million chance there was an industrial frame.
It seems to me this is just your opinion. The accused is entitled to plead Not Guilty, or enter no plea at all, and remain silent throughout proceedings. It is for the Crown to prove their case. If the Crown present a case to answer, then some of the onus shifts to the defendant, who then has to come up with explanations in response. But the point is that the overall burden always remains with the prosecution.
Two of the jurors who heard the case in 1986 voted Not Guilty. Was it just that they were impressed with the stylish suits Jeremy was wearing for court?
The whole point of the unanimity rule that existed until the 1960s was that criminal defendants were protected from a mob mentality that could take hold on juries, where a few strong, bullying personalities could say, "Look, you heard Adam, the expert witness, go through the 97 pieces of evidence. It's 99.9999% that he's guilty. What more do you want? Just say Guilty so we can all go home. I want to see my family...", etc., etc.
The system under the unanimity rule allowed for an intelligent minority to block people like this and say, "Wait, let's think about this a bit more carefully..." and "What about this....", etc.. Ultimately, the intelligent/sceptical one or two jurors could block the majority. This was an essential protection against miscarriages of justice.
I don't expect you or anybody else on here to listen to what I am saying - it is just the way of the world that most people are mob-minded - but there it is.
-
Your saying 99% ??? Jeremy didn’t walk did he and didn’t have the chance of a fair trial because as everyone knows thousands of documents were withheld from the jury not allowing them to come up with a fair decision.
Just the signing of the NOTW deal before trial would have been a major factor in the decision by all jurors and obviously the withholding of positive character references.
I will stick to my 99% based on all the information I have read and all the people I have spoken to who knew him growing up.
Jeremy didn't walk because it would appear the jury made a mistake. Of course, none of us were there to hear what the jury heard, and we must always take that into account and be humble in our criticisms of the jury. Yet at the same time the following points are inescapable:
1. At least three of jury dissented, and two of them stuck to their Not Guilty vote to the bitter end. This fact alone shakes my confidence in the prosecution case. Until the 1960s, the unanimity rule would have protected Jeremy in these circumstances and there would either have been a hung jury and a re-trial (with a greatly morally-weakened prosecution) or Jeremy would have been discharged altogether. We could argue that we don't know what effect the maintenance of the unanimity protection would have had on a jury's decision in any particular case, but given the issues with the evidence, it must be considered likely that it would have favoured Jeremy, and once three or four jurors express scepticism under protection of law, then other jurors probably would have spoken up too, and he could well have been acquitted altogether.
2. The jury were misdirected by the trial judge on the blood evidence and Julie Mugford's criminal history.
3. Julie Mugford misled the court about her dealings with the press.
4. The response of Robert Boutflour to the jury's question was misleading in that he answered the question over-literally, omitting a crucial fact that his family would benefit from the estate. If you stop to reflect on this: a normal honest person naive about the law would have answered the question expansively with something like, "Not me, but my wife...", etc. Robert answered it more in the way a lawyer might. Clearly he must have taken advice on his answer before giving it, which means there was collusion over the answer he should provide to the jury.
5. The significance of Sheila Caffell's psychiatric history was not completely disclosed to the jury. The evidence from Sheila's psychiatrist did not cover all bases (though in fairness, this was not the fault of Dr Ferguson - to the contrary, it was Dr Ferguson himself who raised the issue after the trial). The only caveat to this point is that reliance is placed in this regard on Jeremy's assertion that fostering of the children was discussed immediately prior to the tragedy.
6. The pharmacological evidence was incomplete or misleading. As far as I am aware, no expert clinical pharmacological evidence was heard.
7. One juror admitted to an Essex newspaper reporter that the jury didn't know what to make of it all after they were sent out and, had it not been for the second direction from the trial judge, which was a misdirection, Jeremy (quote) "would have walked".
8. Overall, reasonable doubt arises in the evidence, for a number of reasons I won't expand on here. Anybody who is honest and looks at this case properly can see that.
-
I wonder if it was ever stressed / repeated to the jury about the type of blood that Sheila had ? This in itself would have swayed the jury into giving the verdict that they did----silencer and blood----but they were never told that RWB had also tested for exactly the same blood type !
-
I wonder if it was ever stressed / repeated to the jury about the type of blood that Sheila had ? This in itself would have swayed the jury into giving the verdict that they did----silencer and blood----but they were never told that RWB had also tested for exactly the same blood type !
Yes. For me, it's also the fact that it was never emphasised that the blood was not a precise match. It was just the same blood group, but the jury were left with the impression that it was a match. Even now, in retrospect with the DNA findings, anybody who says the blood was definitely Sheila's is just blustering. The simple fact is that the blood in the silencer cannot be linked to Sheila with a level of certainty required for a criminal conviction. Once you acknowledge this simple fact, a keystone of the prosecution case looks at least questionable, maybe falls away - depending on the overall view you take of things.
The anti-Jeremy camp will say that you have to consider everything in the round and the blood findings alongside Julie's evidence and the forensic findings from Sheila's body and clothing all point to Jeremy. In other circumstances, I might have been persuaded by this sort of 'connect-the-dots' argument and accepted that 97% is enough, but in this case the police did not find the silencer, despite searching the property. The relatives handled it and admitted that they tampered with it, and the relatives strongly disliked Jeremy and are emotionally- and financially-vested in Jeremy's convictions. When you consider this and also consider the simple fact that the blood found in the silencer need not have come from Sheila and it has not been proved that it did, and then you consider the inconclusiveness of the later DNA findings, it's just not quite good enough, I'm afraid.
If you add 97 to 97 to 97 to 97, you still end up with 97% of 400. The result is a picture that makes Jeremy look very guilty indeed, but that doesn't quite meet the bar to justify his conviction and incarceration.
-
Was it right though that the jury were told that the blood belonged to Sheila when initially it had been said that the findings of it had been inconclusive as to whose blood it was ? I'd have concluded that it was contaminated after having changed hands and with so much blood inside the property, a mixture of June's and Nevill's too, besides the remains of rabbit's blood for which it was originally used for.
Was the blood of Sheila just tested from the silencer or taken from a vein, because I've always had a problem with the AK1 being in the grouping ?
-
Jeremy didn't walk because it would appear the jury made a mistake. Of course, none of us were there to hear what the jury heard, and we must always take that into account and be humble in our criticisms of the jury. Yet at the same time the following points are inescapable:
1. At least three of jury dissented, and two of them stuck to their Not Guilty vote to the bitter end. This fact alone shakes my confidence in the prosecution case. Until the 1960s, the unanimity rule would have protected Jeremy in these circumstances and there would either have been a hung jury and a re-trial (with a greatly morally-weakened prosecution) or Jeremy would have been discharged altogether. We could argue that we don't know what effect the maintenance of the unanimity protection would have had on a jury's decision in any particular case, but given the issues with the evidence, it must be considered likely that it would have favoured Jeremy, and once three or four jurors express scepticism under protection of law, then other jurors probably would have spoken up too, and he could well have been acquitted altogether.
2. The jury were misdirected by the trial judge on the blood evidence and Julie Mugford's criminal history.
3. Julie Mugford misled the court about her dealings with the press.
4. The response of Robert Boutflour to the jury's question was misleading in that he answered the question over-literally, omitting a crucial fact that his family would benefit from the estate. If you stop to reflect on this: a normal honest person naive about the law would have answered the question expansively with something like, "Not me, but my wife...", etc. Robert answered it more in the way a lawyer might. Clearly he must have taken advice on his answer before giving it, which means there was collusion over the answer he should provide to the jury.
5. The significance of Sheila Caffell's psychiatric history was not completely disclosed to the jury. The evidence from Sheila's psychiatrist did not cover all bases (though in fairness, this was not the fault of Dr Ferguson - to the contrary, it was Dr Ferguson himself who raised the issue after the trial). The only caveat to this point is that reliance is placed in this regard on Jeremy's assertion that fostering of the children was discussed immediately prior to the tragedy.
6. The pharmacological evidence was incomplete or misleading. As far as I am aware, no expert clinical pharmacological evidence was heard.
7. One juror admitted to an Essex newspaper reporter that the jury didn't know what to make of it all after they were sent out and, had it not been for the second direction from the trial judge, which was a misdirection, Jeremy (quote) "would have walked".
8. Overall, reasonable doubt arises in the evidence, for a number of reasons I won't expand on here. Anybody who is honest and looks at this case properly can see that.
You do like to write a lot about not very much.
The verdict was 10-2.
The jury knew about Julie's minor cheque book fraud. It was Sheila's blood. Even David agrees.
Both Julie & Bamber would have signed their NOTW deals at the right time. As advised by their lawyers.
The jury were well aware the relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.
The defence & Jeremy did all they could to paint Sheila as a possible killer.
Pharmacological evidence?
Have you got a source for 7?
-
You do like to write a lot about not very much.
Well you're the expert in that field.
The verdict was 10-2.
You'll see I mention that above. Is there a reason you need to tell us again?
The jury knew about Julie's minor cheque book fraud.
They were misled about her criminal record.
It was Sheila's blood. Even David agrees.
We don't know it was Sheila's blood. That was not established. The fact you refuse to see this just underscores my point that everybody is misled about it. It's all just bluster and arrogance.
Both Julie & Bamber would have signed their NOTW deals at the right time. As advised by their lawyers.
Thanks Adam. You may not realise this, but a witness in a case must not act under such a conflict of interest without informing the court. The only exception to this is the defendant/accused, who can sign deals with whomever he likes and when he likes, as there is no conflict in that case.
It's interesting how the defenders of Julie, like you, minimise all of her wrongful and criminal court. She misled the court. She committed cheque book fraud. She helped Jeremy in the theft from the caravan park. But it was all Jeremy's fault.
The jury were well aware the relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.
No they were not. You are being sneaky and dishonest. They were misled about the extent to which a witness would benefit. As I have explained above, his response to the jury's question must have been coached, and the jury would hardly have asked the question if they had been put in the picture.
The defence & Jeremy did all they could to paint Sheila as a possible killer.
Given that Jeremy is saying Sheila was the killer, that is hardly surprising.
Pharmacological evidence?
? Do you have a dictionary in your possession?
Have you got a source for 7?
Powell and/or Carol Ann Lee. One of the authors. Can't remember which one.
-
Well you're the expert in that field.
You'll see I mention that above. Is there a reason you need to tell us again?
They were misled about her criminal record.
We don't know it was Sheila's blood. That was not established. The fact you refuse to see this just underscores my point that everybody is misled about it. It's all just bluster and arrogance.
Thanks Adam. You may not realise this, but a witness in a case must not act under such a conflict of interest without informing the court. The only exception to this is the defendant/accused, who can sign deals with whomever he likes and when he likes, as there is no conflict in that case.
It's interesting how the defenders of Julie, like you, minimise all of her wrongful and criminal court. She misled the court. She committed cheque book fraud. She helped Jeremy in the theft from the caravan park. But it was all Jeremy's fault.
No they were not. You are being sneaky and dishonest. They were misled about the extent to which a witness would benefit. As I have explained above, his response to the jury's question must have been coached, and the jury would hardly have asked the question if they had been put in the picture.
Given that Jeremy is saying Sheila was the killer, that is hardly surprising.
? Do you have a dictionary in your possession?
Powell and/or Carol Ann Lee. One of the authors. Can't remember which one.
You said 3.
How were the jury misled? Why does it matter? The judge said both had committed previous crimes but that does not mean they lied in this trial.
It was human blood. Who else received contact shots in a location of high blood flow? The court evidence was it was Sheila's. With a remote chance of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.
The defence would have asked if she had signed a NOTW deal. She would say 'no'. She hadn't.
It's up to the defence to expose how the relatives would benefit. They had Bamber to advise them. The relatives couldn't deny documentation. The defence could always use Basil Cock.
-
You said 3.
I said it is likely there were at least 3 jurors and 2 held out to the end.
How were the jury misled? Why does it matter?
I've already explained in my post how they were misled. You may not think it matters, but the CCRC, the entire judiciary, the legal profession and - I would hope - most ordinary people would disagree with you and would say that it matters greatly if a jury is misled about significant matters.
The judge said both had committed previous crimes but that does not mean they lied in this trial.
I explained to you in a previous thread, months ago, why this particular point matters when you made the same remarks. I don't want to explain it again. It's tiresome.
It was human blood. Who else received contact shots in a location of high blood flow? The court evidence was it was Sheila's. With a remote chance of it being a mixture of Nevill's & June's.
You're missing the point. The court could not be sure it was Sheila's and still cannot be sure. In view of the chain of custody of the evidence, I see reasonable doubt.
The defence would have asked if she had signed a NOTW deal. She would say 'no'. She hadn't.
She had. NG1066 says so and I believe him on this point. Furthermore, contracts can be oral. An oral agreement would be enough if the question was put to her.
It's up to the defence to expose how the relatives would benefit. They had Bamber to advise them. The relatives couldn't deny documentation. The defence could always use Basil Cock.
I accept this point. I do not know why Jeremy's lawyers didn't challenge the reply provided by Robert Boutflour. They must have been aware of the question put and his response.
-
I said it is likely there were at least 3 jurors and 2 held out to the end.
I've already explained in my post how they were misled. You may not think it matters, but the CCRC, the entire judiciary, the legal profession and - I would hope - most ordinary people would disagree with you and would say that it matters greatly if a jury is misled about significant matters.
I explained to you in a previous thread, months ago, why this particular point matters when you made the same remarks. I don't want to explain it again. It's tiresome.
You're missing the point. The court could not be sure it was Sheila's and still cannot be sure. In view of the chain of custody of the evidence, I see reasonable doubt.
She had. NG1066 says so and I believe him on this point. Furthermore, contracts can be oral. An oral agreement would be enough if the question was put to her.
I accept this point. I do not know why Jeremy's lawyers didn't challenge the reply provided by Robert Boutflour. They must have been aware of the question put and his response.
The last point does undermine a long term argument of supporters.
Bamber met Basil Cock two days after the massacre & probably more times. So would be aware how the relatives would benefit if he was convicted.
If Bamber was unsure, the defence can ask Basil Cock.
Either way the jury would know the next of kin/relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.
-
The last point does undermine a long term argument of supporters.
Bamber met Basil Cock two days after the massacre & probably more times. So would be aware how the relatives would benefit if he was convicted.
If Bamber was unsure, the defence can ask Basil Cock.
Either way the jury would know the next of kin/relatives would benefit if Bamber was convicted.
Thanks Adam. At this rate, I'll be PM'ing you soon for moral support.
-
Would like to see RB's trial transcript.
Don't know how he could say he would not benefit if Bamber was convicted. If he did, the defence should have been able to slaughter him.
Maybe it's another long term myth.
Thanks QC.
-
Would like to see RB's trial transcript.
Don't know how he could say he would not benefit if Bamber was convicted. If he did, the defence should have been able to slaughter him.
Maybe it's another long term myth.
Thanks QC.
It's not a myth. I've seen the jury's note and the note he wrote in response.
Thanks Adam.
-
It's not a myth. I've seen the jury's note and the note he wrote in response.
Thanks Adam.
Someone needs to post the section.
-
Someone needs to post the section.
It's on the Forum already.
Thanks Adam.
-
It's on the Forum already.
Thanks Adam.
You would have thought with the amount of time Adam spends on this forum, he would know the case very well yet the opposite is the case.
Mike has uploaded some 20,000 pages of case evidence and Adam has bothered to read none of it.
-
It's on the Forum already.
Thanks Adam.
Don't lie or post it.
Thanks QC.
-
Don't lie or post it.
Thanks QC.
I don't mind being accused of lying if I am telling an untruth. It's then for me to explain myself. But to accuse me of lying when you have no basis for doing so is abuse and a clearly a breach of the Forum Rules.
As David has pointed out to you, countless documents have been uploaded by Mike to this Forum, including the documents I have just mentioned. You don't know about them because you have no genuine interest in them. It's obvious that you are someone close to the case and you are here to bang a drum.
-
I don't mind being accused of lying if I am telling an untruth. It's then for me to explain myself. But to accuse me of lying when you have no basis for doing so is abuse and a clearly a breach of the Forum Rules.
As David has pointed out to you, countless documents have been uploaded by Mike to this Forum, including the documents I have just mentioned. You don't know about them because you have no genuine interest in them. It's obvious that you are someone close to the case and you are here to bang a drum.
Maybe your Mugfords son. He likes to post on social media and sounds a right charmer
-
mike is the biggest proven liar on this forum..trust me on that...good sleuthing ya all...E.T.
-
Takes one to know one, ESKIMO !
-
Maybe your Mugfords son. He likes to post on social media and sounds a right charmer
You're right, I'm her son. You've got me! I feel relieved at being exposed really. It's a big weight off my shoulders.
-
The weather here in Winnipeg is medium dry with intermittent sunny showers and plenty of cloud cover.
-
You're right, I'm her son. You've got me! I feel relieved at being exposed really. It's a big weight off my shoulders.
My mistake that was aimed at Adam after you make the comment he is obviously connected to someone in the guilty camp
Mugfords son posts on social media
-
My mistake that was aimed at Adam after you make the comment he is obviously connected to someone in the guilty camp
Mugfords son posts on social media
Oh right. My apologies. I was pulling your leg anyway.
Again, as with Steve, I don't really care who Adam is. That's his business, but I wish people would be more honest and transparent and tell us if they have an interest in the case.
I've looked at Adam's posts and he comes across to me very much like a police officer, but I've noticed that he does get very defensive whenever Julie Mugford is brought up. Sons and daughters of police officers can be quite defensive about their police parents. Who knows? It's obvious that he is connected to the case in some way.
-
Oh right. My apologies. I was pulling your leg anyway.
Again, as with Steve, I don't really care who Adam is. That's his business, but I wish people would be more honest and transparent and tell us if they have an interest in the case.
I've looked at Adam's posts and he comes across to me very much like a police officer, but I've noticed that he does get very defensive whenever Julie Mugford is brought up. Sons and daughters of police officers can be quite defensive about their police parents. Who knows? It's obvious that he is connected to the case in some way.
I used to say similar about Adam. That he was effectively paid to be on the forum. Over time, I have mellowed towards him.
-
I used to say similar about Adam. That he was effectively paid to be on the forum. Over time, I have mellowed towards him.
Bright and sunny in Winnipeg, with a touch of frost. Clouds darkening. Threats of snow. Don't slip on the ice!
-
Bright and sunny in Winnipeg, with a touch of frost. Clouds darkening. Threats of snow. Don't slip on the ice!
I used to think more like an EP goon (paid from a reptile fund). However, if I was way off the mark on that, I do apologise to Adam.
-
I used to think more like an EP goon (paid from a reptile fund). However, if I was way off the mark on that, I do apologise to Adam.
You will, perhaps, understand if I don't join in with your magnanimity.
-
Oh right. My apologies. I was pulling your leg anyway.
Again, as with Steve, I don't really care who Adam is. That's his business, but I wish people would be more honest and transparent and tell us if they have an interest in the case.
I've looked at Adam's posts and he comes across to me very much like a police officer, but I've noticed that he does get very defensive whenever Julie Mugford is brought up. Sons and daughters of police officers can be quite defensive about their police parents. Who knows? It's obvious that he is connected to the case in some way.
I'm glad the bickering has stopped. I might start posting again.
-
I'm glad the bickering has stopped. I might start posting again.
As chief instigators, you and Adam are at the cutting-edge of bickering, I should have thought.
-
If I remember correctly, the cuts to June's hand are very fine. The chin wound is visible in forum images but the images are very low definition. Regarding the marks on her shins, I couldn't work them out.
They are smears of blood on the surface of the skin ::)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=988.0;attach=4960)
-
They are smears of blood on the surface of the skin ::)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=988.0;attach=4960)
Of course there are smears of blood on the surface of her skin.
-
The new podcasts don't wash with me. If only the Defence could admit for one moment that there was a modicum of animosity between Jeremy, his parents and his sister it would have rung truer. Instead everything was sweetness and light and Jeremy is such a wronged, misunderstood figure. Even in the second new podcast where the Defence plays its strongest card there are inaccuracies and omissions: we are not told that by August 1985 Colin was in de facto control of the boys and June was in the process of arranging an annual allowance for Sheila to enable her to budget responsibly and offering her a degree of. independence thereby. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
-
Steve so far as I understand the podcasts are legally backed and whatever is said there's information to support it. As for the CCRC submissions there's the added information between the sections/ titles of each issue that's been laid out. It's these " unseen "additions that we'll probably learn more about as things hopefully move on towards an appeal.
I would have said that if anyone had been misunderstood it was Sheila herself. Teenage years in girls are, can be, challenging times and June wasn't prepared for what she had to face when Sheila was growing up-----already traumatised from adoption, then when June got ill the child was in someone else's hands and generally passed around like a parcel without the same stability that Jeremy had experienced after adoption.
.
You've only to look back on Sheila's school years, working years etc. The girl wasn't settled in anything.
Sadly, Dr Ferguson hadn't been told the full extent of Sheila's problems because nobody was forthcoming about her behaviour and it was only latterly that Ferguson realised that Sheila was more ill than he first realised. Without clinical follow-ups, support and having had reduced medication it could only end in disaster.
Any money that Sheila would have received from her mother obviously went in the wrong direction.
-
The new podcasts don't wash with me. If only the Defence could admit for one moment that there was a modicum of animosity between Jeremy, his parents and his sister it would have rung truer. Instead everything was sweetness and light and Jeremy is such a wronged, misunderstood figure. Even in the second new podcast where the Defence plays its strongest card there are inaccuracies and omissions: we are not told that by August 1985 Colin was in de facto control of the boys and June was in the process of arranging an annual allowance for Sheila to enable her to budget responsibly and offering her a degree of. independence thereby. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
Surely they are not saying his relationship with his family was lovie dovie.
He testified he had a poor relationship with June. He had no relationship with Sheila and the twins and said he did not understand her illness.
-
So, lets sum up Roch and Bills conspiracy theory -
After Sheila shot June five times, June got up and blood ran and dripped all over her nightdress and the carpet below but not on Junes legs. The blood on Junes legs are actually the result of a subsequent struggle were-by Sheila is cutting Junes legs while June is inflicting 28 wounds on Sheila's arm, in an altercation that would resemble a violent game of twister.
When Sheila was committing suicide, She shot herself under the chin and neck while sitting up as blood spilled and dripped from her wounds down her night dress but not on her arm that would be right under her neck wounds as she pressed the trigger. They are actually 28 wounds inflicted earlier, they just so happen to look like blood runs and just so happen to be in the exact place you would expect blood stains to run down from the two gunshot wounds.
Ainsley and Co then got Vanezis to alter his original autopsy notes and got the lab to omit June Bambers blood group from Sheila's nightdress. Vanezis then lied in court as huge blow up photos of these wounds were presented in the court room in-front of everyone. The defence pathologist present in the court room failed to notice them and agreed with Vanezis conclusions. Four other experts have also failed to notice them as June Bamber managed to inflict 28 wounds that happen to look like bloodstains, this was very convenient for Ainsleys conspiracy.
It was not until 30 years later, a conspiracy theorist affiliated with JBs campaign team, who has a track record of debunked and poorly thought out theories noticed the Ainsley-Vanesiz coverup.
Wow this will blow the CCRC away and JB will be out in no time! ::) ::) ::)
-
Surely they are not saying his relationship with his family was lovie dovie.
He testified he had a poor relationship with June. He had no relationship with Sheila and the twins and said he did not understand her illness.
Did you not hear the conversational podcast between Yvonne Hartley and Heidi Hawkins? No mention of any strife in the Bamber household, no mention of Barbara Wilson's evidence that Nevill feared for his life, no mention of James Richards' testimony at trial. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
-
Did you not hear the conversational podcast between Yvonne Hartley and Heidi Hawkins? No mention of any strife in the Bamber household, no mention of Barbara Wilson's evidence that Nevill feared for his life, no mention of James Richards' testimony at trial. https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
Next they will be saying Jeremy visited bible classes with June.
-
So, lets sum up Roch and Bills conspiracy theory...
If the CCRC reject the latest submissions, that won't change the fact that there were fight wounds on all three adults, as well as smears etc. Even if Vanezis was backed, that wouldn't change anything in real terms. It wouldn't magic away any nicks, cuts or grazes on the bodies. It would just mean that PV was being backed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regarding the marks on June's shins. In what position would she need to be in, in order to deposit isolated marks such as those?
Regarding Sheila's wrist / forearm. Let's assume that the circumference is narrow. That equates to a very small surface area for streams of blood to travel accross and suddenly stop / congeal. That doesn't work for me.
-
Next they will be saying Jeremy visited bible classes with June.
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
It's good that you are keeping a look out and bringing this new evidence on to the Forum.
Certain people on here should be more open-minded, like you are. They should PM you for moral support.
-
Regarding Sheila's wrist / forearm. Let's assume that the circumference is narrow. That equates to a very small surface area for streams of blood to travel accross and suddenly stop / congeal. That doesn't work for me.
I have already explained this to you
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg406660.html#msg406660 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg406660.html#msg406660)
Are you saying the wall below in the second image has been cut?
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/12126027/70/images/14/Drip+Pattern-+A+blood+stain+pattern+which+results+from+dripped+blood+either+from+a+weapon%2C+victim+or+sometimes+the+killer..jpg)
-
If the CCRC reject the latest submissions, that won't change the fact that there were fight wounds on all three adults, as well as smears etc.
Its not a fact. Its a conspiracy theory, one that's easily refuted.
-
Regarding the marks on June's shins. In what position would she need to be in, in order to deposit isolated marks such as those?
Since she was walking around the bed with blood running down her and dripping blood over the carpet as she walked. It dosent take a rocket scientist to work out the blood got there as she put one leg infront the other.
-
Vanezis then lied in court as huge blow up photos of these wounds were presented in the court room in-front of everyone.
Really? Were you in Court? There were no "blow up" photos shown in Court.
Your infantile posts are unworthy of any attention.
-
Whose hand was around June and Sheila's neck to have left indentations/ prints ? These prints should have been measured to distinguish whether they were male or female prints, which would have given height and weight of the offender if they'd been examined.
Scrapings from beneath fingernails were never taken or recorded.
The piece of broken toe-nail of Sheila's was never tested. You can only damage a toe-nail by dashing around and ramming it into a hard object. Why was it found downstairs ?
-
Whose hand was around June and Sheila's neck to have left indentations/ prints ? These prints should have been measured to distinguish whether they were male or female prints, which would have given height and weight of the offender if they'd been examined.
Scrapings from beneath fingernails were never taken or recorded.
The piece of broken toe-nail of Sheila's was never tested. You can only damage a toe-nail by dashing around and ramming it into a hard object. Why was it found downstairs ?
How do you know it was Sheila's toe nail?
WHF was not the cleanest place. Nevill had been downstairs, bare footed, fighting for his life that night.
-
There is no mention of toe nails in the COA. Hopefully Lookout can provide the source.
-
Its not a fact. Its a conspiracy theory, one that's easily refuted.
Routinely using the term 'conspiracy' in a dismissive and pejorative manner isn't helpful. It implies that nobody, collectively, ever conspires to distort truths. Also, it over simplifies a situation were certain individuals may be passively involved, while others may be actively involved.
-
Really? Were you in Court? There were no "blow up" photos shown in Court.
Your infantile posts are unworthy of any attention.
Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about. If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/shoe-print-analyst-william-bodziak-explains-his-theories-on-blood-picture-id51991591?s=612x612)
-
Routinely using the term 'conspiracy' in a dismissive and pejorative manner isn't helpful. It implies that nobody, collectively, ever conspires to distort truths. Also, it over simplifies a situation were certain individuals may be passively involved, while others may be actively involved.
Care to address my other two points? On reply #428 are you saying that inanimate surface is cut and bleeding because you don't believe blood flow can change direction?
-
Care to address my other two points? On reply #428 are you saying that inanimate surface is cut and bleeding because you don't believe blood flow can change direction?
That's because I can't quite comprehend your 'points' within the context of the two seperate individuals' specific blood trails / wounds. Your explanations seem convoluted, at the expense of accepting far simpler explanations.
-
Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about. If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/shoe-print-analyst-william-bodziak-explains-his-theories-on-blood-picture-id51991591?s=612x612)
What was the quality of images used at trial? Where they colour or black and white? Which particular image are you referring to?
-
They're probably copies of copies and worse when you come to enlarge them if the quality's bad to begin with.
They look like abstract drawings to me, that unless you know what you're looking for you'd never make them out ::)
-
Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about. If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.
A sweeping generalisation and you have no evidence that such photographs were used at Jeremy's trial. I prefer to take Jeremy's word for it that small images were passed around; sometimes there were several copies, but they were not 'blow-ups'. This is borne out by the Judge and Prosecutor/Defence saying to Vanezis several times how difficult it was to see what he was referring to in his testimony.
-
I'm sure the Defence would have liked to make the trial all about Sheila. Unfortunately for them it was Jeremy Bamber who sat in the dock.
-
A sweeping generalisation and you have no evidence that such photographs were used at Jeremy's trial. I prefer to take Jeremy's word for it that small images were passed around; sometimes there were several copies, but they were not 'blow-ups'. This is borne out by the Judge and Prosecutor/Defence saying to Vanezis several times how difficult it was to see what he was referring to in his testimony.
David's non-Newtonian gravity driven blood smears are able to scrape, graze and cut skin..
https://images.app.goo.gl/hEMp9R6myWNiKha59
-
I'm sure the Defence would have liked to make the trial all about Sheila. Unfortunately for them it was Jeremy Bamber who sat in the dock.
Wrong
Again
Jeremy was deeply frustrated that Rivlin refused to call witnesses who would testify about Sheila’s propensity to violence and told Jeremy directly that he was on trial, not Sheila.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your baseless prejudices.
-
Wrong
Again
Jeremy was deeply frustrated that Rivlin refused to call witnesses who would testify about Sheila’s propensity to violence and told Jeremy directly that he was on trial, not Sheila.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your baseless prejudices.
Given your dementia I shall rein in my first thoughts as riposte. Jeremy's subterfuge was to blame Sheila. If you can't understand this you understand nothing about the case.
-
Given your dementia I shall rein in my first thoughts as riposte. Jeremy's subterfuge was to blame Sheila. If you can't understand this you understand nothing about the case.
I think Bill understands very well that this is the allegation of the pro-guilt side, he just believes Jeremy was not engaged in any such subterfuge.
We could do without your nasty personal attacks on posters, but I see you can't help yourself.
-
I think Bill understands very well that this is the allegation of the pro-guilt side, he just believes Jeremy was not engaged in any such subterfuge.
We could do without your nasty personal attacks on posters, but I see you can't help yourself.
You mean like you calling me "thick", and oh if I'm a teacher I must be a P. E. teacher mustn't I because I'm a member of this site. By the way, I think you might well be joining the dementia club sooner rather than later, given the fundamental inconsistencies you have shown concerning the Jeremy Bamber case discussion.
-
Yes, this was naturally " all about Jeremy " for obvious reasons but sadly the court were told very little about Sheila who can't remain blameless.
One part of a post-mortem record showed that " We might therefore conclude that the ingestion of Sheila's medication was unmonitored : posing an increasing probability of risk of uncontrolled frenzied behaviour ".
Were the jury ever told about Sheila's life at all ?
-
Yes, this was naturally " all about Jeremy " for obvious reasons but sadly the court were told very little about Sheila who can't remain blameless.
One part of a post-mortem record showed that " We might therefore conclude that the ingestion of Sheila's medication was unmonitored : posing an increasing probability of risk of uncontrolled frenzied behaviour ".
Were the jury ever told about Sheila's life at all ?
Well Barbara Wilson did testify that in the spring of 1985 Sheila had told her that "the devil was after her" but her condition had improved by the time of the August stay.
-
You mean like you calling me "thick", and oh if I'm a teacher I must be a P. E. teacher mustn't I because I'm a member of this site. By the way, I think you might well be joining the dementia club sooner rather than later, given the fundamental inconsistencies you have shown concerning the Jeremy Bamber case discussion.
Attacks, if made, that were in response to your constant provocations. You are the cause of the problems.
Your attitude is appalling.
Inconsistencies are not contradictions, and anybody who thinks about things and takes a neutral view, will show inconsistencies. I also find that much of the time, you accuse me of inconsistencies when all I am doing is being fair or I am putting forward a subtle position which you have difficulty understanding because of your biased, prejudiced, one-eyed approach to everything.
Must we go over your mistakes again? They have been enumerated at length and it's embarrassing. You rush in to correct people because your background as a teacher has left you with a supercilious mental attitude. You forget that we are educated people as well - even if it's just in the University of Life. And some of us are very well read in our right.
-
Yes, this was naturally " all about Jeremy " for obvious reasons but sadly the court were told very little about Sheila who can't remain blameless.
One part of a post-mortem record showed that " We might therefore conclude that the ingestion of Sheila's medication was unmonitored : posing an increasing probability of risk of uncontrolled frenzied behaviour ".
Were the jury ever told about Sheila's life at all ?
Yes Sheila was barely mentioned during the long trial. Although she was one of two suspects and couldn't defend herself.
-
Yes Sheila was barely mentioned during the long trial. Although she was one of two suspects and couldn't defend herself.
It matters not whether a person can't defend themselves when it happens to be a case of murder where one man is left standing. Talk about the easy way out ::)
-
Yes Sheila was barely mentioned during the long trial. Although she was one of two suspects and couldn't defend herself.
Then what would you have proposed that an innocent Jeremy do differently? The accused must respond to the case brought, if he decides to respond at all. It was the prosecution, not the defence, that called Colin as a witness, even though he had no knowledge of the incident. If Jeremy had mentioned Sheila more (which he probably should have), you would be complaining about that.
-
Well Barbara Wilson did testify that in the spring of 1985 Sheila had told her that "the devil was after her" but her condition had improved by the time of the August stay.
Course it had.
It had improved so much that Colin on learning of Sheilas death was convinced she had committed suicide and Colin was one of the last people to spend time with Sheila on the long drive to WHF where he dumped her
It is a fact Steve this proves you are thick
-
Then what would you have proposed that an innocent Jeremy do differently? The accused must respond to the case brought, if he decides to respond at all. It was the prosecution, not the defence, that called Colin as a witness, even though he had no knowledge of the incident. If Jeremy had mentioned Sheila more (which he probably should have), you would be complaining about that.
I was not being serious.
Of course the defence massively focused on Sheila during the whole trial.
-
Course it had.
It had improved so much that Colin on learning of Sheilas death was convinced she had committed suicide and Colin was one of the last people to spend time with Sheila on the long drive to WHF where he dumped her
It is a fact Steve this proves you are thick
They are not facts, and not even written in sentences, as is your wont.
-
I was not being serious.
Of course the defence massively focused on Sheila during the whole trial.
Thanks Adam.
-
That's because I can't quite comprehend your 'points' within the context of the two seperate individuals' specific blood trails / wounds. Your explanations seem convoluted, at the expense of accepting far simpler explanations.
What is convoluted about it? Blood dripped on June's legs the same way it dripped on the carpet.
Blood spilled on Sheila's arm the same way it got on her night dress.
It does not get any simpler then that.
-
They are not facts, and not even written in sentences, as is your wont.
Maybe you would like to inform all the forum members what Colin said when he was told by the police Sheila was dead???
Before Sheilas death Colin spent more one to one time with her than anyone else.
-
Maybe you would like to inform all the forum members what Colin said when he was told by the police Sheila was dead???
Before Sheilas death Colin spent more one to one time with her than anyone else.
Well on the latter point make your mind up whether Colin abandoned Sheila or not. As far as Colin's doorstep remarks are concerned this was a gut reaction and unsurprising from what we know subsequently, that she seemed to have discussed suicide with quite a number of people around her.
-
What is convoluted about it? Blood dripped on June's legs the same way it dripped on the carpet.
Blood spilled on Sheila's arm the same way it got on her night dress.
It does not get any simpler then that.
So as she walked, wet blood dripped on to June's shin and immediately congealed as bar shapes, ie horizontal?
As for Sheila, what exactly do you mean 'blood spilled on Sheila's arm the same way it got on to her night dress'?
-
Well Barbara Wilson did testify that in the spring of 1985 Sheila had told her that "the devil was after her" but her condition had improved by the time of the August stay.
You clearly come on this forum to disrupt the threads and you constantly make disgusting comments about the people posting
I couldn’t give a toss if you are having sex with Mugford or your her son because you think her behaviour is defendable but I am interested in getting to the truth in this case.
You need to post facts showing how Sheilas condition had improved just before the murders? You also need to give a reason as to why you think Colins remarks to the police regarding Sheilas death are not important
It is clear from Colins comments to police that Sheila had contemplated suicide a number of yet. Although Colin has tried to distance himself many times from any blame regarding Sheilas mental health there was clear prove that he dumped/dropped Sheila off at WHF when she was in a bad place mentally. Colin knew she hated WHF.
The facts are not in dispute unless you can prove otherwise.
-
Sheila had been so fixated on the Devil that she finally acted out his work. She'd have seen everyone possessed that night so did something about it. The King James Bible is all about driving out Demons .
An example of how a person can be drawn into the work of the Devil can be read in the case of the Ossett Murder of 1974 when a pleasant and mild-mannered man turned into an horrific murderer who'd thought that his wife had been possessed by Demons. He'd had no recollection of what he'd done as he'd been " under the influences of supernatural forces " and gave nor explanation whilst on trial.
His defence answered by saying that existing mental health issues had created a potent mind-controlling indoctrination of a religious cult when the man went to be exorcised by a group belonging to the Christian Fellowship. The Prayer Group had pushed the man over the edge with their warped religious ideals and beliefs.
He was sent to Broadmoor for 2 years then another 2 years at an Infirmary to which he'd be released from-----cured !?
-
I have noticed that Kay the person who made the podcast on Brett Collins is a member of the Red Forum and posts there
It seems Kay believes Jeremy is guilty.
What is clear in the podcast is that Brett Collins states he had no knowledge of any nude photos and was very close to Jeremy at the time.
It would be nice to hear Gringos take on this
Even weirder that this Kay would choose to go on the Red forum where they allow members like Tim who is a racist and the forum that’s already been shut down because of bad behaviour.
-
I have noticed that Kay the person who made the podcast on Brett Collins is a member of the Red Forum and posts there
It seems Kay believes Jeremy is guilty
What is clear in the podcast is that Brett Collins states he had no knowledge of any nude photos and was very close to Jeremy at the time yet Caroline has failed to challenge Kay on this points
It would be nice to hear Gringos take on this.
Even weirdo that this Kay would choose to go on the Red forum where they allow members like Tim who is a racist and the forum that’s already been shut down because of bad behaviour.
Without wishing to name names, I think there are one or two still here who would be more at home over on the Red Forum.
The Bamber affair bears at least one similarity to the Madeleine McCann affair. Both cases generate more heat than light and seem to attract people who, as soon as they hit the keyboard, lose all sense of moderation, maturity and decorum and turn into arrogant know-it-alls.
The Red Forum is very nasty and I do think the atmosphere and culture there reflects something about the pro-guilt side (which should perhaps be more properly called the anti-Jeremy side) and also the puffed-up conflict that this case attracts. I'm not pretending this trait is exclusive to pro-guilt people. There is fault on both sides, and in general, I get irritated with people on both sides of this who are very slanted or biased, but I've noticed that there is an undercurrent of nastiness to the pro-guilt side. It is manifestly obvious that, in general, they are not nice people.
I've read virtually every thread on this Forum and I've noticed that it started out as a very moderate and sensible place, with a mixture of pro-guilt, pro-Jeremy and neutral people, and there were some good, informative posters putting across both sides and in-between, and also some entertaining posters like Campion.
Then after maybe two or three years, there was an influx of new people who started out claiming to be neutral or on the fence, but then turned sharply against Jeremy and started causing trouble. They were called out but they stayed. As a result, I have to say that, while it may be entertaining at times and keeps the post count up, I do wonder what the Forum has lost by keeping these people around? Just my opinion as a relatively new member, but I think the Forum went downhill when these people 'turned' and became not the Blue Forum, but a shade of Red - which is sad, as it began very promisingly as a Forum for intelligent, ecumenical discourse on the case.
-
Totally agree and the obsession with posting when they ‘know’ the right person is locked up for life
-
So as she walked, wet blood dripped on to June's shin and immediately congealed as bar shapes, ie horizontal?
No it would have congealed not long after she collapsed
As for Sheila, what exactly do you mean 'blood spilled on Sheila's arm the same way it got on to her night dress'?
Its self explanatory Roch
-
No it would have congealed not long after she collapsed
So it fell, bar-shaped upon her shin, didn't congeal but also didn't run. Then, when June collapsed, the blood that hadn't ran while she was walking, finally congealed.
-
This is how the bloodstains got on Sheila's arm, as she was sitting up pressing the trigger.
The blood also went a lot further down the side of Sheila's nightdress towards her right arm, however its difficult to see as that side of the dress has been pulled back by gravity and her arm as she fell back.
-
In the picture of Sheila with her hand on the rifle, wasn't that impression taken into consideration when testing her prints on the rifle ? A whole hand as opposed to just a trigger finger.
-
This is how the bloodstains got on Sheila's arm, as she was sitting up pressing the trigger.
The blood also went a lot further down the side of Sheila's nightdress towards her right arm, however its difficult to see as that side of the dress has been pulled back by gravity and her arm as she fell back.
There is no silencer on that rifle.
-
This is how the bloodstains got on Sheila's arm, as she was sitting up pressing the trigger.
The blood also went a lot further down the side of Sheila's nightdress towards her right arm, however its difficult to see as that side of the dress has been pulled back by gravity and her arm as she fell back.
The arrows seem to suggest that blood spurted from Sheila's wound and landed on her wrist in seperate streams. I do not think this is what Vanezis suggested mind. You might want to revisit his notes and testimony to check it matches your theory.
-
The arrows seem to suggest that blood spurted from Sheila's wound and landed on her wrist in seperate streams. I do not think this is what Vanezis suggested mind. You might want to revisit his notes and testimony to check it matches your theory.
Its in his cross examination, Trial transcript page 30. Even the defence barrister puts it to him that way.
-
Its in his cross examination, Trial transcript page 30. Even the defence barrister puts it to him that way.
If the spots of blood on her wrist are the ends of the trails of blood, then the source of those trails is the underside of her wrist. So, are you saying, that Vanezis is saying, that the gunshot wound to her neck deposited blood on the underside of her wrist; and that this deposit of blood then split in to four streams as it travelled around on to the front of her wrist, before stopping and congealing, on the wrist?
-
If the spots of blood on her wrist are the ends of the trails of blood, then the source of those trails is the underside of her wrist. So, are you saying, that Vanezis is saying, that the gunshot wound to her neck deposited blood on the underside of her wrist; and that this deposit of blood then split in to four streams as it travelled around on to the front of her wrist, before stopping and congealing, on the wrist?
The blood stains/smears on her wrist were not caused by her shooting herself dead on the main bedroom floor, the blood was never grouped, and so the blood could have leaked onto that part of her hand/ wrist it has to have been one or more of the other four victims blood!
-
If the spots of blood on her wrist are the ends of the trails of blood, then the source of those trails is the underside of her wrist. So, are you saying, that Vanezis is saying, that the gunshot wound to her neck deposited blood on the underside of her wrist; and that this deposit of blood then split in to four streams as it travelled around on to the front of her wrist, before stopping and congealing, on the wrist?
Yes, the same way its running down her upper arm in two streams.
-
Then after maybe two or three years, there was an influx of new people who started out claiming to be neutral or on the fence, but then turned sharply against Jeremy and started causing trouble. They were called out but they stayed. As a result, I have to say that, while it may be entertaining at times and keeps the post count up, I do wonder what the Forum has lost by keeping these people around? Just my opinion as a relatively new member, but I think the Forum went downhill when these people 'turned' and became not the Blue Forum, but a shade of Red - which is sad, as it began very promisingly as a Forum for intelligent, ecumenical discourse on the case.
People "turned sharply" because they were conned by Paul Harrison. He told them via PM or email that he had solved the case and Jeremy was guilty, that all would be revealed in his upcoming book.
Then his drivel was published and it all blew up in their faces rather quickly. Some members slowly came back to their senses while others just kept on trolling the forums out of resentment and bitterness.
-
People "turned sharply" because they were conned by Paul Harrison. He told them via PM or email that he had solved the case and Jeremy was guilty, that all would be revealed in his upcoming book.
Then his drivel was published and it all blew up in their faces rather quickly. Some members slowly came back to their senses while others just kept on trolling the forums out of resentment and bitterness.
Paul Harrison's theory was that Jeremy and Sheila acted together, but as explained before and also on another current thread, the collusion theory doesn't work. It's an attractive idea and sounds convincing and plausible on its face, but when you think it through logically, you realise that a guilty Jeremy would not - and could not - involve Sheila, and even if he was the thickest person in the world, he had to have realised this himself. The culprit must be either Jeremy or Sheila; it's extremely unlikely that it was both. There is, admittedly, a small possibility that they were both deranged and acted in concert somehow, without regard for the consequences.
As for the letter Paul Harrison published, it looks and reads fake to me, but could well be a genuine letter from a fake - if you see the distinction. Ironically, Harrison may have been taken in himself. Otherwise, I agree with the assessments of the book: it's the worst book on the case, if it qualifies as a book at all.
-
Yes, the same way its running down her upper arm in two streams.
Thanks for confirming. It doesn't work for me, because iirc, the blood flows merge and taper on the underside of her wrist. If the process was as you say, it would mean that deposited blood began as a taper that broadened, then separated in to distinct streams, before finally congealing at set points. Her wrist was probably quite thin in circumfence. I find that hard to comprehend.
-
I have noticed that Kay the person who made the podcast on Brett Collins is a member of the Red Forum and posts there
It seems Kay believes Jeremy is guilty.
What is clear in the podcast is that Brett Collins states he had no knowledge of any nude photos and was very close to Jeremy at the time.
It would be nice to hear Gringos take on this
Even weirder that this Kay would choose to go on the Red forum where they allow members like Tim who is a racist and the forum that’s already been shut down because of bad behaviour.
If you can let me know which podcast I will give it a listen, Jackie.
-
Here's the latest podcast it feature's an interview with Brett Collins, with a couple of interesting revelations if true.
https://thewhitehousefarmmurders.buzzsprout.com/769913/8368829-he-s-where-he-belongs-w-brett-collins-jeremy-bamber-s-former-best-friend
Hi Gringo
The interesting bit is about the nude photos
I hope you are well x
-
Here's the latest podcast it feature's an interview with Brett Collins, with a couple of interesting revelations if true.
https://thewhitehousefarmmurders.buzzsprout.com/769913/8368829-he-s-where-he-belongs-w-brett-collins-jeremy-bamber-s-former-best-friend
Hi Gringo
The interesting bit is about the nude photos
I hope you are well x
I will give it a listen, Jackie and get back to you.
Always well, I don't have time not to be :-\ Keep well, yourself :)
-
Why are these podcasts coming out now----35 years later ?
-
Strange how they should appear with the CT ones.
-
Here's the latest podcast it feature's an interview with Brett Collins, with a couple of interesting revelations if true.
https://thewhitehousefarmmurders.buzzsprout.com/769913/8368829-he-s-where-he-belongs-w-brett-collins-jeremy-bamber-s-former-best-friend
Hi Gringo
The interesting bit is about the nude photos
I hope you are well x
He is batshit crazy. Pissing myself at the "big bag of diamonds" that Jeremy had acquired by taking the stones out of the tiaras and stuff in his gran's safe". Hilarious about 22 mins in.
The narrator is even more bonkers. She intervenes as Brett is rambling incoherently about cheques and Jeremy and Sheila owning a campsite each to say that, "But Brett did get one thing wrong..." She then informs us that the cheque story was Julie on her own rather than Jeremy forging company cheques.
One thing wrong... priceless. Only two minutes after the ridiculous tiara diamonds from Gran's safe and the hi de hi campsite each. This is how he described them. One thing wrong suggests that our narrator finds the tiara and big bag of diamonds story entirely believable.
Jeremy always having wads of cash stolen from his fathers "secret compartments in the farmhouse" £5,000 and £10,000 are given as examples that presumably Nevill had never noticed missing from the "secret compartments". I am expecting his nurse to come in any minute now.
Up to the photographs part and the narrator's incredulity he denied that it ever happened. Even if he had claimed it did happen as described by the by the intrepid reporter Fielder, it would not change a thing in my view.
Brett himself comes across as very bitter about his lot in life. He is at pains to emphasise that his own parents had money, but were unlike Jeremy's parents whom he describes and refers to in very disparaging ways compared to his generous with their money parents? He also wants us to know that he has money left from some house sale, the proceeds of which seem to have lasted forever. He isn't broke and we know this because all of the people who are secure need to tell strangers about it ::)
Refers to the company of the Bambers as some sort of affected snobbery by the family for unclear reasons. He comes across as incoherent, desperate and a sandwich short of a picnic. The narrator is even worse, questioning non of his bat shittery except the cheque incident being the one thing he got wrong until the photographs which she also disbelieves given Fielder's impeccable credentials.
This level of drivel cannot be considered "investigating the White House Farm killings" by anyone seeking truth. It is sensation seeking murder porn masquerading as investigative journalism.
Brett Collins gave his statements at the time when it was a police investigation. These are the only statements of note that he has made. It had real consequences then, now it is just a ticket to occasional easy money. But as he pointed out, he has money already.
An idiot interviewed by another idiot.
-
There really is too much to dissect on that, Jackie, and I only made it just past halfway through. The stuff about Jeremy giving some sort of secret knock and getting in all the top clubs in London, Stringfellows etc. and all the staff and everybody knew him. Setting up heroin importation deals in Amsterdam without Brett knowing at the time because he found out "later".
Bonkers.
-
"He just had to click his fingers and cocaine would appear, ya know..."
"He was in the men's toilets, covered in cocaine, just help yourself...."
Of course, Brett.
And I thought I was the one smacked off.
"He pulled a big bag of diamonds out. All cut diamonds. He showed me this big bag that he'd collected from his 95 year old grandmother, she had a big safe full of jewellery from the old days, and he showed me this and he'd picked out all the diamonds and tiaras. He stole those. She had rooms packed with antiques and stuff and she never went in the safe to check on jewellery but he knew..."
Is he referring to Mabel Speakman? Can this be verified?
I've commented before on the Forum that the various celebrity guilter personalities would be better off keeping their mouths shut. Brett Collins is a perfect example. You can tell listening to him that half of what he says will not be true and the other half open to question.
-
There really is too much to dissect on that, Jackie, and I only made it just past halfway through. The stuff about Jeremy giving some sort of secret knock and getting in all the top clubs in London, Stringfellows etc. and all the staff and everybody knew him. Setting up heroin importation deals in Amsterdam without Brett knowing at the time because he found out "later".
Bonkers.
Spot on Gringo. What an absolute disgrace the pair of them. It was sickening to listen to and interesting that Brett mentioned Jeremys intelligence??? If Jeremy showed an ounce of intelligence he would have run a mile from the likes of Brett Collins
-
Brett doesn't give the name of the New York lawyer who supposedly supported his alibi but the name was given to the police. I wonder if Mike has something in his paperwork about this?
-
"He just had to click his fingers and cocaine would appear, ya know..."
Come on, I haven't listed to the podcast but does he really say that? lol
-
Come on, I haven't listed to the podcast but does he really say that? lol
I must admit you do have a point, it does come across as a ridiculous and I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session, but I've just re-listened and yes, as difficult as it is to believe, he actually really says this.
Or maybe it's not difficult to believe he says it - remember, it is Brett talking.
-
I must admit you do have a point, it does come across as a ridiculous and I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session, but I've just re-listened and yes, as difficult as it is to believe, he actually really says this.
Or maybe it's not difficult to believe he says it - remember, it is Brett talking.
No wonder the person who produced the podcast decided to promote herself on the red forum. Sounds like she is matey with Bewes which says it all really
-
Any idiot can say what he likes when he's thousands of miles away hiding behind a screen. He didn't even have the guts to show himself and say all this (crap ) when he had the opportunity, on live television.
The man's crackers !!
-
Any idiot can say what he likes when he's thousands of miles away hiding behind a screen. He didn't even have the guts to show himself and say all this (crap ) when he had the opportunity, on live television.
The man's crackers !!
Due to my own background and the people I have mixed in, I tend to be adept at spotting liars. I knew what type of person he is before even listening to it, and I realised I couldn't believe a word he says as soon as he opened his mouth and started talking. If he told me the weather in New Zealand is hot and sunny, I'd pack extra warm clothing. If he told me the time of day, I'd have to double-check with the people at Greenwich.
I'm guessing he isn't lying about his alibi in Greece, though, because somebody on the inside of the case could easily and quickly gainsay him. Or could they? Mike has never produced documents about this. You'd think if Brett had a verified alibi, there'd be an Action Report on it somewhere.
-
Due to my own background and the people I have mixed in, I tend to be adept at spotting liars. I knew what type of person he is before even listening to it, and I realised I couldn't believe a word he says as soon as he opened his mouth and started talking. If he told me the weather in New Zealand is hot and sunny, I'd pack extra warm clothing. If he told me the time of day, I'd have to double-check with the people at Greenwich.
I'm guessing he isn't lying about his alibi in Greece, though, because somebody on the inside of the case could easily and quickly gainsay him. Or could they? Mike has never produced documents about this. You'd think if Brett had a verified alibi, there'd be an Action Report on it somewhere.
Its in his statement QC, they checked his passport for trips to Amsterdam and Greece.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50193
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8969.msg425319.html#msg425319
-
I must admit you do have a point, it does come across as a ridiculous and I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session, but I've just re-listened and yes, as difficult as it is to believe, he actually really says this.
Or maybe it's not difficult to believe he says it - remember, it is Brett talking.
'I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session,'
---------
So that explains your posts.
-
Its in his statement QC, they checked his passport for trips to Amsterdam and Greece.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50193
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8969.msg425319.html#msg425319
I can't see any mention of the New York lawyer in there. Why did Brett mention this in the podcast interview but not in his interview with the police 36 years ago when he needed the alibi?
Also, as I've mentioned before in regard to Brett, passports were very easy to fake in those days, especially among professional/organised criminals and people with close connections to such criminals.
My first passport was a piece of cardboard folded into four with my photo glued on it and all my details completed in pen by somebody from the Post Office.
As an aside, the interview transcript begins with a summary, which says "Discussed Passport issue etc. re the 1975 issued passport and other remarks in 1985".
Does that mean there was an issue with his passport or does it refer purely to the issue of his passport? Probably the latter, but the main point is I'm curious to know if there is a record somewhere of the police making inquiries of a New York lawyer. This would probably be done via the NYPD, to ensure she was verified correctly, and she would have been interviewed by the NYPD.
-
'I thought maybe it was the LSD cocktail kicking in after my latest smack session,'
---------
So that explains your posts.
Thanks Adam. I need it after reading your posts. Plus there's your refusal to recommend me for the CT, all the embarrassment with the jet skis - you put me right on that, but I can't show my face at the CCRC for a while now - and Myster still won't let me take part in his Cluedo tournaments, even after I was recommended by Steve.
-
I can't see any mention of the New York lawyer in there. Why did Brett mention this in the podcast interview but not in his interview with the police 36 years ago when he needed the alibi?
Also, as I've mentioned before in regard to Brett, passports were very easy to fake in those days, especially among professional/organised criminals and people with close connections to such criminals.
My first passport was a piece of cardboard folded into four with my photo glued on it and all my details completed in pen by somebody from the Post Office.
As an aside, the interview transcript begins with a summary, which says "Discussed Passport issue etc. re the 1975 issued passport and other remarks in 1985".
Does that mean there was an issue with his passport or does it refer purely to the issue of his passport? Probably the latter, but the main point is I'm curious to know if there is a record somewhere of the police making inquiries of a New York lawyer. This would probably be done via the NYPD, to ensure she was verified correctly, and she would have been interviewed by the NYPD.
Oh sorry QC, I’ve not listened to the Podcast and the New York Lawyer, I thought you was referring to the police checking his Alibi. I’m like you, I’m not convinced about the Passport Alibi, how easy was it to cheat the system back then, I’m not sure, especially pre digital/computer ect?
-
Oh sorry QC, I’ve not listened to the Podcast and the New York Lawyer, I thought you was referring to the police checking his Alibi. I’m like you, I’m not convinced about the Passport Alibi, how easy was it to cheat the system back then, I’m not sure, especially pre digital/computer ect?
Extremely easy. Child's play. He could have easily either got that passport stamped to order or used a fake passport and had his genuine passport stamped properly on entry and exit.
Just as an aside, Greece entered the EEC in 1981. I don't know what the situation was in southern Europe at that time, but what I can say is that even pre-Schengen, you could cross borders in western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark) without any checks at all. In the rare event there were checks, it was usually as difficult as buying a Mars bar. In that regard, simply having gone to the trouble of having the bona fide passport stamped potentially could additionally be viewed as suspicious. Why bother having it stamped? Though it does depend on what the practice was at the Greek border. To be fair, UK entrants at that time normally did have passports stamped at, say, Dover.
Is this just another example of a guilter celebrity who should have kept his mouth firmly shut but couldn't resist blabbing? If I was pro-guilt, I wouldn't even be posting on this Forum. I wouldn't risk it. I'd be keeping my mouth firmly closed about the whole sordid matter because every time you blab, you're giving sceptics like me, and also those who are supporters of Jeremy, further reason for doubt.
Questions, questions, questions. Who was this New York lawyer? Was she a registered attorney in New York? Did she live in New York city itself or somewhere upstate? Did Essex Police make an Interpol inquiry request to the NYPD or other authorities in New York? Was an Interpol inquiry raised with the Greek authorities, to ascertain title in this 'private property' and then interview the landlord, seize [that's seize, Steve, not heart seizure] the guest list/bookings list?
Did they really just rely on his passport? For crying out loud! Because if so, I am personally going to put Stan Jones and Bob Miller forward for Donkeys of the Year 1984. I'll even have a T-shirt specially printed.
-
Extremely easy. Child's play. He could have easily either got that passport stamped to order or used a fake passport and had his genuine passport stamped properly on entry and exit.
Just as an aside, Greece entered the EEC in 1981. I don't know what the situation was in southern Europe at that time, but what I can say is that even pre-Schengen, you could cross borders in western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark) without any checks at all. In the rare event there were checks, it was usually as difficult as buying a Mars bar. In that regard, simply having gone to the trouble of having the bona fide passport stamped potentially could additionally be viewed as suspicious. Why bother having it stamped? Though it does depend on what the practice was at the Greek border. To be fair, UK entrants at that time normally did have passports stamped at, say, Dover.
Is this just another example of a guilter celebrity who should have kept his mouth firmly shut but couldn't resist blabbing? If I was pro-guilt, I wouldn't even be posting on this Forum. I wouldn't risk it. I'd be keeping my mouth firmly closed about the whole sordid matter because every time you blab, you're giving sceptics like me, and also those who are supporters of Jeremy, further reason for doubt.
Questions, questions, questions. Who was this New York lawyer? Was she a registered attorney in New York? Did she live in New York city itself or somewhere upstate? Did Essex Police make an Interpol inquiry request to the NYPD or other authorities in New York? Was an Interpol inquiry raised with the Greek authorities, to ascertain title in this 'private property' and then interview the landlord, seize [that's seize, Steve, not heart seizure] the guest list/bookings list?
Did they really just rely on his passport? For crying out loud! Because if so, I am personally going to put Stan Jones and Bob Miller forward for Donkeys of the Year 1984. I'll even have a T-shirt specially printed.
Why on earth did Jeremy mix with these people Brett?? Julie ??? (Clearly not normal and would someone like her with her background ever have had a career in teaching) ???
More reasons I question Jeremys intelligence.
Where did Neville and June go so wrong
They must have been beside themselves when Sheila hooked up with Colin
Colin and Julie absolute nightmares
-
Why on earth did Jeremy mix with these people Brett?? Julie ??? (Clearly not normal and would someone like her with her background ever have had a career in teaching) ???
More reasons I question Jeremys intelligence.
Where did Neville and June go so wrong
They must have been beside themselves when Sheila hooked up with Colin
Colin and Julie absolute nightmares
Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy. Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett. But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'. I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand. Why do the diamonds have to be explained? Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.
I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk. He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.
It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting. It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain. He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.
-
Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy. Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett. But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'. I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand. Why do the diamonds have to be explained? Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.
I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk. He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.
It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting. It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain. He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.
Most of us would have seen right through Brett not the idiot Jeremy Bamber. I bet Brett thought he had hit the jackpot meeting Jeremy
The women making the podcasts has said she interviews Terry Mullins the lie detector guy who lives not far from me so we will see if she comes up with everything that he told me
-
Most of us would have seen right through Brett not the idiot Jeremy Bamber. I bet Brett thought he had hit the jackpot meeting Jeremy
The women making the podcasts has said she interviews Terry Mullins the lie detector guy who lives not far from me so we will see if she comes up with everything that he told me
If Jeremy is innocent, then it could be that Brett is just a bit of a rat and an attention-seeker who likes making things up. It could also be that he's made up the diamonds story as a way of appearing to absolve himself by making it look like Jeremy was already of a criminal frame of mind prior to meeting him, rather than him being the criminal influence on Jeremy - if you see what I mean.
On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then the question that arises in my mind is how much Julie and Brett were involved. Both avenues are very interesting. If Brett was involved, then he has just opened up a potential line of inquiry by mentioning the New York lawyer. Is that a lie? Looking at it logically/analytically, it seems very unlikely that somebody would lie to that extent, due to the risk, but people don't always behave rationally. People of the 'Brett type' do sometimes tell unnecessary lies, even though it's very risky for them.
In the case of Julie, it's always assumed - even by a lot of pro-Jeremy/innocent camp types, that Jeremy corrupted her. Nobody ever, or rarely ever, considers the possibility that it was more of a two-way relationship, or even that Julie was the one who corrupted Jeremy, not the other way round.
-
If Jeremy is innocent, then it could be that Brett is just a bit of a rat and an attention-seeker who likes making things up. It could also be that he's made up the diamonds story as a way of appearing to absolve himself by making it look like Jeremy was already of a criminal frame of mind prior to meeting him, rather than him being the criminal influence on Jeremy - if you see what I mean.
On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then the question that arises in my mind is how much Julie and Brett were involved. Both avenues are very interesting. If Brett was involved, then he has just opened up a potential line of inquiry by mentioning the New York lawyer. Is that a lie? Looking at it logically/analytically, it seems very unlikely that somebody would lie to that extent, due to the risk, but people don't always behave rationally. People of the 'Brett type' do sometimes tell unnecessary lies, even though it's very risky for them.
In the case of Julie, it's always assumed - even by a lot of pro-Jeremy/innocent camp types, that Jeremy corrupted her. Nobody ever, or rarely ever, considers the possibility that it was more of a two-way relationship, or even that Julie was the one who corrupted Jeremy, not the other way round.
Then why didn't she stay at Bourtree Cottage on the night of 6th August 1985 and vouch for the authenticity of Nevill's call to Jeremy?
-
Then why didn't she stay at Bourtree Cottage on the night of 6th August 1985 and vouch for the authenticity of Nevill's call to Jeremy?
Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done. I only speculate. If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?
Conversely, your question could be put to Jeremy. If he is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him? Brett makes a similar point in the podcast. Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.
-
Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done. I only speculate. If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?
Conversely, your question could be put to Jeremy. If he is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him? Brett makes a similar point in the podcast. Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.
Brett was abroad.
Julie was in London. Too risky trying to use her. She may break under police pressure. Bamber also wanted to use MM as a proxy.
-
Brett was abroad.
I didn't know that. This is worse than the jet skis mistake. Oh well. Back to the drawing board. Anyway, thanks Adam.
Julie was in London. Too risky trying to use her. She may break under police pressure. Bamber also wanted to use MM as a proxy.
But he told her. Why did he tell her if he feared she might break under police pressure?
-
Brett was definitely a bad influence on Jeremy. Even if you think Jeremy is completely innocent, you'd have to acknowledge that he was corrupted by Brett. But Brett is claiming in the podcast that Jeremy arrived with diamonds stolen from his grandmother (I assume this was Mabel Speakman), which implies earlier influences on Jeremy or maybe that Jeremy is just 'bad to the bone'. I don't know if Brett is being truthful about that anecdote or it's just Brett's way of distancing himself from trouble he got Jeremy into while they were both in New Zealand. Why do the diamonds have to be explained? Just one more of a number of questions for Brett Collins.
I think the interviewer was right not to give Brett a hard time and just let him talk. He gives a lot away, both with that he says - some of which is clearly untrue - and also with what he misses out and doesn't say.
It's also apparent that the interview is heavily edited and I'm given to understand that the interviewer pulled down an earlier version and substituted it with a shorter version that edits out something quite interesting. It's obvious, surely, that Brett has told her what she can put in the public domain. He's the type who blabs and lets his mouth run away with him, and he's a classic liar and confabulator.
How did Brett corrupt Bamber?
-
I didn't know that. This is worse than the jet skis mistake. Oh well. Back to the drawing board. Anyway, thanks Adam.
But he told her. Why did he tell her if he feared she might break under police pressure?
He told her MM did it. Which the police would find out is wrong if she did approach the police. This is better than her saying Bamber left his cottage at 1am for 2 hours.
After the previous 6 months it would not be hard for her to work out he was involved.
-
He told her MM did it.
No, he didn't. Jeremy told her that MM did it, to the order of Jeremy. In other words, and assuming Julie was telling the truth, Jeremy was confessing to Julie - and in fact, that was her whole value as a witness. Thus, my question stands.
-
No, he didn't. Jeremy told her that MM did it, to the order of Jeremy. In other words, and assuming Julie was telling the truth, Jeremy was confessing to Julie - and in fact, that was her whole value as a witness. Thus, my question stands.
'Jeremy told her that MM did it, to the order of Jeremy. In other words, Jeremy was confessing to Julie'
----------
I agree. Thanks QC.
-
'Jeremy told her that MM did it, to the order of Jeremy. In other words, Jeremy was confessing to Julie'
----------
I agree. Thanks QC.
No problem, Adam. I'm glad I've made up for my mistakes with the jet skis and Brett. You need to put in a good word for me at the CCRC to make up for not recommending me for the CT. I'm sulking about that.
-
Julie corrupting Jeremy need not have included a murder plot, though it could have done. I only speculate. If they were in it together, maybe the call wasn't part of their plan and Jeremy added that on his own initiative, due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen?
Conversely, your question could be put to Jeremy. If he is guilty, how is it that he didn't think to persuade Julie (or Brett) to stay at his place so that there was somebody to vouch for him? Brett makes a similar point in the podcast. Jeremy, according to Brett, was a "very intelligent guy", which leaves Brett perplexed that Jeremy would plan something like this without constructing an alibi.
The police were effectively his alibi. He gambled that they wouldn't reckon on him being able to commit the crimes within the timeline he devised.
-
I didn't know that. This is worse than the jet skis mistake. Oh well. Back to the drawing board. Anyway, thanks Adam.
But he told her. Why did he tell her if he feared she might break under police pressure?
..because he thought he had enough ammunition to tie her in as an accessory.
-
The police were effectively his alibi. He gambled that they wouldn't reckon on him being able to commit the crimes within the timeline he devised.
If he is guilty, then yes I suppose Brett didn't get that quite right because Jeremy was counting on the police believing that they were outside the property while Sheila was still alive.
-
..because he thought he had enough ammunition to tie her in as an accessory.
Thanks Steve.
-
Just finished listening to another podcast with Philip Walker and Yvonne. This time about Julie Mugford.
-
Programme tomorrow night, Thursday about WHF on Ch5 at 10.30pm.
-
Programme tomorrow night, Thursday about WHF on Ch5 at 10.30pm.
I couldn't sit through that. It's Crimes that Shook with some defence snippets thrown in. It was on last year. Awful to sit through just to wait for some defence scraps.
-
A few questions re the Mugford podcast
1)
What dates did the drug smuggling by Mugford take place?
Was this before she knew Jeremy
2) was there any proof Mugford was actually engaged to JB
3) it it true there were 13 separate cheque frauds
4) Liz Riminington was clearly not an honest person if she slept with her best friends boyfriend
5) Liz rimmington clearly would have an axe to grind with JB if she was dumped after a one night stand
6) why were Mugfords witness statements not used in court considering there importance
-
A few questions re the Mugford podcast
1)
What dates did the drug smuggling by Mugford take place?
Was this before she knew Jeremy
2) was there any proof Mugford was actually engaged to JB
3) it it true there were 13 separate cheque frauds
4) Liz Riminington was clearly not an honest person if she slept with her best friends boyfriend
5) Liz rimmington clearly would have an axe to grind with JB if she was dumped after a one night stand
6) why were Mugfords witness statements not used in court considering there importance
Drug smuggling?
Bamber smuggled drugs from Amsterdam as stated in Julie's WS. She was still with him after Bamber had got a police car to bring her to WHF.
Her final WS is what the defence went by. As is the case in all trials.
There was one minor cheque book offence. Committed with Susan Battersby. The money was paid back.
-
A few questions re the Mugford podcast
1)
What dates did the drug smuggling by Mugford take place?
Was this before she knew Jeremy
2) was there any proof Mugford was actually engaged to JB
3) it it true there were 13 separate cheque frauds
4) Liz Riminington was clearly not an honest person if she slept with her best friends boyfriend
5) Liz rimmington clearly would have an axe to grind with JB if she was dumped after a one night stand
6) why were Mugfords witness statements not used in court considering there importance
Roch I want to get to the bottom of the above?
Mugford must be more of a nutter than I thought if she made up being engaged
Yvonne talks about Mugford into Drug smuggling before she even met Jeremy?
The minor cheque fraud Adam talks about was actually on 13 seperate occasions
Surely this all points to Mugford instigating the caravan robbery?
Unbelievable that she was ever allowed to be a teacher
Liz Rimmington hardly a reliable witness and master of deception sleeping with her best friends boyfriend
JB didn’t stand a chance surrounded by Brett the conman and the two twisted women?
-
Roch I want to get to the bottom of the above?
Mugford must be more of a nutter than I thought if she made up being engaged
Yvonne talks about Mugford into Drug smuggling before she even met Jeremy?
The minor cheque fraud Adam talks about was actually on 13 seperate occasions
Surely this all points to Mugford instigating the caravan robbery?
Unbelievable that she was ever allowed to be a teacher
Liz Rimmington hardly a reliable witness and master of deception sleeping with her best friends boyfriend
JB didn’t stand a chance surrounded by Brett the conman and the two twisted women?
Julie was smuggling drugs before she met Bamber? Was it to Columbia? She must have been a devious teenager. But Yvonne knows best.
Bamber said himself in the police interviews they spoke about marriage.
Need to see a source of 13 separate occasions. Yvonne will automatically say this as she supports Bamber.
Not sure how any of this negates to evidence.
-
Julie was smuggling drugs before she met Bamber? Was it to Columbia? She must have been a devious teenager. But Yvonne knows best.
Bamber said himself in the police interviews they spoke about marriage.
Need to see a source of 13 separate occasions. Yvonne will automatically say this as she supports Bamber.
Not sure how any of this negates to evidence.
Thanks Adam. I believe Essex Police did capture it all on video, and some of the footage is below. Devious Julie was hiding in the khazi while the deal was going down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lT8iKko4YQ
Thanks to Mike for finding this, but he's releasing it in stages.
-
So Julie was a teenager smuggling drugs to Miami. Was it Heroin or Cocaine?
Maybe she thought it was her drug baron ringing her at 3am.
Thanks Yvonne. And QC.
-
So Julie was a teenager smuggling drugs to Miami. Was it Heroin or Cocaine?
Maybe she thought it was her drug baron ringing her at 3am.
Thanks Yvonne. And QC.
I know. It all gets murkier. I'll let you know if Mike releases any more footage. Thanks Adam.
-
I know. It all gets murkier. I'll let you know if Mike releases any more footage. Thanks Adam.
With Mike, Yvonne and David's 2016 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' it will not be long until Jeremy is standing on the COA steps. Victorious.
-
With Mike, Yvonne and David's 2016 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' it will not be long until Jeremy is standing on the COA steps. Victorious.
Thanks Adam. I'm just relieved they've got you on board for the appeal. I assume you'll be posting a new thread: 86 Reasons Why Jeremy Is Innocent. I look forward to it. I always thought there was something in your theory about Peggy and Pat from EastEnders. I just wish people would take my Crispy theory more seriously. As for Myster, he still won't let me join in at Cluedo. Mister Board Game Supremo!
-
I’m so pleased you, Adam and Steve are on the same team. Some of us take the case seriously
-
I’m so pleased you, Adam and Steve are on the same team. Some of us take the case seriously
I joke and satirise for a very good reason. It's because I can't take much of what is posted on this Forum seriously, quite frankly, and having a sense of humour helps keep me sane. Laughter is a tonic, especially when reading some of Adam's posts.
You claim you take this case seriously, but with respect, you don't appear to do much to consider the case from all angles - which is what I would consider to be the hallmark of a serious person. I acknowledge that you are accepting of my posts, but have you really thought about this case?
I think people who come on here to mislead or with one-eyed agendas deserve scorn and ridicule, especially when they come off as arrogant and put down other people. I don't aim it at everybody who deserves it, because some people don't aim it at others in the first place, or just don't understand what they are doing ["Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"].
-
Of course I take the case seriously. We are talking about a person who is in prison on a full life tariff because the main prosecution witness is a pathological liar, nutcase and a thief and taking account of everyone of your very long posts you have not come close to reaching what I believe is the threshold of a guilty verdict. I personally asked Jeremy plenty of questions and didn’t hold back.
You have make your 98% guilty assumption knowing that the majority of Mugfords statements are witheld. There is no justice in this case even if Jeremy wins an appeal. The whole thing is an absolute disgrace and I feel sorry for every single member of the jury that was hoodwinked by our justice system.
I don’t know if Jeremy is guilty or not and nobody does but my odds on him being innocent are a lot higher than yours.
Have you ever bothered to speak to people Jeremy grew up or went to school with because I have
If have jokes with Adam floats your boat carry on but quite frankly I am bored reading it now
-
See Adam, look what you've done. I've fallen out with Jackie now. I hope you're satisfied! Thanks Adam. You need to make up for it with another list of reasons Jeremy must have been set up by Julie, Robert Boutflour and Stan Jones. I want to see it, Adam. I need my daily Adam fix.
-
PV 20 has been given a whirl..
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2jbMRjtNQ4S93WtDWOv8px
-
PV 20 has been given a whirl..
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2jbMRjtNQ4S93WtDWOv8px
I'm getting used to the simulated voice now. It's like a female HAL 9000 has been roped in to help Jeremy.
It is an interesting podcast, raising lots of questions about Malcolm Fletcher and his evidence. I personally believe the key to the case is the ballistic evidence.
-
I'm getting used to the simulated voice now. It's like a female HAL 9000 has been roped in to help Jeremy.
It is an interesting podcast, raising lots of questions about Malcolm Fletcher and his evidence. I personally believe the key to the case is the ballistic evidence.
Bill Robertson showed me how his trial testimony was ridiculous. I don't know how Fletcher came away unscathed from it.
-
All I can say is -------unbelievable. The lies, the spin and how the jury were hoodwinked by so-called professional people who were without doubt "all in it together ".
-
All I can say is -------unbelievable. The lies, the spin and how the jury were hoodwinked by so-called professional people who were without doubt "all in it together ".
The Industrial Frame.
-
hoodwinked by so-called professional people who were without doubt "all in it together ".
Think I would put it differently. Fletcher's evidence was probably suspect, so he may well have been towing the line, 'and some'. I think some of PV's evidence is suspect, so possibly a similar situation for him. But I think police just knew every trick in the book. How to handle professionals. When to get their point across and how to do it. I can't quite fathom Rivlin. He seems to have done Jeremy a great disservice. As for the judge, he put away the Bridgewater Four and he was also the prosecutor against Ricky Tomlinson & co in the 70's. I think the police went in to the trial, plying all the tricks of the trade, with their fingers crossed, half believing the case against JB would collapse. Some of them must have felt elation at the conviction, purely because they managed to manipulate a winning result against the odds, after having pulled out all the stops to do so. It must have felt a bit like winning a tournament by cheating.
-
Bill Robertson showed me how his trial testimony was ridiculous. I don't know how Fletcher came away unscathed from it.
Apparently, he didn't. He was given a hard time and I've read somewhere (can't remember the source) that he left court virtually in tears.
-
Think I would put it differently. Fletcher's evidence was probably suspect, so he may well have been towing the line, 'and some'. I think some of PV's evidence is suspect, so possibly a similar situation for him. But I think police just knew every trick in the book. How to handle professionals. When to get their point across and how to do it. I can't quite fathom Rivlin. He seems to have done Jeremy a great disservice. As for the judge, he put away the Bridgewater Four and he was also the prosecutor against Ricky Tomlinson & co in the 70's. I think the police went in to the trial, plying all the tricks of the trade, with their fingers crossed, half believing the case against JB would collapse. Some of them must have felt elation at the conviction, purely because they managed to manipulate a winning result against the odds, after having pulled out all the stops to do so. It must have felt a bit like winning a tournament by cheating.
I think Rivlin forgot that he wasn't in his his " prosecuting hat ". It certainly looked that way to me. Someone else who can't multi-task ::)
-
I was very tired when I listened to podcast last night. Am I correct in asserting that in the podcast, the order of shots inflicted upon SC is reversed?
-
Just listened to it again. They are claiming that an expert's ballistics report from 2010 was not mentioned by the CCRC in their provisional rejection statement. Not mentioned, not countered. That is very worrying for me. It suggests that the CCRC have already been given the opportunity to explore a huge anomaly within the prosecution ballistics evidence, a decade ago - but chose simply to ignore it.
-
Apparently, he didn't. He was given a hard time and I've read somewhere (can't remember the source) that he left court virtually in tears.
Well he's certainly been given a mauling in the podcast. Somebody called MD Fletcher wrote a review of CAL's book. Not sure if it's a wind up. If genuine, it seems to me that what he did was done to order... and it was done on the basis of 'you mustn't let this guilty man get away with what he's done'.
-
Well he's certainly been given a mauling in the podcast. Somebody called MD Fletcher wrote a review of CAL's book. Not sure if it's a wind up. If genuine, it seems to me that what he did was done to order... and it was done on the basis of 'you mustn't let this guilty man get away with what he's done'.
Any chance you have a link to that review?
-
Any chance you have a link to that review?
Think it's just one sentence. On Amazon.
-
Bill Robertson showed me how his trial testimony was ridiculous. I don't know how Fletcher came away unscathed from it.
It was primarily due to Rivlins defence narrative. That being Sheila put the silencer on and took off later.
-
It was primarily due to Rivlins defence narrative. That being Sheila put the silencer on and took off later.
OK, I interpret that as your tacit agreement, that Fletcher's testimony was 'ridiculous'. Is it a pure coincidence, and nothing untoward or sinister, that he managed to present evidence of a whole bullet in place of what should actually have been a fragmented bullet?
-
Fletcher was contradictory about the silencer wasn't he ? ( used and not used :o ) His WS.
-
Fletcher was contradictory about the silencer wasn't he ? ( used and not used :o ) His WS.
Not sure Lookout.
-
Not sure Lookout.
Yes he was Roch. One minute he said that the silencer had been in use on the rifle to have got blood on it, the next he said the silencer hadn't been used because of the lack of markings on the bullets----which they have when they've been fired using a silencer. Two different pages of evidence/ WS.
-
OK, I interpret that as your tacit agreement, that Fletcher's testimony was 'ridiculous'. Is it a pure coincidence, and nothing untoward or sinister, that he managed to present evidence of a whole bullet in place of what should actually have been a fragmented bullet?
No, PV20 was whole as in one piece of fragment. Vanezis never recovered the other fragments. It was a whole fragment not a whole bullet.
(https://www.channel4.com/media/images/Channel4/c4-news/JAN/26/26_bamber_bullet_k.jpg)
-
Was the projectile in question a .22 hollow point subsonic bullet?
-
No, PV20 was whole as in one piece of fragment. Vanezis never recovered the other fragments. It was a whole fragment not a whole bullet.
(https://www.channel4.com/media/images/Channel4/c4-news/JAN/26/26_bamber_bullet_k.jpg)
A whole fragment, as opposed to a part fragment? :-\
-
A whole fragment, as opposed to a part fragment? :-\
I think what David is getting at is the frangibility of the bullet. The bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation could be missed.
What could have happened is:
Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.
Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error.
Thus, we have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation is merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.
-
What could have happened is:
Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.
Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error..
Less precise? That's putting it mildly. Fletcher is supposed to be the FSS expert isn't he? There were x-rays available. Sheila only received two shots. The whole case pivots upon whether she died by her own hand or by the hand of some killer. Surely Fletcher would have some grasp of there being only two bullets in question, with regard to Sheila.
-
Less precise? That's putting it mildly. Fletcher is supposed to be the FSS expert isn't he? There were x-rays available. Sheila only received two shots. The whole case pivots upon whether she died by her own hand or by the hand of some killer. Surely Fletcher would have some grasp of there being only two bullets in question, with regard to Sheila.
I don't follow you, I'm afraid.
Fletcher recorded PV20 as a whole bullet. That was incorrect, but the error may be simply because he mistakenly thought he was looking at a whole bullet. An inexperienced or pressured person could easily make that mistake because the bullets are very small indeed and hollow points aren't particularly frangible and tend to just deform or expand/splay on hard impact, meaning that fragmentation could be missed.
I agree that it would be a serious error for a court expert to make, but I wasn't exactly lavishing him with praise in my post.
-
New trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYfXoTcAUtw
I would say the podcasts are an excellent idea but most of them need to be re-done with a natural-voice narrator. It's not hard to find a competent voice actor/actress at small expense or just engage somebody from the CT.
They also need to get a grammar pedant on board. It's 1980s, not 1980's. There's no apostrophe. Sorry, I know it's petty, but it's not petty really. It's professionalism.
I could even do it, if Adam would get over his jealousy about my Crispy theory and put me forward.
-
I think what David is getting at is the frangibility of the bullet. The bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation could be missed.
What could have happened is:
Dr. Vanezis correctly notes the retrieved projectile is part of a bullet, thus PV20 is 'fragmented'.
Fletcher records the same exhibit as a 'whole' bullet, either because he is less precise in his observations than Dr. Vanezis and does not notice that he has a fragmented piece of a bullet, or due to clerical error.
Thus, we have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation is merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.
Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.
-
Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.
I can't think of a reason why Fletcher would intentionally tamper with the bullet. He wasn't a police officer. He was a civil servant. Wouldn't he have just blown the whistle, if asked to do something improper? And why would the police cover up killing Sheila? Surely they would report it and say she had a gun, and that's that. If the police accidentally shot Sheila while she was prone, that must have been with the Anschutz rifle, so again, what is the issue for the police with the bullet?
I don't mind conspiracy theories so much, but they do have to make some sense.
-
Trying to talk sense into someone who thinks photos of blood stains running down Sheila's arm are actually wounds because some conspiracy theorist who should have gone to specksavers told him so? Why bother.
The images you have do not have sufficient definition. Constantly having digs at another case-knowledgeable poster just because you disagree with them, is detrimental to the forum. It just means we don't get that person's input on the forum.
-
I can't think of a reason why Fletcher would intentionally tamper with the bullet. He wasn't a police officer. He was a civil servant. Wouldn't he have just blown the whistle, if asked to do something improper? And why would the police cover up killing Sheila? Surely they would report it and say she had a gun, and that's that. If the police accidentally shot Sheila while she was prone, that must have been with the Anschutz rifle, so again, what is the issue for the police with the bullet?
I don't mind conspiracy theories so much, but they do have to make some sense.
You may find that FSS were never actually fully 'independent' from the police.
-
The images you have do not have sufficient definition. Constantly having digs at another case-knowledgeable poster just because you disagree with them, is detrimental to the forum. It just means we don't get that person's input on the forum.
There is nothing wrong with the images I have. The blood stains on Sheila's arm look very much like the blood running down Sheila's cheek and from the gun shots to her neck.
-
There is nothing wrong with the images I have. The blood stains on Sheila's arm look very much like the blood running down Sheila's cheek and from the gun shots to her neck.
We'll just go round in circles. You think blood shot out from Sheila's wound and landed on her inside wrist, where it meets the palm. It then separated in to approximately four streams while it travelled over on to the top of her wrist, where it stopped mid wrist and suddenly congealed. In order for the blood to congeal, it must have built up at those points, which suggests quite a flow of blood in these streams. Given the narrow circumference of her wrists, it is a mystery to me, as to why the streams didn't simply continue flowing over the top of her wrist. Anyone with a thin wrist should look at their own wrist and try to imagine it.
-
You may find that FSS were never actually fully 'independent' from the police.
The FSS were formally independent of the police. Individual FSS scientists assisted both the prosecution and defence. Malcolm Fletcher was a civil servant, not a police officer. These are all facts.
Please explain what possible motive Malcolm Fletcher had to knowingly frame an innocent man.
I can accept that Mr Fletcher made mistakes, and he may also have lied or misled the court about his work in order to cover up errors and mistakes. I accept that is plausible. That sort of behaviour seems to be a recurring feature of miscarriages of justice, and it seems to me that his evidence is one of three major weak points in the prosecution case.
But you are going one step further. I think for him to lie in order to frame somebody as part of a massive cover-up really is a bit of stretch. Surely the line of least resistance for Mr Fletcher would have been to run to his superiors and blow the whistle on it all?
-
The FSS were formally independent of the police. Individual FSS scientists assisted both the prosecution and defence. Malcolm Fletcher was a civil servant, not a police officer. These are all facts.
Please explain what possible motive Malcolm Fletcher had to knowingly frame an innocent man.
I can accept that Mr Fletcher made mistakes, and he may also have lied or misled the court about his work in order to cover up errors and mistakes. I accept that is plausible. That sort of behaviour seems to be a recurring feature of miscarriages of justice, and it seems to me that his evidence is one of three major weak points in the prosecution case.
But you are going one step further. I think for him to lie in order to frame somebody as part of a massive cover-up really is a bit of stretch. Surely the line of least resistance for Mr Fletcher would have been to run to his superiors and blow the whistle on it all?
So a stroke of luck then for Mick, Stan, Ann, David and Bobby, that Fletcher's innocent mistakes just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case.
-
We'll just go round in circles. You think blood shot out from Sheila's wound and landed on her inside wrist, where it meets the palm. It then separated in to approximately four streams while it travelled over on to the top of her wrist, where it stopped mid wrist and suddenly congealed. In order for the blood to congeal, it must have built up at those points, which suggests quite a flow of blood in these streams. Given the narrow circumference of her wrists, it is a mystery to me, as to why the streams didn't simply continue flowing over the top of her wrist. Anyone with a thin wrist should look at their own wrist and try to imagine it.
Look at all the blood running down Sheilas nightdress (in multiple streams). The fabric has fallen back due to gravity after she fell back, but if you were to straighten the nightdress out, the blood streams would be in the same direction as her arm.
-
So a stroke of luck then for Mick, Stan, Ann, David and Bobby, that Fletcher's innocent mistakes just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case.
Well there are two explanations for that:
Explanation 1: Jeremy is guilty and the evidence broadly reflects it.
Explanation 2: As you say, Fletcher's innocent or negligent mistakes and errors just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case (if you want to interpret it as favouring the prosecution case - as I explain below, you don't have to).
The reason for Explanation 2 would be that Fletcher, being human as well as an expert, will be guided in his work by the dominant narrative given to him by the police. It's rare that a scientist will think against it unless he finds something that incontrovertibly goes against what the police hypothesise.
The police may say: "We think the culprit is this person and we think this is what happened and he did it this way. Let us know what you find."
It's no surprise that he then finds something that happens to dovetail with the police narrative. It's what you'd expect, as long as there is something to find.
But what he found is open to interpretation. As I've explained, the pull-through test was never reliable, but if you accept the result at face value, you could interpret it in Jeremy's favour (subject to further expert evidence from somebody who knows about fluid dynamics/tension dynamics as it applies to blood and ballistics).
One way to prevent dominant biases is to ensure that there are two different scientists/experts examining the same evidence, so that there is somebody available to challenge whatever is the dominant assumption.
-
Look at all the blood running down Sheilas nightdress (in multiple streams). The fabric has fallen back due to gravity after she fell back, but if you were to straighten the nightdress out, the blood streams would be in the same direction as her arm.
What is the redness at the top of her forearm?
-
Look at all the blood running down Sheilas nightdress (in multiple streams). The fabric has fallen back due to gravity after she fell back, but if you were to straighten the nightdress out, the blood streams would be in the same direction as her arm.
Even if you were correct, this does not directly relate to her wrist. BTW you can see a couple of scabs on her arm further down.
-
So a stroke of luck then for Mick, Stan, Ann, David and Bobby, that Fletcher's innocent mistakes just happened to dovetail neatly with the prosecution case.
That's because Jeremy's defense never challenged the authenticity of silencer. His QC more or less tied his hands behind his back.
-
Even if you were correct, this does not directly relate to her wrist. BTW you can see a couple of scabs on her arm further down.
They are dried up bloodstains on the surface of the skin. Furthermore what weapon is June supposed to have used to inflict these injuries after Sheila had already shot her five times while in bed?
-
They are dried up bloodstains on the surface of the skin. Furthermore what weapon is June supposed to have used to inflict these injuries after Sheila had already shot her five times while in bed?
'Sheila had already shot her five times while in bed'
Was that while Nevill was ringing Jeremy?
-
They are dried up bloodstains on the surface of the skin. Furthermore what weapon is June supposed to have used to inflict these injuries after Sheila had already shot her five times while in bed?
I'm not sure whether you are different, but when blood drips on to my skin, it doesn't form a scab.
As you are already aware, not everyone buys the shot five times in bed narrative. You are repeating the narrative of Ainsley and co, explicitly designed to put JB in prison.
-
I'm not sure whether you are different, but when blood drips on to my skin, it doesn't form a scab.
As you are already aware, not everyone buys the shot five times in bed narrative. You are repeating the narrative of Ainsley and co, explicitly designed to put JB in prison.
'not everyone buys the shot five times in bed narrative'
----------
That is what the evidence is. Photographs do show June's side of the bed blood-stained. She was sleeping while shot so spent a long time in bed bleeding before managing to crawl a few feet.
Where do you believe June got her first 5 shots.
-
'not everyone buys the shot five times in bed narrative'
----------
That is what the evidence is. Photographs do show June's side of the bed blood-stained. She was sleeping while shot so spent a long time in bed bleeding before managing to crawl a few feet.
Where do you believe June got her first 5 shots.
Nobody knows the true, exact sequence of events. Nobody knows how many times June was on and off the bed, nor whether an earlier struggle had occurred as a precursor to the tragedy. I have been involved in flare ups and witnessed other people involved in flare ups. There are often lulls in-between and the final incident, the culmination, is often the worst. The marks on all three adults tell a different narrative to the one presented at court. I'm sorry if certain posters do not like that or cannot comprehend it. I believe this is because they fail to understand that the evidence was controlled in order to obtain a conviction. It's as simple as that.
-
Nobody knows the true, exact sequence of events. Nobody knows how many times June was on and off the bed, nor whether an earlier struggle had occurred as a precursor to the tragedy. I have been involved in flare ups and witnessed other people involved in flare ups. There are often lulls in-between and the final incident, the culmination, is often the worst. The marks on all three adults tell a different narrative to the one presented at court. I'm sorry if certain posters do not like that or cannot comprehend it. I believe this is because they fail to understand that the evidence was controlled in order to obtain a conviction. It's as simple as that.
June would have a good chance of winning a struggle with Sheila. She could also shout out to Nevill, if for some reason he was not in the room. For an awake June to be shot 5 times in bed, in different specifically chosen locations, she would have had to have been asleep.
-
June would have a good chance of winning a struggle with Sheila. She could also shout out to Nevill, if for some reason he was not in the room. For an awake June to be shot 5 times in bed, in different specifically chosen locations, she would have had to have been asleep.
June would have been well asleep after having been shot 5 times in bed---so why was she found on the floor and not in bed ?
-
Nobody knows the true, exact sequence of events. Nobody knows how many times June was on and off the bed, nor whether an earlier struggle had occurred as a precursor to the tragedy. I have been involved in flare ups and witnessed other people involved in flare ups. There are often lulls in-between and the final incident, the culmination, is often the worst. The marks on all three adults tell a different narrative to the one presented at court. I'm sorry if certain posters do not like that or cannot comprehend it. I believe this is because they fail to understand that the evidence was controlled in order to obtain a conviction. It's as simple as that.
The reason nobody is buying into Bill and yours conspiracy theory is because it the crime scene photos clearly show whats on Sheila's arm is blood spatter from her neck wound.
Are you saying you believe the CS photos have been edited to make Sheila's 'wounds' look like streams of bloodstains on the surface of her skin?
-
As you are already aware, not everyone buys the shot five times in bed narrative. You are repeating the narrative of Ainsley and co, explicitly designed to put JB in prison.
So this photo of Junes side of the bed covered in her blood with a bullet hole in her pillow is a fake explicitly designed by Ainsley and co ?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39404)
-
I will reply to your posts later. You obviously haven't read mine properly.
-
So this photo of Junes side of the bed covered in her blood with a bullet hole in her pillow is a fake explicitly designed by Ainsley and co ?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39404)
No blood is visible in that image on what we assume is Nevill's side of the bed. Adam assumes Nevill was shot in the bedroom, but I am very sceptical.
Is that another duvet on the left hand side on the floor?
Also, the design of the lamp on the right-hand side of the photo. Looks very sinister. What's that all about?
Whose was the pink cuddly toy (looks like an elephant)? (If you look very closely, there may be a brown teddy bear visible next to it too). Did the parents always have that in bed with them? Seems strange to me. Doesn't seem to fit how we think of June.
At a guess, and if I didn't know better, I would say the cuddly toy is the twins' and it's there because sometimes they would want to go in the bed with one or both parents, but were they emotionally- and physically close to June? Seems a bit incongruous, given what we know about her.
Maybe Nevill used it and the twins would sit propped up in the bed next to him while he read them a bedtime story?
Or maybe it's Sheila's and she slept in the bed sometimes when Nevill was sleeping downstairs or in the upstairs office perhaps? But would she sleep in the same bed as June? Again, seems not to fit with what we know. I think there was a strong paternal bond, but Sheila was in her late 20s at this point, so surely that can be ruled out.
-
No blood is visible in that image on what we assume is Nevill's side of the bed. Adam assumes Nevill was shot in the bedroom, but I am very sceptical.
Is that another duvet on the left hand side on the floor?
Also, the design of the lamp on the right-hand side of the photo. Looks very sinister. What's that all about?
Whose was the pink cuddly toy (looks like an elephant)? (If you look very closely, there may be a brown teddy bear visible next to it too). Did the parents always have that in bed with them? Seems strange to me. Doesn't seem to fit how we think of June.
At a guess, and if I didn't know better, I would say the cuddly toy is the twins' and it's there because sometimes they would want to go in the bed with one or both parents, but were they emotionally- and physically close to June? Seems a bit incongruous, given what we know about her.
Maybe Nevill used it and the twins would sit propped up in the bed next to him while he read them a bedtime story?
Or maybe it's Sheila's and she slept in the bed sometimes when Nevill was sleeping downstairs or in the upstairs office perhaps? But would she sleep in the same bed as June? Again, seems not to fit with what we know. I think there was a strong paternal bond, but Sheila was in her late 20s at this point, so surely that can be ruled out.
Adam thinks Nevil somehow contained the blood from his wounds as he ran across the bedroom to spill it all outside on the landing and stairs.
BTW if you fancy chuckle read this
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html)
-
No blood is visible in that image on what we assume is Nevill's side of the bed. Adam assumes Nevill was shot in the bedroom, but I am very sceptical.
Is that another duvet on the left hand side on the floor?
Also, the design of the lamp on the right-hand side of the photo. Looks very sinister. What's that all about?
Whose was the pink cuddly toy (looks like an elephant)? (If you look very closely, there may be a brown teddy bear visible next to it too). Did the parents always have that in bed with them? Seems strange to me. Doesn't seem to fit how we think of June.
At a guess, and if I didn't know better, I would say the cuddly toy is the twins' and it's there because sometimes they would want to go in the bed with one or both parents, but were they emotionally- and physically close to June? Seems a bit incongruous, given what we know about her.
Maybe Nevill used it and the twins would sit propped up in the bed next to him while he read them a bedtime story?
Or maybe it's Sheila's and she slept in the bed sometimes when Nevill was sleeping downstairs or in the upstairs office perhaps? But would she sleep in the same bed as June? Again, seems not to fit with what we know. I think there was a strong paternal bond, but Sheila was in her late 20s at this point, so surely that can be ruled out.
I am going by the bullet allocation evidence.
-
Adam thinks Nevil somehow contained the blood from his wounds as he ran across the bedroom to spill it all outside on the landing and stairs.
BTW if you fancy chuckle read this
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html)
Nevill was shot twice while getting out of bed. From close range.
Then twice while standing up in the bedroom. From several feet away.
As the evidence states.
-
Adam thinks Nevil somehow contained the blood from his wounds as he ran across the bedroom to spill it all outside on the landing and stairs.
BTW if you fancy chuckle read this
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html)
David is quoting 7 year old posts now. That thread was created more for a laugh. I knew Graham would react.
To be fair I have criticised David for being a coward and attempting a quiet non evidence stance change. Then refusing to accept sourced evidence or reveal his 2016 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
David is quoting 7 year old posts now. That thread was created more for a laugh. I knew Graham would react.
To be fair I have criticised David for being a coward and attempting a quiet non evidence stance change. Then refusing to accept sourced evidence or reveal his 2016 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Thanks Adam. I still think you should get over your jealousy of my Crispy theory and put me forward for the CT. I know you think I'm barking, but if Crispy was responsible, it could really put the relatives in the dog house. I promise you, Adam, I'll be dogged in pursuing it, and will buy you treats and a new kennel.
-
David is quoting 7 year old posts now. That thread was created more for a laugh. I knew Graham would react.
You are admitting that you are a troll.
-
Nevill was shot twice while getting out of bed. From close range.
Then twice while standing up in the bedroom. From several feet away.
As the evidence states.
Why wasn't he also found dead in the bedroom ?
-
Why wasn't he also found dead in the bedroom ?
A very good question. I wonder the same.
-
Adam thinks Nevil somehow contained the blood from his wounds as he ran across the bedroom to spill it all outside on the landing and stairs.
BTW if you fancy chuckle read this
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6086.0.html)
That's hilarious. Adam clearly fell for Paul Harrison's book hook, line and sinker.
-
The reason nobody is buying into Bill and yours conspiracy theory is because it the crime scene photos clearly show whats on Sheila's arm is blood spatter from her neck wound.
Are you saying you believe the CS photos have been edited to make Sheila's 'wounds' look like streams of bloodstains on the surface of her skin?
Arm aside. Other than yourself and HG on red, I cannot think of a single poster favouring innocence who did not regard the right hand image as displaying wounds. In both yours and HG's case, the reasoning used was Vanezis. All other supporters simply used their eyes.
-
So this photo of Junes side of the bed covered in her blood with a bullet hole in her pillow is a fake explicitly designed by Ainsley and co ?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39404)
It does not appear to be specific evidence of June having received five shots in bed.
-
Why wasn't he also found dead in the bedroom ?
Because the 4 shots did not kill him.
-
That's hilarious. Adam clearly fell for Paul Harrison's book hook, line and sinker.
Never read it.
-
That's hilarious. Adam clearly fell for Paul Harrison's book hook, line and sinker.
Totally Bamboozled.
There are some interesting and funny threads here where people slowly start doubting PHs credibility.
Here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268220.html#msg268220 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268220.html#msg268220)
And here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6891.msg321068.html#msg321068 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6891.msg321068.html#msg321068)
-
Never read it.
I think you may need to start PM'ing me for moral support, Adam. I know that you have 'tested the waters' and started one or two threads confirming that everybody lied about Jeremy and Jeremy is innocent.
This is progress.
All you need to do now is announce your stance change and admit that, as David says, you were bamboozled by Paul Harrison and various TV documentaries.
I am available via PM to provide moral support prior to your stance change.
-
Because the 4 shots did not kill him.
How do you know ? He was shot in the face, battered about the head. 4 shots in an appropriate part of the anatomy would kill.
-
Appreciate that Adam is in a difficult position. He has spammed the Forum for years as a dogmatic pro-guilt poster but now realises Jeremy is innocent and he is frightened of publicly changing stance.
Adam and others in the same position should PM me for moral support.
-
Ann Eaton has been wheeled out for the latest effort..
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ann-eaton-cousin-of-jeremy-bamber/id1555731881?i=1000522286974
-
Based on this podcast alone, Jeremy's conviction is a national disgrace. I can only hope that those concerned get their comeuppance in some way. This takes greed to the highest level you can reach.
-
30 rounds were fired that night !?
-
30 rounds were fired that night !?
25
-
25
30 according to the podcast, inclusive of new evidence.
-
30 according to the podcast, inclusive of new evidence.
Its wrong.
-
Its wrong.
I'm willing to consider it's wrong - if you can explain how they could have mistakenly calculated 30.
-
I'm willing to consider it's wrong - if you can explain how they could have mistakenly calculated 30.
Are the CT making these podcasts?
-
Remember when a shot was heard by a passer-by with his dog ? Chances are Nevill might still have been finishing off harvesting because he went out to the fields after Jeremy left.
-
If you listen to the podcast at the beginning, the narrator says 30 was included in the new evidence----words to that effect, but all she says is documented.
-
Are the CT making these podcasts?
I doubt Ann Eaton has made it. Have you actually listened to the content? Before posting in defiance of the content, it might be an idea to at least listen to the content and the context in which it is delivered.
-
When you listen to these podcasts in their entirety it makes it far easier to slot things together, which do include snippets from their new submissions, even to the scraping of the paint from the Aga-----but " you didn't see that " !
-
I doubt Ann Eaton has made it. Have you actually listened to the content? Before posting in defiance of the content, it might be an idea to at least listen to the content and the context in which it is delivered.
The makers are "JB Campaign LTD" AKA the CT.
Even the description text is wrong. The Jury never asked if AE had motive to lie, only RWB.
-
The makers are "JB Campaign LTD" AKA the CT.
Yes, we know that. It's a series of podcasts every weds. They usually make reference to some of the grounds within the latest referral but some of the podcasts also contain speculation, presumably for entertainment and to provide a contrast to the plethora of other podcasts that have emerged since the drama.
-
Yes, we know that. It's a series of podcasts every weds. They usually make reference to some of the grounds within the latest referral but some of the podcasts also contain speculation, presumably for entertainment and to provide a contrast to the plethora of other podcasts that have emerged since the drama.
These podcasts are intended for the general public who know little about the case.
I have gone over about 15,000 pages of case related documents. All of them at least twice, and some documents I consider crucial I re-read over half a dozen times. There is not really much more I need to know.
-
Even the description text is wrong. The Jury never asked if AE had motive to lie, only RWB.
I expect that they want to encourage average Joe to consider the relatives as a deceitful group. The jury's question was put to RWB. He represented the relatives, arguably. It was his wife who benefited and therefore it's likely his offspring benefitted via her. Ann is one of those offspring.
-
These podcasts are intended for the general public who know little about the case.
I have gone over about 15,000 pages of case related documents. All of them at least twice, and some documents I consider crucial I re-read over half a dozen times. There is not really much more I need to know.
Yes but it would seem those documents are only part of the case evidence. And the other part may contain different information (that was deemed unhelpful in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber,).
-
Yes but it would seem those documents are only part of the case evidence. And the other part may contain different information (that was deemed unhelpful in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber,).
The only key evidence I have not seen is Julie Mugfords PII and police questioning etc. And I don't really need to see that to work out she was full of BS.
Half of what the CT ask to be disclosed simply never existed in the first place and the other half has been destroyed. such as Sheila's diaries.
-
The only key evidence I have not seen is Julie Mugfords PII and police questioning etc. And I don't really need to see that to work out she was full of BS.
Half of what the CT ask to be disclosed simply never existed in the first place and the other half has been destroyed. such as Sheila's diaries.
Ok. What about the other half of what they asked to be disclosed, that does exist? Also, did you work through the PII schedule under Ewen Smith's tenure? It's on here.
-
These podcasts are intended for the general public who know little about the case.
I have gone over about 15,000 pages of case related documents. All of them at least twice, and some documents I consider crucial I re-read over half a dozen times. There is not really much more I need to know.
What you need to know David, is the truth ,and it's that which has been hidden so I reckon that there's plenty more yet that you need to know.
-
30 according to the podcast, inclusive of new evidence.
It is good that the CT can come up with new information 36 years later.
-
It is good that the CT can come up with new information 36 years later.
It wasn't around during previous appeals ! PII, remember.
-
These podcasts are intended for the general public who know little about the case.
I have gone over about 15,000 pages of case related documents. All of them at least twice, and some documents I consider crucial I re-read over half a dozen times. There is not really much more I need to know.
Have you not made any further breakthroughs since 2016?
-
Much of this information has only come about in recent years.
-
Ok. What about the other half of what they asked to be disclosed, that does exist? Also, did you work through the PII schedule under Ewen Smith's tenure? It's on here.
What did exist has been destroyed. As for PII JB has all those. What ever is there is not going to change to my view on what happened.
-
What did exist has been destroyed. As for PII JB has all those. What ever is there is not going to change to my view on what happened.
I would like to summarize your view.
-
I would like to summarize your view.
Consider this, the only PII stuff the CT have shown, is a note stating JB was on the phone at around 3.37AM. This was no secret anyway as JB was on the phone for around 10-15 minutes. If that's all they have worth showing then I wont get my hopes up.
The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting. However -
I expect the conspiracy theorists looking for a police conspiracy will be rather disappointed once the PII stuff is looked at critically.
If you want a summary of my view of what happened in 1985/86, that will take a while to type up.
-
Consider this, the only PII stuff the CT have shown, is a note stating JB was on the phone at around 3.37AM. This was no secret anyway as JB was on the phone for around 10-15 minutes. If that's all they have worth showing then I wont get my hopes up.
The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting. However -
I expect the conspiracy theorists looking for a police conspiracy will be rather disappointed once the PII stuff is looked at critically.
If you want a summary of my view of what happened in 1985/86, that will take a while to type up.
'The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting.'
----------
No big deal. He either forgot or did not want to tell his wife something so distasteful. RB would have thought Bamber was not serious anyway.
As you said, there is a 'claim' of a WS.
-
Consider this, the only PII stuff the CT have shown, is a note stating JB was on the phone at around 3.37AM. This was no secret anyway as JB was on the phone for around 10-15 minutes. If that's all they have worth showing then I wont get my hopes up.
The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting. However -
I expect the conspiracy theorists looking for a police conspiracy will be rather disappointed once the PII stuff is looked at critically.
If you want a summary of my view of what happened in 1985/86, that will take a while to type up.
I meant I would summarize your take on things. Just a bit of fun really.
-
Have you not made any further breakthroughs since 2016?
It's a difficult one for Adam because up to now he has maintained steadfastly that Jeremy is guilty. Now that Adam knows the truth, he is understandably scared of making his stance change public.
That's why I am making myself available to Adam and others like him through the PM system where I can offer confidential moral support.
-
The only key evidence I have not seen is Julie Mugfords PII and police questioning etc. And I don't really need to see that to work out she was full of BS.
Half of what the CT ask to be disclosed simply never existed in the first place and the other half has been destroyed. such as Sheila's diaries.
I think your wrong re Mugford. I think what’s key to this case is hidden under PII. You could probably make a mind blowing documentary on everything she told the police especially where she was threatened with being prosecuted
There is NOTHING held under PII that shouldn’t be released
-
'The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting.'
----------
No big deal. He either forgot or did not want to tell his wife something so distasteful. RB would have thought Bamber was not serious anyway.
As you said, there is a 'claim' of a WS.
Words fail me
-
'The claim that there is a WS from Mrs Boutflour stating RWB never told her that JB told him he could murder his family, (which is a rather stunning thing not to tell your wife when the whole family ends up dead). Is interesting.'
----------
No big deal. He either forgot or did not want to tell his wife something so distasteful. RB would have thought Bamber was not serious anyway.
As you said, there is a 'claim' of a WS.
Thanks Adam.
-
It's a difficult one for Adam because up to now he has maintained steadfastly that Jeremy is guilty. Now that Adam knows the truth, he is understandably scared of making his stance change public.
That's why I am making myself available to Adam and others like him through the PM system where I can offer confidential moral support.
Thanks QC.
-
Thanks QC.
No problem, Adam. I can imagine how hard it must be for you now that it is clear Jeremy is innocent.
I am available through the PM system to all members in the same position as Adam, who have decided to confront the truth.
-
Thanks Adam.
Your more than welcome.
I doubt there is a WS. But PB saying she didn't remember RB saying something is not going to free Bamber.
But keep saying a WS may exist. Is it hidden under PII?
-
No problem, Adam. I can imagine how hard it must be for you now that it is clear Jeremy is innocent.
I am available through the PM system to all members in the same position as Adam, who have decided to confront the truth.
Adam must be very disappointed. Gone from expecting Paul Harrisons book to be so damning it would make Jeremy confess to now being the only guilter left on the Forum.
-
Adam must be very disappointed. Gone from expecting Paul Harrisons book to be so damning it would make Jeremy confess to now being the only guilter left on the Forum.
This is why it's my civic duty to help people like Adam through their public humiliation and out the other side. I know that Adam is ready to 'come out' as a proud Jeremy supporter. He just need a bit more moral support.
-
This is why it's my civic duty to help people like Adam through their public humiliation and out the other side. I know that Adam is ready to 'come out' as a proud Jeremy supporter. He just need a bit more moral support.
Come to think of it, Mike did say it was Sheila barking inside WHF & not Crispy.
-
This is why it's my civic duty to help people like Adam through their public humiliation and out the other side. I know that Adam is ready to 'come out' as a proud Jeremy supporter. He just need a bit more moral support.
Maybe, but I suspect he will just continue trolling the forum out of bitterness and resentment.
-
Come to think of it, Mike did say it was Sheila barking inside WHF & not Crispy.
Thanks Adam, but don't try and take the credit for my Crispy theory. It's hard enough competing with Mike, and you know how he barks up the wrong tree.
-
Thanks Adam, but don't try and take the credit for my Crispy theory. It's hard enough competing with Mike, and you know how he barks up the wrong tree.
Thanks QC. You and Mike are helping to convince me.
-
Thanks QC. You and Mike are helping to convince me.
Thanks Adam. 98.453% sure he's innocent. We're almost there. One more push. Have courage!
-
Just finished listening to the latest podcast focusing on Anne Eaton.
I've met some scheming vindictive women in my lifetime, but Mrs Eaton takes the biscuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=3s
-
Just finished listening to the latest podcast focusing on Anne Eaton.
I've met some scheming vindictive women in my lifetime, but Mrs Eaton takes the biscuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=3s
What has she allegedly done. Apart from approach the police with other relatives with her doubts & jointly find the silencer?
Two things which have been common knowledge for 36 years.
-
Just finished listening to the latest podcast focusing on Anne Eaton.
I've met some scheming vindictive women in my lifetime, but Mrs Eaton takes the biscuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=3s
A strong component of her suspicions seems to have been an exaggerated sense of entitlement. I cannot understand why ACC Simpson acquiesced to her dad's demands. Maybe Simpson thought that a failed prosecution attempt would get the relatives off his back and leave Taff and Jeremy in the clear. But that suggests he hadn't factored in the zeal of Ainsley and Stan Jones. It's all very odd. Maybe instead, because of whatever happened in the farmhouse and Bobby's insistence on going ever higher, Simpson told Ainsley that no method was off the table and that he needed to get the conviction by hook or by crook.
-
Just finished listening to the latest podcast focusing on Anne Eaton.
I've met some scheming vindictive women in my lifetime, but Mrs Eaton takes the biscuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=3s
You're telling me. Like father like daughter, a good pair together, scheming individuals.
-
You're telling me. Like father like daughter..
I've always thought that. Did you hear the part where all Jeremy's complaints were shown to the relatives, so they could formulate responses etc?
-
I've always thought that. Did you hear the part where all Jeremy's complaints were shown to the relatives, so they could formulate responses etc?
That was obvious by all their matching WS's.
-
Just finished listening to the latest podcast focusing on Anne Eaton.
I've met some scheming vindictive women in my lifetime, but Mrs Eaton takes the biscuit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD6eUScfo9w&t=3s
She is my prime suspect for contaminating the silencer with blood and paint. For a wide range of reasons.
She either acted alone or with RWB. But I suspect the former.
-
She is my prime suspect for contaminating the silencer with blood and paint. For a wide range of reasons.
She either acted alone or with RWB. But I suspect the former.
How much did Ann Eaton know about guns? Did she ever use a rifle? Could she take a silencer apart on her own?
We know exactly what contaminating the silencer with blood would involve, because we have the FSS findings. It would require somebody to take the baffles out, drip blood on the outside of the baffles, let the blood dry, then re-thread the baffles into the silencer. This would take at least a few minutes. Where did she do this?
My view is that, if - if - the silencer was contaminated, it was Robert and David, without Ann's knowledge or involvement, it was done at Robert's house, and Robert used his own blood. I don't believe they could have trusted Ann to keep quiet about it. It was something they could never discuss again, even between themselves, and would have to take to their graves.
-
How much did Ann Eaton know about guns? Did she ever use a rifle? Could she take a silencer apart on her own?
We know exactly what contaminating the silencer with blood would involve, because we have the FSS findings. It would require somebody to take the baffles out, drip blood on the outside of the baffles, let the blood dry, then re-thread the baffles into the silencer. This would take at least a few minutes. Where did she do this?
My view is that, if - if - the silencer was contaminated, it was Robert and David, without Ann's knowledge or involvement, it was done at Robert's house, and Robert used his own blood. I don't believe they could have trusted Ann to keep quiet about it. It was something they could never discuss again, even between themselves, and would have to take to their graves.
I plan to make a detailed post on why i think it was Ann Eaton, but it will take some time.
IIRC Ann Eaton and her husband sold guns at one point.
-
I plan to make a detailed post on why i think it was Ann Eaton, but it will take some time.
IIRC Ann Eaton and her husband sold guns at one point.
Thank goodness for that.
After about 6 years you are finally going to say how the relatives put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Better late than never.
-
I plan to make a detailed post on why i think it was Ann Eaton, but it will take some time.
IIRC Ann Eaton and her husband sold guns at one point.
Peter Eaton was definitely a gun dealer, but I am not aware that Ann Eaton had any real experience with guns. It would require somebody to know how to dismantle and re-assemble a silencer, and also to appreciate the particular evidential significance of the silencer in the first place.
Peter Eaton could do it. I think Robert and David could.
It does occur to me that Peter and Ann may have collaborated, but a David/Robert collaboration makes more sense to me, simply because of the recorded blood group.
Although I don't believe it would have mattered whose blood was put in the silencer as long as it was human, I think Sheila's blood group was known to the relatives anyway, and Robert knew he was the same blood group. This was in the days before DNA was mainstream knowledge, and the implications of genetic testing would not have been appreciated by the relatives (or even the police and FSS).
Other facts favouring Robert/David are:
- Robert, in his own frank diurnal confessions, hated Jeremy.
- Robert spearheaded the pressure on the police.
- Robert is the one who reported the silencer to the police.
- Peter and Ann had custody of the silencer and handed it to the police, meaning that David and Robert were at one remove from the exhibit and would have felt less nervous about contaminating it.
- David, on his own evidence, was the first to examine the silencer.
- David states he tampered with the silencer by removing blood from it.
- Peter will have informed David about the significance of the silencer.
- Both Robert and David would know how to dismantle and re-assemble the silencer.
- Both Robert and David would have had an opportunity to contaminate the silencer without arousing the suspicions of Peter and Ann. They knew what to do and it would have taken minutes.
I don't believe a conspiracy of this kind would have involved more than two people.
-
David would need to explain how the relatives found out -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
What murder weapon was used.
Whether the silencer they have chosen was compatible with the murder weapon.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
----------
David will not answer & post the same pasted 'Gish Gash' paragraph. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
-
David would need to explain how the relatives found out -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
----------
David will not answer & post the same pasted 'Gish Gash' paragraph. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
But they wouldn't need to know all that. You're assuming that a conspiracy requires perfect knowledge, which is a fallacy.
-
But they wouldn't need to know all that. You're assuming that a conspiracy requires perfect knowledge, which is a fallacy.
What would they not need to find out?
-
You're telling me. Like father like daughter, a good pair together, scheming individuals.
I cannot even bear to listen to it.
The women that moved into WHF after her beloved’ relatives died there
Just so unreal
-
What would they not need to find out?
Question open to everyone. QC did not answer.
-
David would need to explain how the relatives found out -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
----------
David will not answer & post the same pasted 'Gish Gash' paragraph. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Perhaps the police said 'just put some blood in the sound moderator and we'll do the rest'. Or even, 'just leave it all to us'.
-
Perhaps the police said 'just put some blood in the sound moderator and we'll do the rest'. Or even, 'just leave it all to us'.
Thar negates David's theory that the police were not involved.
-
In view of the fact that the police sounded like a stuck record by saying " we didn't see that ", nothing surprises me at what happened.
-
Perhaps the police said 'just put some blood in the sound moderator and we'll do the rest'. Or even, 'just leave it all to us'.
What is the police motive for framing an innocent man?
Or are you saying that the police decided he was guilty and framed him on that basis?
-
What is the police motive for framing an innocent man?
Or are you saying that the police decided he was guilty and framed him on that basis?
I'll get back about that. I know it's a conundrum in the case. I am going to replay each podcast and note some of the claims being made. I've also started grammatically editing Shaw's unfinished unpublished manuscript. I know it's not sourced but I am going to compare any similarities between the claims made by Shaw and info gleaned from podcasts. I will eventually post up a word doc containing Shaw, to make it easier to read.
-
Question open to everyone. QC did not answer.
I've already answered the question in other posts.
They wouldn't need to know any of the things you list, not even the blood group.
As a minimum, they would need to know:
(i). where Sheila was found (not the precise position of the body, just in which room);
(ii). which rifle was used as the murder weapon;
(iii). that there was no silencer attached to the rifle when found at the scene;
(iv). that the silencer they have found goes with the rifle; and,
(v). how to dismantle and reassemble that silencer.
These are all things easily within the knowledge of Ann, David, Robert and Peter. I think that if - I stress, if - there was a conspiracy, then the conspirators were David and Robert.
I agree that it would be better for this theory if can be shown that they knew Sheila's blood group, and also if it can be shown that they knew at that early stage that some of the shots were contact or near-contact shots. I think they did known both these things anyway, but neither her blood group nor the close range of the shots are minimum knowledge that they needed to contaminate and plant the silencer. They may have just intuited that blood would be inside the murder weapon from David's discovery of what appeared to be blood on the outer housing of the silencer, or they have even have decided that regardless of whether blood technically could be in the silencer, they would add it in as a means of incriminating Jeremy; and, it could be anybody's blood that they put inside the silencer, as long as it's human. They would then report the silencer to the police and say that they found it in the gun cupboard and it was used in the killings, thus implicating Jeremy given that Sheila would not have returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself.
The whole issue of whether Sheila could reach the trigger with the silencer attached is, in my view, a red herring from the perspective of conspiring relatives. It may be a valid deduction for the police, but it amounts to reasoning backwards on the question of whether the conspiracy occurred. What you are forgetting is the order in which the evidence came to light. The silencer only came into the picture later, which means that in order to incriminate Jeremy, the police then had to find a way to fit the silencer into the evidence, given that the silencer was not at the scene in the first place.
The tests that the police had carried out on the silencer were for blood. Given the quantity of blood found in the silencer, it just needed to be human blood for suspicion to fall on Jeremy. It turned out it was human blood, so Jeremy is in the frame. Unless he is to remain silent, Jeremy, as the only survivor of the immediate family, then has to explain why there is human blood in a silencer paired with the murder weapon and found some distance from the crime scene. The problem, I believe, for the relatives and the authorities is that, in retrospect, the distribution of blood in the silencer seems consistent with it having been contaminated.
-
I've already answered the question in other posts.
They wouldn't need to know any of the things you list, not even the blood group.
As a minimum, they would need to know:
(i). where Sheila was found (not the precise position of the body, just in which room);
(ii). which rifle was used as the murder weapon;
(iii). that there was no silencer attached to the rifle when found at the scene;
(iv). that the silencer they have found goes with the rifle; and,
(v). how to dismantle and reassemble that silencer.
These are all things easily within the knowledge of Ann, David, Robert and Peter. I think that if - I stress, if - there was a conspiracy, then the conspirators were David and Robert.
I agree that it would be better for this theory if can be shown that they knew Sheila's blood group, and also if it can be shown that they knew at that early stage that some of the shots were contact or near-contact shots. I think they did known both these things anyway, but neither her blood group nor the close range of the shots are minimum knowledge that they needed to contaminate and plant the silencer. They may have just intuited that blood would be inside the murder weapon from David's discovery of what appeared to be blood on the outer housing of the silencer, or they have even have decided that regardless of whether blood technically could be in the silencer, they would add it in as a means of incriminating Jeremy; and, it could be anybody's blood that they put inside the silencer, as long as it's human. They would then report the silencer to the police and say that they found it in the gun cupboard and it was used in the killings, thus implicating Jeremy given that Sheila would not have returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself.
The whole issue of whether Sheila could reach the trigger with the silencer attached is, in my view, a red herring from the perspective of conspiring relatives. It may be a valid deduction for the police, but it amounts to reasoning backwards on the question of whether the conspiracy occurred. What you are forgetting is the order in which the evidence came to light. The silencer only came into the picture later, which means that in order to incriminate Jeremy, the police then had to find a way to fit the silencer into the evidence, given that the silencer was not at the scene in the first place.
The tests that the police had carried out on the silencer were for blood. Given the quantity of blood found in the silencer, it just needed to be human blood for suspicion to fall on Jeremy. It turned out it was human blood, so Jeremy is in the frame. Unless he is to remain silent, Jeremy, as the only survivor of the immediate family, then has to explain why there is human blood in a silencer paired with the murder weapon and found some distance from the crime scene. The problem, I believe, for the relatives and the authorities is that, in retrospect, the distribution of blood in the silencer seems consistent with it having been contaminated.
Why would they need to know which room Sheila was found?
Good point about also knowing which rifle was used. Some rifles won't have a silencer option. Also whether the silencer they chose was compatible with the murder weapon. I will add those to my list.
They would need to know more than how to dismantle a silencer. They would also need to know how to create the back spatter effect. David even believes they learnt how to put diluted period blood into the silencer.
-
David would need to explain how the relatives found out -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
What murder weapon was used.
Whether the silencer they have chosen was compatible with the murder weapon.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
----------
David will not answer & post the same pasted 'Gish Gash' paragraph. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Anyone else?
QC just said the relatives would not need to know any of these. Except a couple.
It is really for David who says the relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance. I have given him this list before but he has always refused to address each point.
-
The police could have given the relatives this information. However unlikely Stan Jones would know it all. He was not heading the investigation. This would support the industrial frame.
-
The police could have -
Fabricated the silencer. Then asked several relatives to sign false WS's and commit perjury.
Carried out another search & found the silencer with Sheila's blood in. Then asked several relatives to sign false WS's and committ perjury.
----------
In either case I do not know why the police would ask the relatives to get involved.
-
The police would also need to get BC and BW involved. They have said they were at WHF when the silencer was found.
-
Seems to be an impossible situation -
It was impossible for the relatives to fabricate the silencer without police assistance.
There is no reason why the police would involve BW, BC PE, AE & RB in there own industrial frame.
-
I'll get back about that. I know it's a conundrum in the case. I am going to replay each podcast and note some of the claims being made. I've also started grammatically editing Shaw's unfinished unpublished manuscript. I know it's not sourced but I am going to compare any similarities between the claims made by Shaw and info gleaned from podcasts. I will eventually post up a word doc containing Shaw, to make it easier to read.
I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence. It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in. The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands. Somebody would have stepped forward. I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.
I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise. Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers. They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit. That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen. The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'.
This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case. Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent. What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it. It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.
Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved.
This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence. For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not? The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent. He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force. The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter. They cannot be a law unto themselves.
What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home? It cannot be right that this was allowed.
A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness. They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question. This is of course something that almost everybody does.
This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case. At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.
My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:
(i). the nature of the incident and crime scene itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;
(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.
But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions. I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others. Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.
Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length.
The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all. The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.
It's complex and messy. Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.
-
Considering the mountain of evidence against Bamber, the most plausible explanation is -
The police had already set up the industrial frame department. The relatives approached the police with the silencer idea, which the police liked & ran with.
-
I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence. It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in. The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands. Somebody would have stepped forward. I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.
I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise. Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers. They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit. That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen. The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'.
This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case. Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent. What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it. It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.
Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved.
This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence. For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not? The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent. He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force. The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter. They cannot be a law unto themselves.
What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home? It cannot be right that this was allowed.
A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness. They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question. This is of course something that almost everybody does.
This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case. At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.
My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:
(i). the nature of the incident itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;
(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.
But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions. I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others. Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.
Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length.
The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all. The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.
It's complex and messy. Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.
'Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions'.
Thanks QC.
-
I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence. It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in. The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands. Somebody would have stepped forward. I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.
I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise. Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers. They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit. That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen. The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'.
This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case. Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent. What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it. It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.
Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved.
This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence. For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not? The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent. He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force. The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter. They cannot be a law unto themselves.
What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home? It cannot be right that this was allowed.
A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness. They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question. This is of course something that almost everybody does.
This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case. At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.
My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:
(i). the nature of the incident and crime scene itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;
(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.
But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions. I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others. Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.
Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length.
The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all. The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.
It's complex and messy. Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour.
----------
It's good to know the police cave in to pressure from elderly relatives. But also disappointing.
-
Why would they need to know which room Sheila was found?
The room itself doesn't matter, just the fact that it was some way from the gun cupboard. It maybe looks less convincing if the crime scene has Sheila found in the kitchen or the den, for instance, as you could then interpret that as a deranged and confused Sheila putting the silencer back before killing herself, perhaps after first changing her mind and making to the den to put the weapon back, then changing her mind again. That seems less likely if she is in the bedroom, especially given that there was no blood evidence in the den - effectively ruling out Rivlin's explanation. If Rivlin was right and, let's say, Sheila had second thoughts, and then changed her mind again while putting the rifle back, then where is the blood?
Good point about also knowing which rifle was used. Some rifles won't have a silencer option. Also whether the silencer they chose was compatible with the murder weapon. I will add those to my list.
No problem Adam. It's the least I can do after you helped me out with the jet skis and also the other day when I was out in my windsurfing get-up. What am I like, eh, Adam?
They would need to know more than how to dismantle a silencer. They would also need to know how to create the back spatter effect. David even believes they learnt how to put diluted period blood into the silencer.
I disagree with you there. I see the logic in what you say, but I've already covered the point exhaustively above. There was no need for them to even know about back-spatter or even the range of the shots. Your reasoning is perfectly logical, but the basic flaw in it is that you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion. Remember the order in which the evidence was discovered, then think it through again.
I have no idea what the 'diluted period blood' is about. Maybe we should skip over that. My point about the blood is that, again, yes it is better if they know Sheila's blood group (and I think they did), but it wasn't necessary for them to know this to put in place an effective conspiracy given the state of forensic knowledge at that time, which they would have general knowledge of.
The reality is that they could just put any human blood in the silencer and it would incriminate Jeremy. If the blood group had matched, say, one of the twins, then all the better. At that point, Jeremy is in serious trouble.
You think it was 'lucky' that it matched Sheila. It was and it wasn't. On one level, it helped the police retroactively fit the silencer into the crime scene, but a clever defence barrister could have asked why, if a twin (or whatever other victim) were shot at contact range, that victim's blood type is not part of the blood grouped? If we accept drawback theory, then that makes no technically sense, though it does make sequential sense if you accept that Jeremy shot Sheila last (albeit he need not have).
-
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour.
----------
It's good to know the police cave in to pressure from elderly relatives. But also disappointing.
You dishonestly ignore that this is one of three factors. Those factors worked together. If the relatives had given full-throated support to Jeremy, I doubt the police would have taken Julie Mugford's evidence seriously; and without Stan Jones, I think she would have been dismissed as a fantasist.
It was Robert Boutflour who reported the silencer to the police and demanded a meeting with a chief officer of Essex Police.
-
The room itself doesn't matter, just the fact that it was some way from the gun cupboard. It maybe looks less convincing if the crime scene has Sheila found in the kitchen or the den, for instance, as you could then interpret that as a deranged and confused Sheila putting the silencer back before killing herself, perhaps after first changing her mind and making to the den to put the weapon back, then changing her mind again. That seems less likely if she is in the bedroom, especially given that there was no blood evidence in the den - effectively ruling out Rivlin's explanation. If Rivlin was right and, let's say, Sheila had second thoughts, and then changed her mind again while putting the rifle back, then where is the blood?
No problem Adam. It's the least I can do after you helped me out with the jet skis and also the other day when I was out in my windsurfing get-up. What am I like, eh, Adam?
I disagree with you there. I see the logic in what you say, but I've already covered the point exhaustively above. There was no need for them to even know about back-spatter or even the range of the shots. Your reasoning is perfectly logical, but the basic flaw in it is that you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion. Remember the order in which the evidence was discovered, then think it through again.
I have no idea what the 'diluted period blood' is about. Maybe we should skip over that. My point about the blood is that, again, yes it is better if they know Sheila's blood group (and I think they did), but it wasn't necessary for them to know this to put in place an effective conspiracy given the state of forensic knowledge at that time, which they would have general knowledge of.
The reality is that they could just put any human blood in the silencer and it would incriminate Jeremy. If the blood group had matched, say, one of the twins, then all the better. At that point, Jeremy is in serious trouble.
You think it was 'lucky' that it matched Sheila. It was and it wasn't. On one level, it helped the police retroactively fit the silencer into the crime scene, but a clever defence barrister could have asked why, if a twin (or whatever other victim) were shot at contact range, that victim's blood type is not part of the blood grouped? If we accept drawback theory, then that makes no technically sense, though it does make sequential sense if you accept that Jeremy shot Sheila last (albeit he need not have).
The relatives are being even more calculating, considering how the room Sheila was found in would be interpreted regarding the silencer.
I agree that it being human blood incriminates Bamber. As Sheila would not have put the silencer away.
Agree the relatives could have just put any human inside the silencer & struck very lucky in that it matched Sheila's. They also struck lucky in that Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
-
The relatives are being even more calculating, considering how the room Sheila was found in would be interpreted regarding the silencer.
I agree that it being human blood incriminates Bamber. As Sheila would not have put the silencer away.
As I've explained, it's not the specific room that matters, it's just the general location of the body in the house. To illustrate: if Sheila had been found in the den, next to the gun cupboard, with the gun cupboard open, then would the police have cared about the silencer being found in the gun cupboard? I highly doubt it.
The defence theory was weak, and the lack of evidence of blood transference in the den or near the gun cupboard gave it that tint of implausibility, and you can see why the jury couldn't accept it. If, for instance, blood prints matching Sheila had been found on the floor of the den, you would accept Rivlin's argument, notwithstanding the actual location of Sheila's body.
The relatives will have realised that Sheila was found in the bedroom, which is upstairs not downstairs [thanks Adam], so she was unlikely to have returned the silencer herself. It's stating the plainly obvious really, so it's not 'calculating'; and remember also that the relatives had inspected the house after the crime and knew and/or could make an educated guess about where blood was found and not found. Peter and David would know (or would infer or guess) that there was no blood in the den because there was no blood there when they arrived and looked in the gun cupboard, and the carpet was still intact.
Agree the relatives could have just put any human inside the silencer & struck very lucky in that it matched Sheila's.
The blood didn't match Sheila. It was just the same blood group. It is important to correct that, because even today people who are supposed to be experts in the case still go round saying that the blood was Sheila's when this has never been proved. This is also relevant to the hypothesis we're discussing. Yes, in the scenario of a conspiracy, it was luck that the blood group matched Sheila's, but Sheila's own blood group was common enough, so the luck is attributable to a highly-probable statistical co-incidence.
Furthermore, as I've explained, any group of human blood would do. Let's say that the blood was grouped to the twins: then Jeremy is still incriminated. In fact, his position is arguably even worse because his whole defence rests on the notion that Sheila is shot last.
They also struck lucky in that Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
I disagree with the part in bold. That's not lucky. They didn't need to know about the shot ranges. In the hypothetical scenario of a conspiracy, they are acting on a mixture of reason and intuition, with incomplete knowledge. They just decide to put human blood in the silencer because they realise that could cause problems for Jeremy. In any case, they could infer that Sheila was found shot in the head region. Where else would she have been shot if she killed herself or Jeremy staged such? In the foot?
-
As I've explained, it's not the specific room that matters, it's just the general location of the body in the house. To illustrate: if Sheila had been found in the den, next to the gun cupboard, with the gun cupboard open, then would the police have cared about the silencer being found in the gun cupboard? I highly doubt it.
The defence theory was weak, and the lack of evidence of blood transference in the den or near the gun cupboard gave it that tint of implausibility, and you can see why the jury couldn't accept it. If, for instance, blood prints matching Sheila had been found on the floor of the den, you would accept Rivlin's argument, notwithstanding the actual location of Sheila's body.
The relatives will have realised that Sheila was found in the bedroom, which is upstairs not downstairs [thanks Adam], so she was unlikely to have returned the silencer herself. It's stating the plainly obvious really, so it's not 'calculating'; and remember also that the relatives had inspected the house after the crime and knew and/or could make an educated guess about where blood was found and not found. Peter and David would know (or would infer or guess) that there was no blood in the den because there was no blood there when they arrived and looked in the gun cupboard, and the carpet was still intact.
The blood didn't match Sheila. It was just the same blood group. It is important to correct that, because even today people who are supposed to be experts in the case still go round saying that the blood was Sheila's when this has never been proved. This is also relevant to the hypothesis we're discussing. Yes, in the scenario of a conspiracy, it was luck that the blood group matched Sheila's, but Sheila's own blood group was common enough, so the luck is attributable to a highly-probable statistical co-incidence.
Furthermore, as I've explained, any group of human blood would do. Let's say that the blood was grouped to the twins: then Jeremy is still incriminated. In fact, his position is arguably even worse because his whole defence rests on the notion that Sheila is shot last.
I disagree with the part in bold. That's not lucky. They didn't need to know about the shot ranges. In the hypothetical scenario of a conspiracy, they are acting on a mixture of reason and intuition, with incomplete knowledge. They just decide to put human blood in the silencer because they realise that could cause problems for Jeremy. In any case, they could infer that Sheila was found shot in the head region. Where else would she have been shot if she killed herself or Jeremy staged such? In the foot?
I don't know why you keep mentioning the kitchen downstairs. I don't recall ever saying it. Maybe you can remind me. Thanks QC.
Believe the blood matched Sheila's in 13 out of 16 categories. Meaning it was was hers. Hope someone can confirm this.
Sheila could return the silencer at any time. She was in the kitchen giving 6.4, 15 stone Nevill a brutal beating. However the judge said he found this very unlikely. She also had time constraints.
Yes the relatives could just put any human blood into the silencer to cause problems. Not least for themselves. As it happened there was a mountain of other forensic evidence. So they didn't need to bother.
-
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11431.msg591050#msg591050
Sorry it was 17 out of 20.
-
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
What murder weapon was used.
Whether the silencer they have chosen was compatible with the murder weapon.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Was there a kitchen fight.
How to effectively scratch the aga.
What the kitchen crime scene photos show.
Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.
What blood group was Sheila.
How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.
Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.
Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.
----------
Believe it's common sense that the relatives would want to know all of the above before deciding on a very callous & dangerous framing attempt. If they had the idea in the first place.
But fair play to QC for fire fighting to justify his 98.7% guilty stance. David, Lookout & JackieD have gone AWOL again.
-
Believe it's common sense that the relatives would want to know all of the above before deciding on a very callous & dangerous framing attempt. If they had the idea in the first place.
But fair play to QC for fire fighting to justify his 98.7% guilty stance. David, Lookout & JackieD have gone AWOL again.
Thanks Adam. It must be that they are blown away by your subtle erudition and masterful command of the case and just can't compete. I think you should write a book or two. Or maybe three.
You could become the go-to TV expert on the Bamber case.
-
Perhaps the police said 'just put some blood in the sound moderator and we'll do the rest'. Or even, 'just leave it all to us'.
Are you being serious? Have you actually read the trial transcripts and witness statements avaliable on this forum?
-
You dishonestly ignore that this is one of three factors. Those factors worked together. If the relatives had given full-throated support to Jeremy, I doubt the police would have taken Julie Mugford's evidence seriously; and without Stan Jones, I think she would have been dismissed as a fantasist.
It was Robert Boutflour who reported the silencer to the police and demanded a meeting with a chief officer of Essex Police.
Everything has been explained to Adam before. But he just continues going round in circles as if it never was. I suspect he his clinging onto hope that Paul Harrisons book may still force Jeremy to 'confess'. Better late than never. :))
-
Everything has been explained to Adam before. But he just continues going round in circles as if it never was. I suspect he his clinging onto hope that Paul Harrisons book may still force Jeremy to 'confess'. Better late than never. :))
Paul should have asked Adam to ghost write the book for him. Adam's 76 Pieces of Forensic Evidence That Prove Jeremy Is Guilty would have been the final word on the case and ended all debate for good, and probably would have led to a documentary.
-
Paul should have asked Adam to ghost write the book for him. Adam's 76 Pieces of Forensic Evidence That Prove Jeremy Is Guilty would have been the final word on the case and ended all debate for good, and probably would have led to a documentary.
Adam would first need to make his mind up how many "pieces" of "evidence" he as. The number as varied over years, anything from 30 to 200.
-
Adam would first need to make his mind up how many "pieces" of "evidence" he as. The number as varied over years, anything from 30 to 200.
Some examples
There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. So it had to be Bamber.
200 pieces of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
Only 100+ pieces. But since when was that enough for supporters ?
28 pieces of forensic evidence.
30 pieces of forensic evidence incriminating Bamber.
Well there are 19 pieces of foremsic evidence
33 forensic points which link Bamber to the crime.
-
Some examples
Until recently, Adam never explained why he changed stance from neutral/undecided to dogmatically-committed to the guilty position. Now he has admitted that he was lying and in fact he has believed all along that Jeremy is guilty, based on documentaries and the Wilkes book.
It's unclear what connection Adam has to the case, if there is a connection at all. It could be that he is just a strange person who likes to spend a large chunk of his time spamming a discussion forum about a random case that he has no connection to.
-
Are you being serious? Have you actually read the trial transcripts and witness statements avaliable on this forum?
In what respect?
-
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
------------
-
Currently 71.
Thank you David. For reminding me.
-
Thought David would have addressed my points in reply 654. They were first posted several years ago.
He is saying the relatives used diluted period blood to fabricate the silencer. Without police assistance. Although has never said how.
-
Until recently, Adam never explained why he changed stance from neutral/undecided to dogmatically-committed to the guilty position. Now he has admitted that he was lying and in fact he has believed all along that Jeremy is guilty, based on documentaries and the Wilkes book.
It's unclear what connection Adam has to the case, if there is a connection at all. It could be that he is just a strange person who likes to spend a large chunk of his time spamming a discussion forum about a random case that he has no connection to.
This was my intro. Posted a couple of days ago.
Keep up.
----------
Hello everyone.
This is a fasinating case which I have taken an interest in during the last month. This seems like the busiest forum so am looking forward to some good non abusive discussion. At present I have an open mind & lots of questions. Am ready to be persuaded one way or the other.
-
Oh dear, more than a touch of narcissism there Adam.
-
This was my intro. Posted a couple of days ago.
Keep up.
----------
Hello everyone.
This is a fasinating case which I have taken an interest in during the last month. This seems like the busiest forum so am looking forward to some good non abusive discussion. At present I have an open mind & lots of questions. Am ready to be persuaded one way or the other.
You are simply lying again. You admitted a few days ago on here that you did not tell the truth when you joined and that your stance in the above introductory post was not your true position because you were scared of being banned.
I don't understand why you brazenly lie so much and think that people won't read what you said a few messages ago. It's quite amusing really. You're like Comical Ali.
-
You are simply lying again. You admitted a few days ago on here that you did not tell the truth when you joined and that your stance in the above introductory post was not your true position because you were scared of being banned.
I don't understand why you brazenly lie so much and think that people won't read what you said a few messages ago. It's quite amusing really. You're like Comical Ali.
I've just posted my 2013 intro. Again.
You lie. Saying I said Nevill woke while being shot. Then saying you were not going to quote my post.
Anyway you need to focus on the case & keep fire fighting. Only self denial is keeping you from the dreaded 99%.
-
It is strange how supporters do not support for evidence reasons.
Lookout, JaneJ & JackieD support/ed for non evidence reasons. However they do/did not deny that evidence exists.
David changed stance for a non evidence reason & now refuses to acknowledge sourced evidence! The only evidence important to him is his 5 year old 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which he has refused to post!
QC and Mike discuss the evidence. However Mike is now a guilter and QC has surely gone past his high threashold of 99%.
-
I've just posted my 2013 intro. Again.
Yes, and? It's clear that what I say is right. You started out by lying, then came out as a guilter when you knew it was safe. You've admitted it in black and white, and you are now brazenly lying in our faces, like saying the Earth is flat or there are Little Green Men hiding on the Moon. It's insulting.
You lie. Saying I said Nevill woke while being shot. Then saying you were not going to quote my post.
That is true. You literally actually did say that. You know it. I am not trawling back through all your stupid, idiotic spamming posts to find evidence of you saying something stupid and idiotic when it's obvious you say things that are stupid and idiotic, because you're a troll. You've virtually admitted you're a troll. It's absurd.
Anyway you need to focus on the case & keep fire fighting. Only self denial is keeping you from the dreaded 99%.
It's not dreaded. I have no vested interest in the case. If Jeremy is guilty, he is guilty. You have yet to convince me that he actually is guilty. So far, your posts only serve to deepen my doubts.
-
Yes, and? It's clear that what I say is right. You started out by lying, then came out as a guilter when you knew it was safe. You've admitted it in black and white, and you are now brazenly lying in our faces, like saying the Earth is flat or there are Little Green Men hiding on the Moon. It's insulting.
That is true. You literally actually did say that. You know it. I am not trawling back through all your stupid, idiotic spamming posts to find evidence of you saying something stupid and idiotic when it's obvious you say things that are stupid and idiotic, because you're a troll. You've virtually admitted you're a troll. It's absurd.
It's not dreaded. I have no vested interest in the case. If Jeremy is guilty, he is guilty. You have yet to convince me that he actually is guilty. So far, your posts only serve to deepen my doubts.
That is true. You literally actually did say that. You know it. I am not trawling back through all your posts.
----------
You just needed to quote my post. Either then or now. It is what people do on forums.
Keep digging.
-
I don't believe there was a motive to frame an innocent man, or frame him without caring about his guilt or innocence. It is true that Jeremy was bisexual and also involved in drugs at a low level, and he was suspected of the caravan park break-in. The police would have discovered these things and not have taken kindly to him, and these facts may have been background factors influencing the renewed interest in him, but to frame Jeremy simply out of dislike or disapproval of his minor criminal lifestyle would require a psychopathic or mentally-deranged police officer whose efforts go undetected in an investigation involving many hands. Somebody would have stepped forward. I accept it probably does happen in rare instances, but it is so rare that it's normally off the table for consideration, as there are hardly any recorded cases of it.
I find it much more plausible that individual police officers and relatives simply assumed - perhaps correctly - that Jeremy was guilty, and then some of them set about framing him on that premise. Obviously the background factors above will have been a major influence on police officers. They concluded he was guilty and interpreted evidence accordingly, bending the rules and cutting corners here and there to make the case fit. That is how 'corrupt' miscarriages of justice happen. The phrase used for the phenomenon is 'noble cause corruption'.
This is what occurred in the Birmingham Six case. Although I believe some of them were guilty, some were unquestionably innocent. What happened is that the officers decided they were guilty and set out making a case that proved it. It's a classic illustration of the dangers of abandoning due process and rule of law.
Closely-related to that is a situation where mistakes and errors are made with the evidence by police and forensic scientists, and instead of owning up to this, there is a cover-up of the mistakes in the belief that the accused or convicted individual is guilty anyway and in the knowledge that the police and scientists involved could be in serious trouble if they come clean and admit to mistakes and errors, even though there was no criminal intent involved.
This can also happen at an organisational level, in which case it is normally inadvertent rather than an intentionally criminal effort to hide or destroy evidence. For instance, an Essex Police Special Branch officer authorised the destruction of exhibits in 1995, did he not? The actions of the Special Branch officer were probably entirely innocent, but even if he was following orders, his actions were grossly negligent. He should have refused the order, ensured the evidence was secured, and then reported the matter upwards to the Chief Constable, and if necessary to an outside complaints body or different police force. The police must uphold the rule of law above all else, in spirit and in its ethos and values, as much as the letter. They cannot be a law unto themselves.
What about this business that has come out of Mike Ainsley holding evidence at home? It cannot be right that this was allowed.
A much more common occurrence is when the police make a genuine mistake in their deductions that is influenced by the human tendency towards arrogance, bias and recklessness. They decide somebody looks guilty, so he is guilty, and they build a case accordingly, ignoring and disregarding anything that calls their assumptions into question. This is of course something that almost everybody does.
This is what occurred in the Stefan Kiszko case. At some point, the officers decided poor Mr Kiszko was guilty and interpreted the evidence accordingly, disregarding evidence that didn't fit their preconceived conclusions.
My view of the Bamber case is that, if - a big if - Jeremy is innocent, then it boils down to mistakes and incompetence rather than general corruption, and has its roots in:
(i). the nature of the incident and crime scene itself, with each piece of evidence wide open to interpretation;
(ii). an idiosyncratic officer, Stan Jones; and,
(iii). pressure brought on the police by the relatives, especially Robert Boutflour, convinced of Jeremy's guilt.
But even if Jeremy is guilty, what we can still say about this case is that it shows quite well how a tiny group of people, in this case chiefly Stan Jones, Robert Boutflour, Peter Eaton, and Ann Eaton, can greatly influence a larger group - even technical experts - in following a given agenda and coming to certain conclusions. I think the explanation for this is that the tiny group were emotionally-vested in it all (and maybe financially-vested, though the innocent camp have yet to convince me of this), while the larger group were merely acting as paid professionals and were willing to do as they were told or implicitly accept the narratives of others. Again, this point underscores the importance of professional integrity and independence in all things.
Jeremy Bamber himself compounded a dangerous situation with his own naivety in openly answering police questions [Where was his solicitor?], joking around with Julie, neglecting to deal with the estate in an efficient, tactful and sensitive manner, and speaking ad hoc to police officers and relatives about incriminating matters, when he should have kept his mouth shut and kept them at arm's length.
The conduct of the trial was also a factor in it all. The rather passive 'reasonable doubt' defence put forward and the misdirections to the jury, played a part.
It's complex and messy. Reducing it all to a simple conspiracy is entertaining and would make a good novel or film, but doesn't reflect what really happened, in my view.
Surely corruption and noble cause corruption boils down to the same thing
-
Surely corruption and noble cause corruption boils down to the same thing
Frame an innocent man/not care if he is innocent or guilty =/= Frame a (believed to be) guilty man
Both are corrupt, but they involve different motives and actions, and one is much more common and plausible than the other.
-
Frame an innocent man/not care if he is innocent or guilty =/= Frame a (believed to be) guilty man
Both are corrupt, but they involve different motives and actions, and one is much more common and plausible than the other.
That afternoon, the Boutflours were at Witham police station again. The indefatigable Stan Jones listened encouragingly as the family outlined their suspicions of Jeremy. Stan explained that everyone on the case had heard the theory… and no one bought it. Everything pointed to Sheila as the culprit. DI Miller appeared and announced that he had just come from a case conference and that so far ‘all the tests point to Sheila as the person responsible.’
Shaw - Chapter 6:
-
That afternoon, the Boutflours were at Witham police station again. The indefatigable Stan Jones listened encouragingly as the family outlined their suspicions of Jeremy. Stan explained that everyone on the case had heard the theory… and no one bought it. Everything pointed to Sheila as the culprit. DI Miller appeared and announced that he had just come from a case conference and that so far ‘all the tests point to Sheila as the person responsible.’
Shaw - Chapter 6:
Which tests was Miller referring to...English and Maths O'Levels?
-
Which tests was Miller referring to...English and Maths O'Levels?
What is Shaw's book like? Could not find any reviews. Is it more pro Bamber than Lomax's?
-
Which tests was Miller referring to...English and Maths O'Levels?
I suspect Miller was bullshiting in order to try and get RWB off his back.
-
I suspect Miller was bullshiting in order to try and get RWB off his back.
Or...the police had opened a case-file for Sheila, as the only suspect and perpetrator in the shootings. Within that case-file, police naturally gathered evidence which confirmed this to be the case (as was also obvious to them). I doubt Kenneally was 'bullshitting' when asked to present his findings to Bunyard. The case-file Kenneally used was the very same one that Miller referred to regarding 'tests'.
-
What is Shaw's book like? Could not find any reviews. Is it more pro Bamber than Lomax's?
It was never published. I suspect that Shaw's manuscript is on the far left of the case. Andrew Hunter's manuscript is centre left. Lomax' book is the Blairite left of the case. He is cautious and polite regarding some of the wrongdoers.
-
Just out of interest, has anyone noticed that QC is effectively a guilter whose' posts are disparaging towards the prosecution's case, whereas David is in the innocent camp but his posts are disparaging towards the defence case. This has probably happened before on the forum but I'm not sure it's been this pronounced.
-
I've noticed Roch, very much so, though QC is erring on the side of caution I would think.
-
Or...the police had opened a case-file for Sheila, as the only suspect and perpetrator in the shootings. Within that case-file, police naturally gathered evidence which confirmed this to be the case (as was also obvious to them). I doubt Kenneally was 'bullshitting' when asked to present his findings to Bunyard. The case-file Kenneally used was the very same one that Miller referred to regarding 'tests'.
Nope. Kenneally went over the very evidence that's already avaliable on this forum. And there was never any sophisticated advanced equipment testing on the windows, unless Miller considers fingerprint dusting advanced technology.
-
Nope. Kenneally went over the very evidence that's already avaliable on this forum. And there was never any sophisticated advanced equipment testing on the windows, unless Miller considers fingerprint dusting advanced technology.
So Sheila committed the killings, pretty much without leaving a trace of evidence to implicate her? Close quarters, near contact shots .. blood flying everywhere etc. ???
-
So Sheila committed the killings, pretty much without leaving a trace of evidence to implicate her? Close quarters, near contact shots .. blood flying everywhere etc. ???
Obviously Nevill would have negated the situation straight away if he saw his daughter holding a rifle used for shooting rabbits.
It would be a natural reaction from a father, husband & grandfather and easy to do.
He certainly wouldn't ring Bamber :))
-
So Sheila committed the killings, pretty much without leaving a trace of evidence to implicate her? Close quarters, near contact shots .. blood flying everywhere etc. ???
June was shot in bed and Nevill was shot on the stairs. Why would there be "blood flying everywhere"? She was using a low caliber rabbit hunting rifle not a 12 gauge shotgun.
-
Look Roch, Eric and Dylan after they shot and killed 11 people in the school library, before shooting themselves. No visible marks on their arms! they cant have done it!
(https://i.redd.it/a5y312bq7ql51.jpg)
-
Shaw on Mugford:
'Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to.'
-
Shaw on Mugford:
'Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to.'
Looks like Shaw is like Lomax and very biased & incorrect. Not surprised his book was not published.
-
The police giving Julie the mountain of inside information in her WS could not have happened. If the police were that determined they would have ensured MM was deleted from her WS.
The relatives using telepathy to brainwash Julie & give her inside information when she was Bamber's girlfriend is not an option.
None of Julie's inside information would have been in the following days papers.
QC agrees and said Julie could have been getting this information by sitting in on informal chats Bamber had with the police. But there is no proof any of these 'informal' chats happened, what was said or if Julie was present.
-
More information on Miller and the Coroner can be found on the link below.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1038.msg32034.html#msg32034 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1038.msg32034.html#msg32034)
-
More information on Miller and the Coroner can be found on the link below.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1038.msg32034.html#msg32034 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1038.msg32034.html#msg32034)
It sounds like Tompkins was dependent upon Miller and Wright. We both know that Miller was of course correct, in his assertions that Sheila was responsible (the police by that time, had confirmation of tests carried out, that would have been linked to the original SC case file). According to Shaw, Miller was duty bound to inform the coroner of the relatives' suspicions. Something he plainly did not do. Miller took the lies he told about Jeremy Bamber to his grave: his final, cocky performance on CTSB, a last act of defiance, while he inwardly knew Jeremy was innocent.
-
David often provides links to long impossible to read pieces.
Anyway Miller apparently being involved at least means there was an industrial frame.
-
David often provides links to long impossible to read pieces.
Anyway Miller apparently being involved at least means there was an industrial frame.
David would have Miller lying to the relatives initially, then moving to a position whereby he mistakenly joins in with the prosecution of Bamber - because there is no evidence Sheila committed the killings (she managed to do it without leaving any trace). Apparently, neither Jeremy or Sheila left forensic or material evidence of the killings at the crime scene but either one or the other must have carried out the killings. Bit of a conundrum.
-
It sounds like Tompkins was dependent upon Miller and Wright. We both know that Miller was of course correct, in his assertions that Sheila was responsible (the police by that time, had confirmation of tests carried out, that would have been linked to the original SC case file). According to Shaw, Miller was duty bound to inform the coroner of the relatives' suspicions. Something he plainly did not do. Miller took the lies he told about Jeremy Bamber to his grave: his final, cocky performance on CTSB, a last act of defiance, while he inwardly knew Jeremy was innocent.
There is no mention of these tests anywhere other than RWBs WS. Hence I believe Miller was simply trying to get the guy off his back.
-
There is no mention of these tests anywhere other than RWBs WS. Hence I believe Miller was simply trying to get the guy off his back.
Which witness statement from RWB are you referring to?
-
Which witness statement from RWB are you referring to?
IIRC its in his 1991 COLP statement
-
IIRC its in his 1991 COLP statement
Trace evidence of tests that were carried out for the original case file, with Sheila as the perpetrator. You should listen carefully to the podcasts, they contain information relating to new (original) evidence.
-
Trace evidence of tests that were carried out for the original case file, with Sheila as the perpetrator. You should listen carefully to the podcasts, they contain information relating to new (original) evidence.
I have little to no faith in the accuracy of these podcasts. I will need to see the actual documents.
-
I have little to no faith in the accuracy of these podcasts. I will need to see the actual documents.
It's likely you will only see such documents in the event of two scenarios.
Most likely: CCRC rejects and subsequently, the defence release parts of the submissions to public. Tricky as these things don't happen overnight. It may be via book or via documentaries.
Secondly: CCRC refer and consequently, the evidence comes to light via trial scrutiny, news, media and debate.
In the meantime, you are sitting, twiddling your thumbs, because you mistakenly believe that this forum holds all the evidence and because like certain others, you have painted your self in to a corner re your stance. However, I will give you credit for your scepticism regarding the potential for misinterpretation of case evidence. I too share these concerns.
Here is my suggestion to kill time while we wait for the options above to pan out: listen carefully to all podcasts and note down any claims or suggestions which seem new or are anomalies in respect of the evidence on this forum.
What harm can that do?
-
It sounds like Tompkins was dependent upon Miller and Wright. We both know that Miller was of course correct, in his assertions that Sheila was responsible (the police by that time, had confirmation of tests carried out, that would have been linked to the original SC case file). According to Shaw, Miller was duty bound to inform the coroner of the relatives' suspicions. Something he plainly did not do. Miller took the lies he told about Jeremy Bamber to his grave: his final, cocky performance on CTSB, a last act of defiance, while he inwardly knew Jeremy was innocent.
That interview was disgraceful. The hate he showed was disgusting. The fact is he lied because he didn’t ‘know’ Jeremy was guilty
-
It's likely you will only see such documents in the event of two scenarios.
Most likely: CCRC rejects and subsequently, the defence release parts of the submissions to public. Tricky as these things don't happen overnight. It may be via book or via documentaries.
Secondly: CCRC refer and consequently, the evidence comes to light via trial scrutiny, news, media and debate.
In the meantime, you are sitting, twiddling your thumbs, because you mistakenly believe that this forum holds all the evidence and because like certain others, you have painted your self in to a corner re your stance. However, I will give you credit for your scepticism regarding the potential for misinterpretation of case evidence. I too share these concerns.
Here is my suggestion to kill time while we wait for the options above to pan out: listen carefully to all podcasts and note down any claims or suggestions which seem new or are anomalies in respect of the evidence on this forum.
What harm can that do?
I’m concerned about the phone calls?
If there was proof of the phone calls I am sure his solicitor could get JB out of prison very quickly without jumping through the hoops of the CCRC
-
I’m concerned about the phone calls?
If there was proof of the phone calls I am sure his solicitor could get JB out of prison very quickly without jumping through the hoops of the CCRC
Exactly.
-
It's likely you will only see such documents in the event of two scenarios.
Most likely: CCRC rejects and subsequently, the defence release parts of the submissions to public. Tricky as these things don't happen overnight. It may be via book or via documentaries.
Secondly: CCRC refer and consequently, the evidence comes to light via trial scrutiny, news, media and debate.
In the meantime, you are sitting, twiddling your thumbs, because you mistakenly believe that this forum holds all the evidence and because like certain others, you have painted your self in to a corner re your stance. However, I will give you credit for your scepticism regarding the potential for misinterpretation of case evidence. I too share these concerns.
Here is my suggestion to kill time while we wait for the options above to pan out: listen carefully to all podcasts and note down any claims or suggestions which seem new or are anomalies in respect of the evidence on this forum.
What harm can that do?
Bill Robertson seems to have access to these documents. I have suggested/advised to him that he shows them to NGB for a second opinion. He has no good reason not to show them to qualified Barrister who has been directly involved in this case. Bill doesn't seem to have taken this advice. There is not much else I can do.
-
Bill Robertson seems to have access to these documents. I have suggested/advised to him that he shows them to NGB for a second opinion. He has no good reason not to show them to qualified Barrister who has been directly involved in this case. Bill doesn't seem to have taken this advice. There is not much else I can do.
It's not for me to say which evidence Bill did or did not have access to. I think you may be making assumptions. More pertinently, does Bill control your own hearing ability? If not, I suggest you listen carefully to the podcasts. You should cross reference them with the statement issued by Mark Newby and limited information on the eight grounds, listed on the JBIC site. Or you can continue to put your fingers in your ears, keep mentioning Bill and 'the evidence available on this forum'.
-
It's not for me to say which evidence Bill did or did not have access to. I think you may be making assumptions. More pertinently, does Bill control your own hearing ability? If not, I suggest you listen carefully to the podcasts. You should cross reference them with the statement issued by Mark Newby and limited information on the eight grounds, listed on the JBIC site. Or you can continue to put your fingers in your ears, keep mentioning Bill and 'the evidence available on this forum'.
How many episodes are there? and which one do you recommend I listen to?
-
It's early to say, but my impression so far is that Jeremy has instructed his legal team to re-hash all the old Lomax-era innocence points. It's a vanilla case, but it won't fly with the current CCRC, let alone the appeal court. I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible, but it is at the far end of plausibility and must be put in the category of 'unlikely'. Unless something startling has been discovered in the intervening years, what the CCRC will be presented with on that point is no improvement on what they saw before.
My view is that Jeremy should not have been convicted and his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal. To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system. Since perhaps the late 1990s (not long after its formation), the CCRC has been overly-cautious in referrals under pressure from the appellate judiciary who know they would otherwise be swamped with cases.
In my opinion, further reform is needed, possibly with the right for the CCRC to overturn convictions on its own account. The present system is odd in that it embodies a contradiction. The CCRC recently referred the Colin Norris convictions. Having done so, and having considered the test for referral, I must ask: what can the appeal courts add to the process that the CCRC has not already done? Perhaps the Norris case merits a second guess, given its gravity and seriousness, but there is a general question that I believe should be asked: if the CCRC think a conviction unsafe (which is what 'real possibility of deciding the conviction is unsafe' effectively means), then how can the appeal judges decide otherwise? What is it that the appeal judges know that the Commissioners don't?
Bafflingly, in the Bamber case the CCRC have contradicted themselves. They referred the case in 2001, but refused to refer in 2011. Are these convictions safe or not? If there is a real possibility that the appeal court will overturn the convictions, then does that not mean the convictions are unsafe?
Roch's suggestion that we re-listen to the podcasts and discuss any new points raised in them is a very sound idea. My problem is that I find the use of simulated voices in the podcasts incredibly grating and it's a struggle to listen to them. Jeremy really, really, really, really needs to politely and tactfully ask his Campaign Team if they could re-do those podcasts with natural voices. It doesn't matter if it's a voice from the Valleys or a broad Lancashire accent, or whatever. Amateur and rough-and-ready is fine - and may even be better than professional.
-
It's early to say, but my impression so far is that Jeremy has instructed his legal team to re-hash all the old Lomax-era innocence points. It's a vanilla case, but it won't fly with the current CCRC, let alone the appeal court. I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible, but it is at the far end of plausibility and must be put in the category of 'unlikely'. Unless something startling has been discovered in the intervening years, what the CCRC will be presented with on that point is no improvement on what they saw before.
My view is that Jeremy should not have been convicted and his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal. To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system. Since perhaps the late 1990s (not long after its formation), the CCRC has been overly-cautious in referrals under pressure from the appellate judiciary who know they would otherwise be swamped with cases.
In my opinion, further reform is needed, possibly with the right for the CCRC to overturn convictions on its own account. The present system is odd in that it embodies a contradiction. The CCRC recently referred the Colin Norris convictions. Having done so, and having considered the test for referral, I must ask: what can the appeal courts add to the process that the CCRC has not already done? Perhaps the Norris case merits a second guess, given its gravity and seriousness, but there is a general question that I believe should be asked: if the CCRC think a conviction unsafe (which is what 'real possibility of deciding the conviction is unsafe' effectively means), then how can the appeal judges decide otherwise? What is it that the appeal judges know that the Commissioners don't?
Bafflingly, in the Bamber case the CCRC have contradicted themselves. They referred the case in 2001, but refused to refer in 2011. Are these convictions safe or not? If there is a real possibility that the appeal court will overturn the convictions, then does that not mean the convictions are unsafe?
Roch's suggestion that we re-listen to the podcasts and discuss any new points raised in them is a very sound idea. My problem is that I find the use of simulated voices in the podcasts incredibly grating and it's a struggle to listen to them. Jeremy really, really, really, really needs to politely and tactfully ask his Campaign Team if they could re-do those podcasts with natural voices. It doesn't matter if it's a voice from the Valleys or a broad Lancashire accent, or whatever. Amateur and rough-and-ready is fine - and may even be better than professional.
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
----------
Please elaborate.
-
It's early to say, but my impression so far is that Jeremy has instructed his legal team to re-hash all the old Lomax-era innocence points. It's a vanilla case, but it won't fly with the current CCRC, let alone the appeal court. I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible, but it is at the far end of plausibility and must be put in the category of 'unlikely'. Unless something startling has been discovered in the intervening years, what the CCRC will be presented with on that point is no improvement on what they saw before.
My view is that Jeremy should not have been convicted and his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal. To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system. Since perhaps the late 1990s (not long after its formation), the CCRC has been overly-cautious in referrals under pressure from the appellate judiciary who know they would otherwise be swamped with cases.
In my opinion, further reform is needed, possibly with the right for the CCRC to overturn convictions on its own account. The present system is odd in that it embodies a contradiction. The CCRC recently referred the Colin Norris convictions. Having done so, and having considered the test for referral, I must ask: what can the appeal courts add to the process that the CCRC has not already done? Perhaps the Norris case merits a second guess, given its gravity and seriousness, but there is a general question that I believe should be asked: if the CCRC think a conviction unsafe (which is what 'real possibility of deciding the conviction is unsafe' effectively means), then how can the appeal judges decide otherwise? What is it that the appeal judges know that the Commissioners don't?
Bafflingly, in the Bamber case the CCRC have contradicted themselves. They referred the case in 2001, but refused to refer in 2011. Are these convictions safe or not? If there is a real possibility that the appeal court will overturn the convictions, then does that not mean the convictions are unsafe?
Roch's suggestion that we re-listen to the podcasts and discuss any new points raised in them is a very sound idea. My problem is that I find the use of simulated voices in the podcasts incredibly grating and it's a struggle to listen to them. Jeremy really, really, really, really needs to politely and tactfully ask his Campaign Team if they could re-do those podcasts with natural voices. It doesn't matter if it's a voice from the Valleys or a broad Lancashire accent, or whatever. Amateur and rough-and-ready is fine - and may even be better than professional.
'his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal. To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system.'
--------
The COA were confident in their dismissal.
-
How many episodes are there? and which one do you recommend I listen to?
If you want to be certain of missing nothing, start at the beginning. However, you're right. Most of what is in them will be familiar to you. But the other stuff is dotted about in various different podcasts. Some are short and some between 30 and 45 mins. If I was to hazard a guess, maybe 12 podcasts up to now. As well as anything you don't agree with, there's an error in the timeline podcast which they have recognised - but the error is not repeated in the submissions. Give it a whirl. You may find something you like, among the stuff you don't.
-
The COA were confident in their dismissal.
Well that's it then. I don't know why Mike has ever bothered with the Forum. I wish you'd said before Adam.
-
How many episodes are there?
15. 16 if they release another today.
-
15. 16 if they release another today.
20 actually. They've released another today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCotKmX_uqg
We're back to the female HAL 9000 again.
-
20 actually. They've released another today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCotKmX_uqg
We're back to the female HAL 9000 again.
They should do a couple with 'Holly' from 'Red Dwarf'.
-
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
----------
Please elaborate.
As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.
When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed.
-
As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.
When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed.
That's rubbish. I answer each and every point, but I am not going to re-post things over and over again because you're too lazy to look at Mike's documents or read what people say the first time. You're a classic troll and just a spammer. Whenever I've got into an argument with you about something, as with Steve, it just goes round and round and round and round, with you making the same point over and over again because you're emotionally and/or dogmatically attached to your rigid stance and can't take anything in. What's the point? Life is too short.
-
They should do a couple with 'Holly' from 'Red Dwarf'.
In all seriousness, they do need to look at that. I'm afraid I find most of the podcasts completely unlistenable. It's a very easy issue to resolve, but there you are.
-
As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.
When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed.
And what's your excuse for your long posts ?
-
That's rubbish. I answer each and every point, but I am not going to re-post things over and over again because you're too lazy to look at Mike's documents or read what people say the first time. You're a classic troll and just a spammer. Whenever I've got into an argument with you about something, as with Steve, it just goes round and round and round and round, with you making the same point over and over again because you're emotionally and/or dogmatically attached to your rigid stance and can't take anything in. What's the point? Life is too short.
Just tell the forum what you mean by -
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
-
In all seriousness, they do need to look at that. I'm afraid I find most of the podcasts completely unlistenable. It's a very easy issue to resolve, but there you are.
I enjoy the podcasts, much easier to follow and refer to, for those who are interested of course.
-
And what's your excuse for your long posts ?
My posts are of varying lengths. Some long. Some short. Some in-between. Surely people can decide if they wish to read my posts, long or short or otherwise. It's not mandatory.
-
Just tell the forum what you mean by -
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
There's a whole thread on it - another one I started. Why should I give you another explanation? It's not required of me.
Why are still allowed to post here? I just don't understand what you add to the Forum overall. You're clearly a troll, and I just have to openly question what the moderators think they're doing. Why hasn't your behaviour been corrected?
I really don't follow the thinking behind it. It just means anybody sensible is going less inclined to post here.
-
And what's your excuse for your long posts ?
Long posts. Long lists more like.
No danger of long posts from you.
-
There's a whole thread on it - another one I started. Why should I give you another explanation? It's not required of me.
Why are still allowed to post here? I just don't understand what you add to the Forum overall. You're clearly a troll, and I just have to openly question what the moderators think they're doing. Why hasn't your behaviour been corrected?
I really don't follow the thinking behind it. It just means anybody sensible is going less inclined to post here.
Just tell the forum what you mean by -
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
-
Just tell the forum what you mean by -
'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.
I have already - at length. You're just too lazy to read it or too stupid to remember it. Normally I would assist, but I'm not inclined to assist you.
Why is this person still tolerated here?
-
I have already - at length. You're just too lazy to read it or too stupid to remember it. Normally I would assist, but I'm not inclined to assist you.
Why is this person still tolerated here?
You want me to go through the forum to try to work out what you mean. Because you won't write a sentance.
'll just have to guess. A missed call suggests Nevill rang but the police did not answer.
-
Long posts. Long lists more like.
No danger of long posts from you.
Yes, your long repeated lists fill a page to make it look a lot, same old same old. At least I don't have to repeat myself.
-
QC does post soundbites in his posts. But if you question one, he gets upset. As is happening now.
-
QC does post soundbites in his posts. But if you question one, he gets upset. As is happening now.
I haven't noticed, then again, I haven't looked.
-
QC does post soundbites in his posts. But if you question one, he gets upset. As is happening now.
I don't post soundbites or clichés. I just post my own thoughts. I don't care whether anybody reads my posts or not.
You're right: I am upset. I have good reason to be, as a troll has been allowed to ruin the Forum under the guise of free speech and I just find it baffling and confusing. I don't understand what the priorities of the Forum are or what the purpose is of us being here if somebody like you is allowed to post here.
-
I don't post soundbites or clichés. I just post my own thoughts. I don't care whether anybody reads my posts or not.
You're right: I am upset. I have good reason to be, as a troll has been allowed to ruin the Forum under the guise of free speech and I just find it baffling and confusing. I don't understand what the priorities of the Forum are or what the purpose is of us being here if somebody like you is allowed to post here.
lol. You are the one who wants me to troll the forum. Trying to work out what you mean.
As you haven't disputed my guess, I will assume it was right.
-
lol. You are the one who wants me to troll the forum. Trying to work out what you mean.
As you haven't disputed my guess, I will assume it was right.
Thanks Adam. You're right, I must be inventing the previous thread. I need to stop smoking the funny stuff.
-
It's lucky Adam is here to offer moral support and his encyclopaedic knowledge of the case.
What would we do without him?
-
It's lucky Adam is here to offer moral support and his encyclopaedic knowledge of the case.
What would we do without him?
It’s clear he has serious problems and needs help
-
It’s clear he has serious problems and needs help
Says 'Mad' Jackie.
-
It’s clear he has serious problems and needs help
Yeah, I believe Mark Lundy, Jeffrey Mcdonald and Steven Avery are all guilty. You don't see me spamming their supporters online with 20,000 forum posts.
-
Yeah, I believe Mark Lundy, Jeffrey Mcdonald and Steven Avery are all guilty. You don't see me spamming their supporters online with 20,000 forum posts.
Says 'Coward' David.
-
Yeah, I believe Mark Lundy, Jeffrey Mcdonald and Steven Avery are all guilty. You don't see me spamming their supporters online with 20,000 forum posts.
I think you should PM Adam for moral support, David.
In fact, this could be a new service offered by the Forum. People will probably want to take Adam up on the offer, not just about the Bamber case, but other things too.
-
I think you should PM Adam for moral support, David.
In fact, this could be a new service offered by the Forum. People will probably want to take Adam up on the offer, not just about the Bamber case, but other things too.
He probably still hasn't got over being bamboozled by Paul Harrison. And is still disappointed in there being no "confession" when the book was published.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwwZF3Jyk74
P.C. Woodcock, firearms officer of Essex Police:
"I am not necessarily trained to see a sound moderator"
That's just a ridiculous response. I don't know where it comes from; it's probably from a COLP interview or statement. Essex Police don't help themselves.
Why couldn't PC Woodcock have just said: No, sorry, didn't see a sound moderator or the carrier bag [I thought it was a cardboard box] that a prosecution witness subsequently found the moderator in. Very sorry about that. I realise somebody on the scene could and should have checked the gun cupboard more thoroughly, and maybe that should have been me. We really fell down there. Lessons were learned. Really, really sorry.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwwZF3Jyk74
P.C. Woodcock, firearms officer of Essex Police:
"I am not necessarily trained to see a sound moderator"
That's just a ridiculous response. I don't know where it comes from; it's probably from a COLP interview or statement. Essex Police don't help themselves.
Why couldn't PC Woodcock have just said: No, sorry, didn't see a sound moderator or the carrier bag [I thought it was a cardboard box] that a prosecution witness subsequently found the moderator in. Very sorry about that. I realise somebody on the scene could and should have checked the gun cupboard more thoroughly, and maybe that should have been me. We really fell down there. Lessons were learned. Really, really sorry.
Julia Jeapes is another one. Stayed quiet about her non-disclosed statement and brushed off any approach from defence to discuss it in recent years. I believe she was in some form of public office in Essex last time I checked. I think people should question her suitability.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5sVklvcjM
In this podcast they mention an old fact I'd clean forgotten: which is Mike Ainsley post-retirement taking over security at the holiday park for the Eatons/Boutflours. They say he was the security guard, but I thought he was more of a consultant.
They also cover the wetsuit. I wish they'd mentioned that before. It would have saved me getting funny looks when I was out on Tollesbury Road in my windsurfing get-up. Fortunately Adam put me right on that one. Thanks Adam.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A5sVklvcjM
In this podcast they mention an old fact I'd clean forgotten: which is Mike Ainsley post-retirement taking over security at the holiday park for the Eatons/Boutflours. They say he was the security guard, but I thought he was more of a consultant.
They also cover the wetsuit. I wish they'd mentioned that before. It would have saved me getting funny looks when I was out on Tollesbury Road in my windsurfing get-up. Fortunately Adam put me right on that one. Thanks Adam.
I have never discussed windsurfing on here.
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsP4shIKGU
It's the HAL9000 again, but it's raining outside so I'll force myself through it.
If the new application is going to be a rehash of the Lomax-era points, then it seems likely that a CCRC application will be declined, but maybe they have new evidence?
The plan that accompanies the podcast is also attached to this post.
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yor9HLbPLEs
Similar observations to above: it's a re-hash of the old points, but good to see it in podcast form. It may circulate and prompt wider discussion of the case.
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCsP4shIKGU
It's the HAL9000 again, but it's raining outside so I'll force myself through it.
If the new application is going to be a rehash of the Lomax-era points, then it seems likely that a CCRC application will be declined, but maybe they have new evidence?
The plan that accompanies the podcast is also attached to this post.
There's three plans attached to today's podcast. Haven't had a chance to listen or look, either this week or last.
-
I've listened to this latest podcast and said to myself----Good Grief ! Unbelievable ! Then again, I'm not surprised by it all because of the jiggery-pokery to start with, but how sly the Essex and Met. police have been throughout and to watch an innocent man being sent to jail.
I don't know how any of them have ever slept knowing this lot. If hanging were still in operation, they all deserve to be hanged for what they've done and I hope it's not too long before this can of worms opens !
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jShTzCvcSxw
Again, seems to go over old material, so probably only of interest to people who are new to the case.
-
New podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEpAJiJHcQA
A dramatisation, but the narrator claims that documentary evidence has been found that Julie was not the one who initially went to the police.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that it wasn't JM who'd gone to the police first.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that it wasn't JM who'd gone to the police first.
It is, but the position was that Julie was present or around when the call was made by Liz Rimmington to Witham Police Station, who then contacted Stan Jones, who then spoke to Liz. Therefore, the call was made on Julie's behalf.
In contrast, the podcast seems to be saying that Julie didn't go to the police at all, in fact Malcolm Waters made the initial report to the police, and the CT have documentary proof.
I'm not trying to get into a debate or argument about it. I merely report what I have heard and provide the link.
-
It was Liz Rimington who telephoned Witham Police, but these podcasts are a work of fiction and half-truths at best anyhow.
-
It was Liz Rimington who telephoned Witham Police, but these podcasts are a work of fiction and half-truths at best anyhow.
Across the whole, they raise a few queries, for example, has it come to light that Nevill's blood was originally discovered on Sheila's nightdress. You have to read between the lines when you listen.
-
Across the whole, they raise a few queries, for example, has it come to light that Nevill's blood was originally discovered on Sheila's nightdress. You have to read between the lines when you listen.
Wasn't this dealt with at the 2002 appeal (Point 51):
Mrs. Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found. The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
-
Wasn't this dealt with at the 2002 appeal (Point 51):
Mrs. Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
I can't speak for the defence or CT. However, an early podcast suggested that Sheila may have placed herself next to Nevill. I believe the phrase they used implied that there would be physical contact and therefore potential blood transfer.
-
Wasn't this dealt with at the 2002 appeal (Point 51):
Mrs. Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood. The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.
This is typical of the nonsensical bullshit evidence that is spouted by the COA. Gunshot residue is invisible to the naked eye, so of course Fletcher failed to detect any when he looked at the nightdress. He didn’t carry out any tests to detect GSR
-
New podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEpAJiJHcQA
A dramatisation, but the narrator claims that documentary evidence has been found that Julie was not the one who initially went to the police.
If you were offered a voiceover part, who would you play?
As in 'The Last Week'.
-
It was Liz Rimington who telephoned Witham Police, but these podcasts are a work of fiction and half-truths at best anyhow.
Some claims made by the CT are dubious, in my opinion; other claims are interesting. This particular claim cannot be assessed until we can see the document on which they rely.
-
I don't particularly want to discuss the case on here, but will update this thread and add my own brief comment on each podcast.
The latest CT podcast is on the topic of the polygraph test, which Jeremy passed with flying colours.
Here we are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL9TLqeyV3U&t=51s
This podcast is quite interesting and I am pleased to report that the HAL 9000 has been given a rest and we can actually hear the voices of real human beings.
I recommend you have a listen. Make of it what you will.
I have commented on a previous thread with my view on polygraphology and I touched on some of the obvious flaws and pitfalls in any applied discipline that attempts to draw forensic conclusions based on theories about psychophysiology.
In a nutshell, I can't take polygraph testing seriously - but I am not an expert. My layman's scepticism only deepened as I listened to Mr Mullins explain his methods in this podcast. It's not so much a criticism of Mr Mullins, rather a criticism of the discipline to which he is clearly committed and out of which he seems able to draw sweeping conclusions about the case.
One eye-catching claim the CT and the polygraph expert are making is that Jeremy graded in the top 5% of examinees, implying (in their view) a conclusive result and that he must be telling the truth.
-
Bamber has probably convinced himself he is innocent. Or at the least justified in his actions due to the hatred and raw deal he believed he was getting. He told Julie why each person should be killed.
The lie detector test was no preasure. The questions would be expected. He would just have to say 'yes' or 'no'. A failure would not be reported by the CT. Someone as calculated as Bamber was always likely to pass. Which is why he kept requesting one.
-
How many questions were there? I've read there were only three. GDS claimed that there were far more questions. If that's not true, it's not good.
-
How many questions were there? I've read there were only three. GDS claimed that there were far more questions. If that's not true, it's not good.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/lie-detector
Apparently it lasted over 100 minutes. But they only mention one question. Which Bamber said 'no' to.
-
In my view JB was taking a big risk taking the test, if he was guilty he would not know if he could fool the polygraph? if he failed he would never be released.
Why did it take 7 or 8 years for him to be allowed to take the test? perhaps the authorities know he is innocent and would pass?
Would some of the people in the case suspected of tampering with evidence etc. also take one??
-
In my view JB was taking a big risk taking the test, if he was guilty he would not know if he could fool the polygraph? if he failed he would never be released.
Why did it take 7 or 8 years for him to be allowed to take the test? perhaps the authorities know he is innocent and would pass?
Would some of the people in the case suspected of tampering with evidence etc. also take one??
Doubt that failure would mean he would never be released. The CT simply would not mention it. If it came to light he could just give excuses for failure. A lie detector is not taken into account by the UK legal system to determine guilt, innocence or a MOJ.
It is doubtful he will ever be released. He knew this so had nothing to lose in requesting one. Passing one could be reported to the media & included on the OS.
-
In my view JB was taking a big risk taking the test, if he was guilty he would not know if he could fool the polygraph? if he failed he would never be released.
Why did it take 7 or 8 years for him to be allowed to take the test? perhaps the authorities know he is innocent and would pass?
Would some of the people in the case suspected of tampering with evidence etc. also take one??
He didn't regard the victims as his family so the questions are bogus and the test is null and void.
-
Bamber has probably convinced himself he is innocent. Or at the least justified in his actions due to the hatred and raw deal he believed he was getting. He told Julie why each person should be killed.
The lie detector test was no preasure. The questions would be expected. He would just have to say 'yes' or 'no'. A failure would not be reported by the CT. Someone as calculated as Bamber was always likely to pass. Which is why he kept requesting one.
If - for the sake of argument - we assume for a moment that polygraph tests are valid and can be relied on, the reason Jeremy was able to pass is that he has constructed an alternate narrative of the case that he has come to believe, because he has to, either because it is true, or because he is guilty and needs to believe in this alternate narrative. In the latter case, the alternate narrative could be a projection of his own guilty conscience.
All liars, petty and serious, engage in a form of double-think in which they know what they say is not true but they also believe in it. That may sound odd, but if you think about it, it makes sense. If you've done something wrong, you may easily come to convince yourself that you didn't do it. Liars on this scale often come to sincerely believe in a completely alternative world and in effect become schizoid and delusional.
Of course, that's just speculation in the case of Jeremy. In any event, polygraphology is too simple. It does not take account of psychological nuances. It is easy to imagine an innocent person failing a polygraph because innocent people are, by the very nature of their innocence, doubtful about facts and may be nervous and so on. Equally, a guilty person is nervous, but knows what he has done and this knowledge may give him the confidence to ride through a fine-tuned test of his physiological responses. Or it may not. We're left in the same place with the same questions. A polygraph result is practically useless.
-
If - for the sake of argument - we assume for a moment that polygraph tests are valid and can be relied on, the reason Jeremy was able to pass is that he has constructed an alternate narrative of the case that he has come to believe, because he has to, either because it is true, or because he is guilty and needs to believe in this alternate narrative. In the latter case, the alternate narrative could be a projection of his own guilty conscience.
All liars, petty and serious, engage in a form of double-think in which they know what they say is not true but they also believe in it. That may sound odd, but if you think about it, it makes sense. If you've done something wrong, you may easily come to convince yourself that you didn't do it. Liars on this scale often come to sincerely believe in a completely alternative world and in effect become schizoid and delusional.
Of course, that's just speculation in the case of Jeremy. In any event, polygraphology is too simple. It does not take account of psychological nuances. It is easy to imagine an innocent person failing a polygraph because innocent people are, by the very nature of their innocence, doubtful about facts and may be nervous and so on. Equally, a guilty person is nervous, but knows what he has done and this knowledge may give him the confidence to ride through a fine-tuned test of his physiological responses. Or it may not. We're left in the same place with the same questions. A polygraph result is practically useless.
Agree with that.
Bamber did something once. Then has spent the next 36 years saying he didn't do it. He may have been able to blank it out of his mind, if not completely, then he is able to justify his actions to himself.
This together with the motivation that passing a test will boost his campaign, would have made it easy for him to say 'no' when answering the expected question.
-
Polygraph machines are very sensitive and can pick up a persons physiological state as well as a psychiatric one and where JB's concerned no matter how many times a test was taken it wouldn't register a failing because each time he knows himself that he hadn't committed an offence of any sort.
I bet it wouldn't give the same reading with everyone else !
-
When the Green River killer passed it it shows a polygraph can't be relied upon.
-
I don't suppose it would be reliable if a person proved to be as mad as a hatter Steve.
-
The polygraph is not perfect and can be fooled, but is thought to be around 90% accurate.
I would like to see what would happen if everyone involved in the case took the test?
-
I would like to see what would happen if everyone involved in the case took the test?
I've often wondered this. But.. has Mullins ever failed anyone? He seems to be the go to guy for a certain type of client.
-
I've often wondered this. But.. has Mullins ever failed anyone? He seems to be the go to guy for a certain type of client.
The CT paid Mullins to conduct the test. Would have been a surprise if Bamber failed.
-
The CT paid Mullins to conduct the test. Would have been a surprise if Bamber failed.
Why ?
-
Agree with that.
Bamber did something once. Then has spent the next 36 years saying he didn't do it. He may have been able to blank it out of his mind, if not completely, then he is able to justify his actions to himself.
This together with the motivation that passing a test will boost his campaign, would have made it easy for him to say 'no' when answering the expected question.
That's sort of what I'm getting at, but I'm really talking about the idea that when somebody does something terrible, they will often construct an entirely alternate narrative that they come to believe in. That sounds weird and paradoxical, and I can understand if you are sceptical about the idea, even scoff at it. It's not necessarily common experience. But I do think a lot of people genuinely believe their own lies, especially if the extent of the lie is deep and has been maintained for a very long time.
It has nothing to do with rationalisation or justification. It is simply a lie. Sometimes (as it will be in this case, if Jeremy is guilty) it is virtually an entirely constructed false alternate reality - a fantasy world. It starts with the offender lying to himself. Dissimulation and fabrication can be an essential survival strategy, especially in high security prisons, but in some cases it may become the basis of an offender's reality, in his own head. Thus, paradoxically, a lie becomes true.
The reason I labour the point is that it could go some way to explain why Jeremy has passed the polygraph test. This point is independent of his guilt or innocence, though it's obviously more useful for guilters and sceptics to consider. By the time he took the polygraph, Jeremy had served 20 or more years in custody. Think about it. That's 20 years to construct an alternate narrative that he then promotes aggressively and, quite possibly, comes to genuinely believe in. Hence, he comes across as genuine and his fine-tuned physiological responses betray nothing other than that he is a truthful subject. And in a sense, he is telling the truth, even if he is guilty!
Of course, here I am putting aside my scepticism of the whole field of polygraphology. I am adopting the assumption that the polygraph is valid, and on that premise, I am considering how a guilty person could pass it with flying colours - albeit it would still raise questions about the usefulness of the test (even if the methodology is valid).
An additional point, which is related, is that if Jeremy is guilty but has a guilty conscience about it (i.e. he is either not a clinical psychopath or no longer a psychopath, he is psychologically normal), then this guilty conscience may be projected through his aggressive defence of his claimed innocence.
-
I will make this a separate post in which I wanted to make some further points about the interview with Terry Mullins.
I think the podcast was very good, maybe the best one yet. Mullins is an engaging interviewee and knowledgeable and expert in his field.
However, the podcast deepened my scepticism of his field. A major point is that there was no prior psychological evaluation of Jeremy in preparation for the polygraph test. This was not Mullins' fault, rather it was due to restrictions put on him by the Prison Service, which seems petty.
Another point is that I got the impression from Mullins' answers that the underlying science of polygraphology is pretty vague and it's mainly based on psychology and cognitive science. At one point, he refers to 'cognitive load', which seems like a woolly metaphor for something. I am not sure either psychology or cognitive science can be considered science in a proper sense.
Finally, I'm not sure it is known what all the questions were. Apparently 12 questions were put to Jeremy but we only know three of them. Why is that (assuming I am correct)?
All this got me thinking about the conditions under which a rigorous polygraph test could be completed and what questions I would ask Jeremy. I may add more on that at some point. Don't have time for it now.
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbYZ4r9WalQ
It's fair to say most people on here regularly are expert to some degree in the case, so this may not be of much interest to the usual crowd for comment purposes; but we may have people looking in who are new to the Bamber affair.
-
Latest podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbYZ4r9WalQ
It's fair to say most people on here regularly are expert to some degree in the case, so this may not be of much interest to the usual crowd for comment purposes; but we may have people looking in who are new to the Bamber affair.
I heard a snippet and I totally get their take on it. It's just a shame that the CCRC probably won't ... and will probably invite Ann Eaton to lunch when the rejection is done and dusted.
-
I heard a snippet and I totally get their take on it. It's just a shame that the CCRC probably won't ... and will probably invite Ann Eaton to lunch when the rejection is done and dusted.
I just don't understand? Every single aspect of this case has severe doubt's about it? so much undisclosed information. I know nothing about the law but I thought we lived in one of the fairest country's in the world?
What happened that day that EP had to invoke so a huge cover up? The more I read the worse it gets!
-
I just don't understand? Every single aspect of this case has severe doubt's about it? so much undisclosed information. I know nothing about the law but I thought we lived in one of the fairest country's in the world?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9395.msg437729.html#msg437729 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9395.msg437729.html#msg437729)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9395.msg437729.html#msg437729 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9395.msg437729.html#msg437729)
Thanks David, the problem is that the general public me included before I came on here thinks the case against JB is watertight!
-
Thanks David, the problem is that the general public me included before I came on here thinks the case against JB is watertight!
I won't have new members brainwashed by fools, amateur gun enthusiasts or pseudo-intellectuals. It's time to ruffle a few feathers:
CLAIM: There was no forensic evidence whatsoever implicating Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: White House Farm was Jeremy's second home. As such there would be traces of his presence in situ. Much of the crime scene evidence was compromised anyway due to the cutting of the carpets and the burning of material. By the time John Hayward came to examine his clothes hanging up in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage in Goldhanger tiny spots of blood were detected, though too few for meaningful forensic analysis.
CLAIM: There was only one fingerprint of Jeremy's on the murder weapon.
FACT: True, along with one of Sheila's, but why if he had been shooting rabbits only hours previously were more of his fingerprints not visible on the gun? A woman in psychosis is not going to wipe down the murder weapon: a man who wiped the gun after the fight with Nevill after a glove came off is.
CLAIM: Sheila had a psychotic episode and Nevill telephoned the police.
FACT: Sheila had trace elements of Haloperidol in her system. She had been stabilized and her medication reduced because she had been over-medicated previously. There is no record of Nevill Bamber ever reaching a telephone, because Jeremy Bamber had removed that lifeline from the master bedroom. No blood on the kitchen telephone suggests Nevill never reached it. Had there been a record of Nevill's call PC West would have produced it for his boss, DCI Taff Jones, and the case would have been closed there and then.
CLAIM: Julie Mugford was complicit in the crimes.
FACT: Julie was located at Caterham Road, London. Had she wanted to make the case water-tight she would have spent the evening of 6th August 1985 in Jeremy's bed and vouched for a telephone call from Nevill to back up his story. The fact that she had been smoking cannabis and told him to go back to bed suggests there had been no such pre-conceived mutual murder plan.
CLAIM: The Matthew McDonald hitman story proves that Julie's statement to police was a pack of lies.
FACT: Julie was repeating Jeremy's pack of lies he had told her to police.
CLAIM: Julie didn't go to police, which proves her story is worthless.
FACT: Liz Rimington telephoned police. The Bamberettes want it all ways: that Julie went gung-ho to police out of revenge, desperately wanting a conviction. When in fact Julie was reluctant to go to police this is because the grounds on which she might have gone to police were shaky.
CLAIM: Julie wanted to live at Vaulty Manor, be Lady of the Manor etc.
FACT: Julie was trying to hold down a career all through the time she was associated with Jeremy Bamber. She was never a something-for-nothing person. As stated in the podcast she had been on a working holiday, one of several jobs she held down during that period. Had she wanted to get her claws into Jeremy Bamber she could have fallen pregnant at any time.
-
Thanks David, the problem is that the general public me included before I came on here thinks the case against JB is watertight!
Hopefully this place will get a lot more members when the documentary series is released.
-
Hopefully this place will get a lot more members when the documentary series is released.
Which series? Not the Theroux company one? I can't see that doing JB any favours.
-
Thanks David, the problem is that the general public me included before I came on here thinks the case against JB is watertight!
It's not watertight? Bamber's been trying to get released for 35 years.
-
COA:
We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
-
COA:
We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
The jury may have been right with the evidence that was presented to them at trail, but any decent defense could have pulled the prosecution's case apart.
-
The jury may have been right with the evidence that was presented to them at trail, but any decent defense could have pulled the prosecution's case apart.
The COA 16 years after the trial, didn't agree.
-
I won't have new members brainwashed by fools, amateur gun enthusiasts or pseudo-intellectuals. It's time to ruffle a few feathers:
CLAIM: There was no forensic evidence whatsoever implicating Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: White House Farm was Jeremy's second home. As such there would be traces of his presence in situ. Much of the crime scene evidence was compromised anyway due to the cutting of the carpets and the burning of material. By the time John Hayward came to examine his clothes hanging up in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage in Goldhanger tiny spots of blood were detected, though too few for meaningful forensic analysis.
The claim, I agree, is untrue, but not for the reasons you say. The claim should be correctly worded as follows: There is no direct evidence that Jeremy Bamber was the killer. The point is that the case against him is entirely circumstantial, but includes forensic evidence. (The point is slightly contentious because you could argue that Julie Mugford's evidence is direct evidence. I would disagree, but even if we concede the point, there is still no direct forensic evidence).
I also agree that the crime scene was compromised by the police, but that was not at Jeremy's instigation and so could be seen as a neutral point, since the police may well have destroyed evidence that could have exonerated him. It is also worth noting that the carpets were only cut up after blood samples were taken.
Unless the blood spots you mention came from several victims, I doubt it would be of much significance as it could easily be put down to contamination of Jeremy's clothes.
CLAIM: There was only one fingerprint of Jeremy's on the murder weapon.
FACT: True, along with one of Sheila's, but why if he had been shooting rabbits only hours previously were more of his fingerprints not visible on the gun? A woman in psychosis is not going to wipe down the murder weapon: a man who wiped the gun after the fight with Nevill after a glove came off is.
I agree that someone must have wiped the gun, but I disagree that it had to be Jeremy. I see no reason why Jeremy would, since as you say, his prints would be expected on the gun anyway. Equally, I see no reason why Sheila would not have wiped the gun if she had just used it to kill her own children and parents. If she also washed her hands, they would be clean and dry, meaning that she would leave no further prints when killing herself with that same gun. For these reasons, the fingerprint evidence actually fits Sheila as the killer better than Jeremy.
CLAIM: Sheila had a psychotic episode and Nevill telephoned the police.
FACT: Sheila had trace elements of Haloperidol in her system. She had been stabilized and her medication reduced because she had been over-medicated previously. There is no record of Nevill Bamber ever reaching a telephone, because Jeremy Bamber had removed that lifeline from the master bedroom. No blood on the kitchen telephone suggests Nevill never reached it. Had there been a record of Nevill's call PC West would have produced it for his boss, DCI Taff Jones, and the case would have been closed there and then.
You skip over two crucial facts:
1. Sheila had not been over-medicated, it was just that she reported that she did not like being on the drug and wanted her dosage reduced.
2. She was then accidentally under-medicated. It is established that doing so abruptly, as happened here, can have adverse and catastrophic consequences.
We don't know that Jeremy did remove the phone from the master bedroom. Again, that is not a true fact. This was started by a prominent miscarriage of justice campaigner, who used it as a reason to doubt Jeremy, but in a previous thread I outlined why I think the theory is flawed. Briefly, it's based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Jeremy had no reason to move the phone in the first place.
However, I agree with the other points you briefly make about the phone.
CLAIM: Julie Mugford was complicit in the crimes.
FACT: Julie was located at Caterham Road, London. Had she wanted to make the case water-tight she would have spent the evening of 6th August 1985 in Jeremy's bed and vouched for a telephone call from Nevill to back up his story. The fact that she had been smoking cannabis and told him to go back to bed suggests there had been no such pre-conceived mutual murder plan.
I have my views about this. Just because she wasn't there, that does not preclude her from being an accomplice. I don't accept that just because somebody is smoking cannabis, that this means she is not part of a mass murder plot. To be clear: I am not saying she was. But I will not say she wasn't, either.
CLAIM: The Matthew McDonald hitman story proves that Julie's statement to police was a pack of lies.
FACT: Julie was repeating Jeremy's pack of lies he had told her to police.
This may be true, but if Jeremy is the killer, then it wasn't a 'pack of lies', and why would Jeremy need to lie in such circumstances when he had supposedly already told her of his plans before-the-fact, and even confessed to her, in so many words, after-the-fact at Bourtree Cottage, with Stan Jones only yards away? Perhaps, as you will no doubt say, it was because Jeremy didn't want her to know that he had done it himself, but it seems to me there is little difference between one or the other.
CLAIM: Julie didn't go to police, which proves her story is worthless.
FACT: Liz Rimington telephoned police. The Bamberettes want it all ways: that Julie went gung-ho to police out of revenge, desperately wanting a conviction. When in fact Julie was reluctant to go to police this is because the grounds on which she might have gone to police were shaky.
Why would the grounds on which she might have gone to the police be shaky, if she was telling the truth? Surely a normal person, on receiving Jeremy's confession, would have alerted the police pretty much immediately? Same goes for Sue Battersby, who frolicked with Jeremy at a party immediately after hearing Julie tell her what Jeremy had supposedly done.
The official position is that Julie went to the police (Liz Rimmington rang the police, but she did so on Julie's behalf and in her presence). The Campaign Team are now saying that in fact Malcolm Waters went to the police independently of Julie and they claim to have a document proving this. I've no idea if this stands up or what its relevance is, even if true.
CLAIM: Julie wanted to live at Vaulty Manor, be Lady of the Manor etc.
FACT: Julie was trying to hold down a career all through the time she was associated with Jeremy Bamber. She was never a something-for-nothing person. As stated in the podcast she had been on a working holiday, one of several jobs she held down during that period. Had she wanted to get her claws into Jeremy Bamber she could have fallen pregnant at any time.
She could also have pretended to be pregnant, I suppose.
Pursuing a vocation and wanting to be Lady of the Manor (whatever that's supposed to mean) aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive aspirations. That said, I'm not quite sure what the relevance of such claims is.
Why did Jeremy disclose his plans to her?
-
I'm not going to struggle with the highlighted cut and paste box interspersed with answers format, so you'll have to make do with traditional paragraphs.
You query the value of the blood evidence examined by John Hayward on Jeremy Bamber's clothes in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage. The blood groupings are exactly what we don't know and that was the whole point of raising the issue, so conveniently overlooked by the Bamberettes. Had there been a mixture I've no doubt the case would have been put to bed.
So Sheila wiped the gun after firing 25 rounds and reloading twice, none of them missing target, proceeded to wash hands and dry them, all with no nail varnish chipped or nails broken. Miraculous!
Sheila had been drowsy for weeks if not months. The medication had built up in her system. The Haloperidol dosage was reduced, not withdrawn completely. At post-mortem she still had trace elements in her system. You just need to look at her face in death to see she had been aroused from sleep, not engaging in Wonder Woman Lynda Carter activity in the wee hours. We may return to your psychology of women and the evaluation of their actions presently.
Julie is not at White House Farm. She is not at Bourtree Cottage. She is not in situ. Jeremy telephones her three times in the space of a few hours yet Julie is still doped up with cannabis, incapacitated. Yet to the Bamberettes Julie is the villain of the piece. As a side note I recently dealt with a young man consuming cocaine. I couldn't get a word in edgeways with his excitable, rambling chatter. Does cannabis have the opposite effect of numbing the brain somewhat: methinks it might. The main point here is that Julie is caught off guard and is not complicit in murder.
Jeremy makes up a wildcat story about Matthew Mcdonald because he begins to sense Julie's anxiety and wishes to reassure her by distancing himself one step from the crime. If the Bamberettes don't understand this point I'm afraid they understand nothing. It's another sign that Jeremy is guilty because by the stage Julie eventually comes forward she is desperate to be believed and is not going to concoct a wild goose chase theory when her words are written down and become an official, legal document.
The relevance of Julie working several jobs as well as studying at university and enduring the stresses and strains of teaching practice is that throughout her relationship with Jeremy Bamber (even though she may have loved him passionately) she wanted to keep her own career and the independence which went with it.
-
You query the value of the blood evidence examined by John Hayward on Jeremy Bamber's clothes in the wardrobe at Bourtree Cottage. The blood groupings are exactly what we don't know and that was the whole point of raising the issue, so conveniently overlooked by the Bamberettes. Had there been a mixture I've no doubt the case would have been put to bed.
That was my own point, in so many words, but we must remember that blood grouping is not on its own conclusive.
So Sheila wiped the gun after firing 25 rounds, none of them missing target, proceeded to wash hands and dry them, all with no nail varnish chipped or nails broken. Miraculous!
Not really. She could have done those things quite easily, but it does depend on her knowing how to operate the gun, load it, re-load it, etc.
Sheila had been drowsy for weeks if not months. The medication had built up in her system. The Haloperidol dosage was reduced, not withdrawn completely. At post-mortem she still had trace elements in her system. You just need to look at her face in death to see she had been aroused from sleep, not engaging in Wonder Woman Lynda Carter activity in the wee hours. We may return to your psychology of women and the evaluation of their actions presently.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but we'll put that aside. Nothing that you say above challenges what I say. You don't know that she was asleep. The reality is that we just don't know what happened.
Julie is not at White House Farm. She is not at Bourtree Cottage. She is not in situ. Jeremy telephones her three times in the space of a few hours yet Julie is still doped up with cannabis, incapacitated. Yet to the Bamberettes Julie is the villain of the piece. As a side note I recently dealt with a young man consuming cocaine. I couldn't get a word in edgeways with his excitable, rambling chatter. Does cannabis have the opposite effect of numbing the brain somewhat: methinks it might. The main point here is that Julie is caught off guard.
I merely say that an accomplice does not have to be present, ergo you make an incorrect assumption if you argue that not being present rules her out of involvement. She wasn't incapacitated if she could answer the phone at 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or 3.30 a.m., or whenever it was when he was supposed to have rung. Jeremy himself seems to have been quite the dope user, but he was not incapacitated by any means. I still think it was strange that he rang her at that time at all and that she answered. She also got it wrong in her first statement, claiming somebody else answered when in fact she did - which just deepens my suspicion as it seems convenient that she was on-hand to answer the phone at such an odd hour at Jeremy's first attempt. She was then up at the crack of dawn, ready to go over to Essex at his command.
Jeremy makes up a wildcat story about Matthew Mcdonald because he begins to sense Julie's anxiety and wishes to reassure her by distancing himself one step from the crime. If the Bamberettes don't understand this point I'm afraid they understand nothing. It's another sign that Jeremy is guilty because by the stage Julie eventually comes forward she is desperate to be believed and is not going to concoct a wild goose chase theory when her words are written down and become an official, legal document.
I am not a 'Bamberette', whatever that is supposed is to be. I find your arguments less-than-convincing. If Jeremy wishes to distance himself from the crime, he would not have discussed it with her in such a manner at all. Telling her that he hired a hitman is hardly distancing himself. If anything, it's worse, and he pins it on somebody they both knew, which is crazy. If he can put on an act with others, he can put on an act with her, so why not just lie? By confessing to her, even under cover of a quasi-fictitious story, he puts himself completely in her hands, for the rest of his life. Then again, maybe he was just that foolish. I don't rule it out completely.
The relevance of Julie working several jobs as well as studying at university and partaking in teaching practice is that throughout her relationship with Jeremy Bamber (even though she may have loved him passionately) she wanted to keep her own career and the independence which went with it.
I wasn't questioning the relevancy of what you were saying.
-
By the way: it's depressing how we've lost most of our female members over the years.
-
By the way: it's depressing how we've lost most of our female members over the years.
I've always assumed that you're female.
I don't personally care what sex or race somebody on here is. It's got nothing to do with it. If I make a point against women generally, it's not because I'm against women, it's because I'm just telling you what I think. There are plenty of things I can say about men as well. Give me five minutes and I'll have you convinced I'm a misandrist.
Back to the topic in hand, a prominent judge in England once commented that a major reason for miscarriages of justice is that a female witness lies. If Julie lied in the sense of making the whole thing up, that would be a big, big lie. The bigness of the lie almost is a ground in itself to be sceptical about Jeremy's claims of innocence.
Would somebody lie that much, on that scale?
-
I've always assumed that you're female.
I don't personally care what sex or race somebody on here is. It's got nothing to do with it. If I make a point against women generally, it's not because I'm against women, it's because I'm just telling you what I think. There are plenty of things I can say about men as well. Give me five minutes and I'll have you convinced I'm a misandrist.
Back to the topic in hand, a prominent judge in England once commented that a major reason for miscarriages of justice is that a female witness lies. If Julie lied in the sense of making the whole thing up, that would be a big, big lie. The bigness of the lie almost is a ground in itself to be sceptical about Jeremy's claims of innocence.
Would somebody lie that much, on that scale?
I'm a Christian first, heterosexual male second. Make of that what you will. I suppose in theory anybody could lie on a big scale. I've just watched the Wayne Williams case on YouTube and butter wouldn't melt. Bamberettes might be pleased he failed a polygraph.
-
I'm a Christian first, heterosexual male second. Make of that what you will. I suppose in theory anybody could lie on a big scale. I've just watched the Wayne Williams case on YouTube and butter wouldn't melt. Bamberettes might be pleased he failed a polygraph.
Yes. However, I must admit: whenever my finger hovers over the imaginary 'Not Guilty' button, I always hesitate and think of the scale of the lie that would be necessary on Julie's part. I have tried to reconcile her story with Jeremy's: from the innocence side, by speculating that Jeremy was just winding her up; and, from the guilty side, by postulating that she was an accomplice (albeit not present) on the basis of alleged facts and she then turned against Jeremy in a grand prisoner's dilemma.
-
Which series? Not the Theroux company one? I can't see that doing JB any favours.
What makes you say that?
-
What makes you say that?
From what I can gather, they initially purported to be interested in evidence relating to the case / new submissions. However, their interest was apparently superficial and their aims regarding the documentary are not thought to be beneficial to the defence. Didn't they try to contact that 'Daisy' over on red? Not sure, but there was something posted claiming that.
-
From what I can gather, they initially purported to be interested in evidence relating to the case / new submissions. However, their interest was apparently superficial and their aims regarding the documentary are not thought to be beneficial to the defence. Didn't they try to contact that 'Daisy' over on red? Not sure, but there was something posted claiming that.
From what I understand, Theroux and Co fell out with the campaign team. Which is nothing unexpected considering the campaign team fell out will NGB, SMK and JP among others over the years.
-
Do you really ‘believe’ what Daisy has said
I find it quite shocking that anyone believes her just like ‘Aunt Agatha
As you know I have it in black and white that ‘Aunt Agatha’ is a pathological liar
I was fairly close to Jeremy at one point (regarding the case) as you know I was one of the first people to learn about the MWT documentary
I have stated before Jeremy never once asked me for money. In fact when Jeremy was hoping to have his case referred to the CCRC he discussed the cost of tests needed but he never mentioned needing money from me
Off my own back I sent him a tiny amount of money for stamps and phone cards
If a documentary relied on this person that frequents the almost defunct red forum called Daisy it’s obviously not going to be a good documentary. Theroux could have every letter Jeremy ever sent me and money was never mentioned
Out of interest has this Daisy ever exposed her real identity?
-
I've always assumed that you're female.
I don't personally care what sex or race somebody on here is. It's got nothing to do with it. If I make a point against women generally, it's not because I'm against women, it's because I'm just telling you what I think. There are plenty of things I can say about men as well. Give me five minutes and I'll have you convinced I'm a misandrist.
Back to the topic in hand, a prominent judge in England once commented that a major reason for miscarriages of justice is that a female witness lies. If Julie lied in the sense of making the whole thing up, that would be a big, big lie. The bigness of the lie almost is a ground in itself to be sceptical about Jeremy's claims of innocence.
Would somebody lie that much, on that scale?
Unfortunately history shows women lie on that scale
-
From what I understand, Theroux and Co fell out with the campaign team. Which is nothing unexpected considering the campaign team fell out will NGB, SMK and JP among others over the years.
Please add Mark Williams Thomas to that list.
I still believe the campaign team making Jeremy distance himself from Neil, Simon and Mark has cost Jeremy his freedom
This case being referred needs public opinion on Jeremy side
Removing the help offered from the people above is unforgivable
-
Unfortunately history shows women lie on that scale
What history?
-
What history?
Here’s one to start with
A "serial liar" who invented false rape and sexual assault allegations has failed in a bid to clear her name.
Jemma Beale, 27, from Hounslow, west London, was jailed for 10 years in August 2017 after claiming she was sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine over the space of three years.
She challenged her convictions for perjury and perverting the course of justice and her sentence.
Her bid was rejected by three judges at the Court of Appeal.
Beale's lawyer Gillian Jones QC argued the trial judge should have given the jury directions about the "danger of assumptions, myths and stereotypes" relating to victims of sexual offences.
She also argued that the loss of her anonymity, which led to intense media scrutiny, caused prejudice to Beale's defence.
In rejecting the appeal bid, Lady Justice Hallett said such directions usually applied to victims, not defendants, and that even if the judge had given guidance it would not have helped Beale.
The judges also dismissed an appeal by Beale against her sentence, saying hers was an "exceptional case".
'Lied to get money'
Lady Justice Hallett said that, as well as the men Beale falsely accused, the "system of justice" had suffered significant harm.
She added: "The total of 10 years, although stern, we are satisfied cannot be described as excessive."
The judge told the court that one of the men Beale accused of rape in 2010, Mahad Cassim, was tried twice and jailed for seven years.
His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2015 after his defence team and the Crown Prosecution Service was alerted to serious doubts over Beale's allegations.
She had been awarded £11,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and had told a former girlfriend she had lied to get the money, the court heard.
Lady Justice Hallett said: "The idea that a woman could send an innocent man to prison for years solely so she could obtain compensation beggars belief."
-
It is an undisputed fact Mugford was a pathological liar involved in numerous criminal activities. She was obsessed with Jeremy to the point she tried to smother him. There’s no doubt in my mind she was capable of carrying out this massive lie.
-
Here’s one to start with
A "serial liar" who invented false rape and sexual assault allegations has failed in a bid to clear her name.
Jemma Beale, 27, from Hounslow, west London, was jailed for 10 years in August 2017 after claiming she was sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine over the space of three years.
She challenged her convictions for perjury and perverting the course of justice and her sentence.
Her bid was rejected by three judges at the Court of Appeal.
Beale's lawyer Gillian Jones QC argued the trial judge should have given the jury directions about the "danger of assumptions, myths and stereotypes" relating to victims of sexual offences.
She also argued that the loss of her anonymity, which led to intense media scrutiny, caused prejudice to Beale's defence.
In rejecting the appeal bid, Lady Justice Hallett said such directions usually applied to victims, not defendants, and that even if the judge had given guidance it would not have helped Beale.
The judges also dismissed an appeal by Beale against her sentence, saying hers was an "exceptional case".
'Lied to get money'
Lady Justice Hallett said that, as well as the men Beale falsely accused, the "system of justice" had suffered significant harm.
She added: "The total of 10 years, although stern, we are satisfied cannot be described as excessive."
The judge told the court that one of the men Beale accused of rape in 2010, Mahad Cassim, was tried twice and jailed for seven years.
His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2015 after his defence team and the Crown Prosecution Service was alerted to serious doubts over Beale's allegations.
She had been awarded £11,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and had told a former girlfriend she had lied to get the money, the court heard.
Lady Justice Hallett said: "The idea that a woman could send an innocent man to prison for years solely so she could obtain compensation beggars belief."
6 & 9 over 3 years. Wow. Thought the police would have got suspicious earlier.
Well done for providing an example.
-
Why is it that so many different turns of events have been written over the years ? There are so many stories about the murders and how they happened that I'm sure many will have lost interest with the same old gumph being churned out.
To my mind, a re-trial should have taken place years ago with the release of all info. being held under PII as surely this would have been the final deciding factor in all of this.
I still believe in JB's innocence but the longer it now goes on the less the possibility of his release as it's one of those cases where, when you have no evidence whatsoever and no witnesses, it's an impossible task and to " err on the side of caution " doesn't justify the conviction and sentencing of---in this case---an innocent person. Since when have a family been allowed to run the gauntlet in a mass murder trial ?
-
Why is it that so many different turns of events have been written over the years ? There are so many stories about the murders and how they happened that I'm sure many will have lost interest with the same old gumph being churned out.
To my mind, a re-trial should have taken place years ago with the release of all info. being held under PII as surely this would have been the final deciding factor in all of this.
I still believe in JB's innocence but the longer it now goes on the less the possibility of his release as it's one of those cases where, when you have no evidence whatsoever and no witnesses, it's an impossible task and to " err on the side of caution " doesn't justify the conviction and sentencing of---in this case---an innocent person. Since when have a family been allowed to run the gauntlet in a mass murder trial ?
It is much harder Lookout when the police deliberately destroy vital evidence like SC's nightdress which could have maybe solved this case with todays technology.
I expect someone will say this were another mistake like the many others in this case, but destroying SC's nightdress proves to me anyway that the police know JB is innocent and they are afraid what of what modern analysis would reveal.
-
It is an undisputed fact Mugford was a pathological liar involved in numerous criminal activities. She was obsessed with Jeremy to the point she tried to smother him. There’s no doubt in my mind she was capable of carrying out this massive lie.
I think this is the vengefull way, women deal with rejection, more so than men who tend more to resort to violence.
"HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED"
-
Mugford stated that she wanted Jeremy dead 'so that he would always be with me' and admitted stabbing a teddy bear he had bought for her, smashing a mirror in fury that he dared to speak to another woman on the phone in her presence and she also stated that she tried to smother him with a pillow.
I don’t think there is any question that Mugford was capable of such a ‘big lie’
That argument is so week
It is on record that carried out the cheque book fraud deceiving numerous shop assistants
-
Mugford stated that she wanted Jeremy dead 'so that he would always be with me' and admitted stabbing a teddy bear he had bought for her, smashing a mirror in fury that he dared to speak to another woman on the phone in her presence and she also stated that she tried to smother him with a pillow.
I don’t think there is any question that Mugford was capable of such a ‘big lie’
That argument is so week
It is on record that carried out the cheque book fraud deceiving numerous shop assistants
How did we get to know about these incidents?
-
It is much harder Lookout when the police deliberately destroy vital evidence like SC's nightdress which could have maybe solved this case with todays technology.
I expect someone will say this were another mistake like the many others in this case, but destroying SC's nightdress proves to me anyway that the police know JB is innocent and they are afraid what of what modern analysis would reveal.
Sheila's nightdress was tested and the evidence submitted at court. It was very damaging.
Do you believe there was an industrial frame. Involving the police, experts, courts, relatives, Julie & independent witnesses?
-
How did we get to know about these incidents?
There is no way Julie would dare perjure herself so seriously. In a loan attempt to frame a free man. A month after the massacre. Just because they split up. Too many massive disadvantages.
Besides which she knew too much information, which only Bamber would have given her.
-
Sheila's nightdress was tested and the evidence submitted at court. It was very damaging.
Do you believe there was an industrial frame. Involving the police, experts, courts, relatives, Julie & independent witnesses?
" Very damaging " evidence on the nightdress ? Do tell.
-
There is no way Julie would dare perjure herself so seriously. In a loan attempt to frame a free man. Just because they split up. Too many massive disadvantages.
Besides which she knew too much information, which only Bamber would have given her.
Another one of your ridiculous statements
Do you know Julie?
Julies numerous crimes added up to a prison sentance
Julie proved without a shadow of doubt a prison sentence didn’t scare her
-
By the time Julie had fed stories to her friends re Jeremy and the murders at WHF and the police were involved she opened the floodgates and there was no way back for her. She was obviously told she could face a prison sentance for her crimes and lose her career or do the ‘right thing’ and support the prosecution case
It couldn’t be clearer
The time lines are clear
The withholding of Mugfords statement held under PII make it clear
The police not warning the Canadian authorities that Mugford did not have the good character to be considered as a teacher
The big lie is Crystal clear
-
How did we get to know about these incidents?
Are you disputing these facts?
Are you disputing the fact that Mugford is a liar?
Are you disputing the fact Mugfords behaviour showed she was unstable?
Are you disputing the fact that Mugford managed to deceive everyone at WHF after the murder?
-
" Very damaging " evidence on the nightdress ? Do tell.
The COA had a lot of evidence on the nightdress -
45.
Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat. The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously.
The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time.
The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here.
--------------
45
There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.
-------------
51.
Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.
The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
---------------
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.
He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands.
Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
518.
To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give.
From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet.
For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor.
In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force.
Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled.
He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect.
Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress
-
By the time Julie had fed stories to her friends re Jeremy and the murders at WHF and the police were involved she opened the floodgates and there was no way back for her. She was obviously told she could face a prison sentance for her crimes and lose her career or do the ‘right thing’ and support the prosecution case
It couldn’t be clearer
The time lines are clear
The withholding of Mugfords statement held under PII make it clear
The police not warning the Canadian authorities that Mugford did not have the good character to be considered as a teacher
The big lie is Crystal clear
The police didn't know about the minor cheque book fraud until after she had completed her WS.
She told the police about the caravan break in.
-
Another one of your ridiculous statements
Do you know Julie?
Julies numerous crimes added up to a prison sentance
Julie proved without a shadow of doubt a prison sentence didn’t scare her
I don't know her. Do you?
The minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby & being Bamber's lookout while he robbed his family were not worthy of a prison sentance.
-
How many ‘minor cheque frauds’ did she carry out Adam? Was it one or multiple?
-
Sheila's nightdress was tested and the evidence submitted at court. It was very damaging.
Do you believe there was an industrial frame. Involving the police, experts, courts, relatives, Julie & independent witnesses?
I am more careful of what you post now Adam, you corrected me in another post that the two policeman and JB never ran back up the lane after seeing the refection in the window but Saxby's statement proves they did. So after convincing themselves they saw nothing they run!!
As I said before just when modern technology could maybe have decided this this case SC's nightdress goes missing, people's actions tell a story and someone was afraid of what modern analysis would reveal.
-
How many ‘minor cheque frauds’ did she carry out Adam? Was it one or multiple?
The police were aware of one.
The judge saying she paid the money back but Bamber didn't after robbing his family.
-
I am more careful of what you post now Adam, you corrected me in another post that the two policeman and JB never ran back up the lane after seeing the refection in the window but Saxby's statement proves they did. So after convincing themselves they saw nothing they run!!
As I said before just when modern technology could maybe have decided this this case SC's nightdress goes missing, people's actions tell a story and someone was afraid of what modern analysis would reveal.
When did I say that? Bews says they stayed & observed the window, then decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
Sheila's nightdress goes missing. When, how?
Just when modern technology came in. What modern technology?
The nightdress was tested prior to the trial. The evidence submitted. It was perfectly possible to fully check the nightdress in 1985.
-
The police were aware of one.
The judge saying she paid the money back but Bamber didn't after robbing his family.
It was multiple check frauds
Di Julie pay back the money for the caravan park robbery ?
-
It was multiple check frauds
Di Julie pay back the money for the caravan park robbery ?
Have you got a source it was multiple cheque book frauds?
It was Bamber who robbed his family.
-
Have you got a source it was multiple cheque book frauds?
It was Bamber who robbed his family.
You know it was multiple cheque book frauds at numerous shops
Julie was involved in the caravan park robbery, why didn’t she pay the money back to the Bamber estate
-
Do you really ‘believe’ what Daisy has said
I find it quite shocking that anyone believes her just like ‘Aunt Agatha
As you know I have it in black and white that ‘Aunt Agatha’ is a pathological liar
I was fairly close to Jeremy at one point (regarding the case) as you know I was one of the first people to learn about the MWT documentary
I have stated before Jeremy never once asked me for money. In fact when Jeremy was hoping to have his case referred to the CCRC he discussed the cost of tests needed but he never mentioned needing money from me
Off my own back I sent him a tiny amount of money for stamps and phone cards
If a documentary relied on this person that frequents the almost defunct red forum called Daisy it’s obviously not going to be a good documentary. Theroux could have every letter Jeremy ever sent me and money was never mentioned
Out of interest has this Daisy ever exposed her real identity?
What has AA lied about?
-
Please add Mark Williams Thomas to that list.
I still believe the campaign team making Jeremy distance himself from Neil, Simon and Mark has cost Jeremy his freedom
This case being referred needs public opinion on Jeremy side
Removing the help offered from the people above is unforgivable
Jeremy being isolated by conspiratards has certainly jeopardized his campaign both legally and publicly.
-
You know it was multiple cheque book frauds at numerous shops
Julie was involved in the caravan park robbery, why didn’t she pay the money back to the Bamber estate
Have you got a source that it was multiple cheque book frauds.
The evidence is it was on one occasion. With Susan Battersby.
I know you would like it to be multiple cheque book frauds. However it was not.
Bamber estate?
-
Susan Battersby believes the joint cheque book fraud was for £600.
Not enough to put either in prison.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4576.0.html.09.85
-
What has AA lied about?
She sent me a long message introducing herself as Jeremys ex girlfriend and was clearly fishing for any information about Jeremy and trying to be my friend and then denied ever contacted me. Made out she lived in a big house with gardeners when in fact lives in a council flat. An absolute delusional weirdo. I keep everything. Oh I forgot made out she had sex with Jeremy in a maximum security prison.
I didn’t have a clue who this women was when she contacted me ????
-
Jeremy being isolated by conspiratards has certainly jeopardized his campaign both legally and publicly.
100 %. I have a copy of the nasty letter the campaign team sent to MWT after his documentary
Mark wanted to do a series on the case but decided against it after that
-
Have you got a source that it was multiple cheque book frauds.
The evidence is it was on one occasion. With Susan Battersby.
I know you would like it to be multiple cheque book frauds. However it was not.
Bamber estate?
As discussed at appeal hearing multiple cheques
He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
There was more than enough to get Mugford a prison sentance
Multiple cheque fraud
Accomplice in the caravan robbery
Drug smuggling
The police had her banged to rights unless she helped them out
It’s so obvious
A prison sentance and never able to teach again or help with the conviction of someone who had cheated on you and dumped you
-
You forgot to mention that she also said that she supplied JB with sleeping pills to drug the victims.
-
You forgot to mention that she also said that she supplied JB with sleeping pills to drug the victims.
Thanks Buddy of course. Wouldn’t that come under the laws of conspiracy?
Maybe Steve or Adam would like to comment
She fell into the lap of the police and they ran with it securing an unsafe conviction
Lovely to see you posting ??
-
More like assisting an offender Jackie.
-
It should also be remembered thatJM said the murders were months in the planning. More than enough time
to have prevented from stopping them happening. The fact that she got no jail time is laughable, instaed she
made money out of it. Why would JB dump the only person that could inform on him,if JB had killed 5 people
What’s another one matter.
-
As discussed at appeal hearing multiple cheques
He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
There was more than enough to get Mugford a prison sentance
Multiple cheque fraud
Accomplice in the caravan robbery
Drug smuggling
The police had her banged to rights unless she helped them out
It’s so obvious
A prison sentance and never able to teach again or help with the conviction of someone who had cheated on you and dumped you
COA:
15:
Miss Mugford also admitted that she had used a cheque book belonging to Susan Battersby which had been falsely reported as stolen to obtain some £700 of property in Oxford Street. She told the jury that she and Miss Battersby had repaid the money to the bank in October 1985 and that she had been cautioned for the offence.
----------
It was one occasion. I know Bamber's supporters are very passionate & get carried away. Distorting the facts won't help matters.
-
Julie didn't just tell the police about the caravan break in. She also told them about Bamber's drug smuggling from Amsterdam.
Bamber served no prison time for the caravan break or Drug smuggling. Brett served no prison time for the drug smuggling. So no reason why Julie should.
The cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby was for £700. Not worthy of a prison sentence.
-
You forgot to mention that she also said that she supplied JB with sleeping pills to drug the victims.
Bamber agrees Julie had sleeping pills & she would bring them when visiting him
Very possible Bamber tried them when considering his options. Wisely deciding they were not suitable. They were sleeping pills, not tranquilisers.
-
COA:
15:
Miss Mugford also admitted that she had used a cheque book belonging to Susan Battersby which had been falsely reported as stolen to obtain some £700 of property in Oxford Street. She told the jury that she and Miss Battersby had repaid the money to the bank in October 1985 and that she had been cautioned for the offence.
----------
It was one occasion. I know Bamber's supporters are very passionate & get carried away. Distorting the facts won't help matters.
Your posts are just laughable
£700 in 1986 is worth £2,104.08 today
Not a minor cheque fraud
Mugford carried out fraud in multiple shops with multiple different cheques
Fact
-
Bamber agrees Julie had sleeping pills & she would bring them when visiting him
Very possible Bamber tried them when considering his options. Wisely deciding they were not suitable. They were sleeping pills, not tranquilisers.
Laughable
Adam the forum joke
Posts like the above skip your false posts.
-
June had taken sleeping pills for years. Why couldn't JB have just helped himself if he'd been that keen on knocking everyone out ? He could even have stayed that night and over-dosed them all to save him the bother of shooting them, then hopped it with the money from the safe/ wallet and handbags.
But---he wasn't that way inclined, was he ? I'm not even sure that he knew where the safe key was hidden, but a family member knew !
-
Your posts are just laughable
£700 in 1986 is worth £2,104.08 today
Not a minor cheque fraud
Mugford carried out fraud in multiple shops with multiple different cheques
Fact
It was one cheque book fraud.
I know you are a very passionate supporter of Bamber. Because Julie identified the twins. However distorting the facts will not help his 35 year 'Campaign for Freedom'.
-
Laughable
Adam the forum joke
Posts like the above skip your false posts.
'Mad' JackieD, you need to calm down.
Bamber said in his police interviews he knew Julie had sleeping pills.
Him using them may have been an option when discussing with Julie & James Richards about burning down WHF.
-
When did I say that? Bews says they stayed & observed the window, then decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
Sheila's nightdress goes missing. When, how?
Just when modern technology came in. What modern technology?
The nightdress was tested prior to the trial. The evidence submitted. It was perfectly possible to fully check the nightdress in 1985.
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it. Then demand that proof is produced that you said it. Then when proof is produced, deny it anyway or insult the other person.
It was one cheque book fraud.
I know you are a very passionate supporter of Bamber. Because Julie identified the twins. However distorting the facts will not help his 35 year 'Campaign for Freedom'.
I don't necessarily agree with Jackie's argument that Julie's criminality implies she may have been lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. You can be a terrible person and still be telling the truth. You can be a very dishonest person and still, at the crucial moment, tell the God's honest truth. The fact she engaged in criminality is, however, relevant and it's a factor to consider in the round.
You are not being honest here, Adam. You and others minimise Julie's criminality when you know she did more. Any discussion on that basis is not an honest discourse.
I think you've got to come clean and tell us what your interest in this case is. Same applies to certain others.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie' is also a bit out or order, and once again puts the lie to the claim that you personally insult nobody.
-
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it. Then demand that proof is produced that you said it. Then when proof is produced, deny it anyway or insult the other person.
I don't necessarily agree with Jackie's argument that Julie's criminality implies she may have been lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. You can be a terrible person and still be telling the truth. You can be a very dishonest person and still, at the crucial moment, tell the God's honest truth. The fact she engaged in criminality is, however, relevant and it's a factor to consider in the round.
You are not being honest here, Adam. You and others minimise Julie's criminality when you know she did more. Any discussion on that basis is not an honest discourse.
I think you've got to come clean and tell us what your interest in this case is. Same applies to certain others.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie' is also a bit out or order, and once again puts the lie to the claim that you personally insult nobody.
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it.
----------
Just back from a deserved ban. Now resurfacing to be rude again. Feel free to provide the post. Rob didn't.
-
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it. Then demand that proof is produced that you said it. Then when proof is produced, deny it anyway or insult the other person.
I don't necessarily agree with Jackie's argument that Julie's criminality implies she may have been lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. You can be a terrible person and still be telling the truth. You can be a very dishonest person and still, at the crucial moment, tell the God's honest truth. The fact she engaged in criminality is, however, relevant and it's a factor to consider in the round.
You are not being honest here, Adam. You and others minimise Julie's criminality when you know she did more. Any discussion on that basis is not an honest discourse.
I think you've got to come clean and tell us what your interest in this case is. Same applies to certain others.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie' is also a bit out or order, and once again puts the lie to the claim that you personally insult nobody.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie.
----------
Just back from a deserved ban & up to your old tricks again. Choosing to ignore JackieD's earlier rude posts towards me.
JackieD has been known as 'Mad' Jackie on both Red & Blue for years. Not hard to see why.
-
QC has used both tactics with me -
If I ask him a difficult question, he will usually not answer. If he does answer, he will say he's already discussed it & I should search the forum. Rather than direct me to the thread.
He will also accuse me of saying something. The simple thing to then do is quote my post. However he will not do this but just say 'I definately said it'.
-
It was one cheque book fraud.
I know you are a very passionate supporter of Bamber. Because Julie identified the twins. However distorting the facts will not help his 35 year 'Campaign for Freedom'.
No it was not. Do your research
-
'Mad' JackieD, you need to calm down.
Bamber said in his police interviews he knew Julie had sleeping pills.
Him using them may have been an option when discussing with Julie & James Richards about burning down WHF.
Adam ie the forum joke.
Stop telling lies. Try asking Ngb
-
No it was not. Do your research
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
Ground 5 of Bamber's 2002 COA hearing is to do with the cheque book fraud. One occasion. With Susan Battersby.
Keep up.
-
Adam ie the forum joke.
Stop telling lies. Try asking Ngb
You need to calm down 'Mad' Jackie. You are not doing Bamber's 35 year 'Campaign for Freedom' any credit
Stick to the facts. Don't exaggerate.
-
COA:
The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
----------
Couldn't the defence disclose this? The defence did bring up the minor cheque book fraud at court.
As a first offence, it is likely Julie & Susan Battersby would have received a caution. They paid the money back.
-
COA:
The second limb of this ground contends that the prosecution failed to disclose the action of DS Jones and other unidentified officers in respect of the cheque fraud perpetrated by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby on the Midland Bank. Mr Turner in his skeleton argument explains this part of the ground by alleging:
"... contrary to the evidence given at trial, Susan Battersby and Julie Mugford's attendance at the Midland Bank had been orchestrated by the police and unidentified officers had almost certainly encouraged the bank to take the stance that they did."
----------
Not surprised Stan Jones got involved with getting the minor cheque book fraud issue resolved as smoothly as possible. He was in the middle of a murder case. Julie & Susan had submitted important WS's.
-
Adam as you know everything that happened that night could you explain please why Brews and Myall never mentioned in their statements about seeing the reflection in the window, running back to the car and calling for armed back up?
It is in Saxby's statement, also if they were satisfied that it was only a reflection why did Myall (I believe) request a fingerprint sweep of the room?
Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran? If I had been on the jury I would have been very interested in why two cops were running from a reflection?
-
Adam as you know everything that happened that night could you explain please why Brews and Myall never mentioned in their statements about seeing the reflection in the window, running back to the car and calling for armed back up?
It is in Saxby's statement, also if they were satisfied that it was only a reflection why did Myall (I believe) request a fingerprint sweep of the room?
Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran? If I had been on the jury I would have been very interested in why two cops were running from a reflection?
'Fingerprint sweep of the room' ? Maybe Sheila's prints would be there. Hold on, she was staying there.
The 'trick of the light' was just that. Not sure what else can be said.
-
Adam as you know everything that happened that night could you explain please why Brews and Myall never mentioned in their statements about seeing the reflection in the window, running back to the car and calling for armed back up?
It is in Saxby's statement, also if they were satisfied that it was only a reflection why did Myall (I believe) request a fingerprint sweep of the room?
Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran? If I had been on the jury I would have been very interested in why two cops were running from a reflection?
Why were the jury not informed that after seeing the reflection they ducked down then ran?
----------
Bamber could have asked his defence team to say this.
How do you know the jury were not told. Do you have the court transcript?
-
QC has used both tactics with me -
If I ask him a difficult question, he will usually not answer. If he does answer, he will say he's already discussed it & I should search the forum. Rather than direct me to the thread.
He will also accuse me of saying something. The simple thing to then do is quote my post. However he will not do this but just say 'I definately said it'.
Never ever seen that
-
Cheque Fraud Solicitors in London
Updated on Tuesday 08th October 2019
Using a false cheque for buying all sorts of products is a type of crime used by numerous fraudsters.
This a serious financial crime, part of serious frauds, and if found guilty, impostors can go to jail.
Our cheque fraud solicitors in London can provide legal advice for persons accused of such crimes.
The experience of our criminal defence solicitors in London is needed for such cases, whether you are a victim of fraud or accused of cheque fraud.
What types of cheque fraud can be met?
Unfortunately, fraudsters have numerous ways to gain easy money, and cheque frauds are met on a daily basis, under different forms:
1. Forgery – stolen cheques signed and used by fraudsters.
2. Altered: valid cheques are issued by entitled account holders and then intercepted by fraudsters who change the beneficiary.
3. Counterfeit – using fake cheques which are not authorized by account holders.
4. Paperhanging – a false cheque signed under the name of a closed account.
The above-mentioned types of cheque frauds are mostly used by criminals looking to gain easy money, finances that are not theirs. Our cheque fraud solicitors in London have experience in this area and can help offenders by providing immediate legal advice and assistance in front of the authorities in UK. Let our criminal defence lawyers in London take care of your case if you are a victim of financial crimes
-
In black and white Mugford was likely facing prison for multiple cheque frauds at different locations
This is what Mugford would have been told by the police
-
'Fingerprint sweep of the room' ? Maybe Sheila's prints would be there. Hold on, she was staying there.
The 'trick of the light' was just that. Not sure what else can be said.
"Trick of the light ?" What light ? There wasn't even a moon.
-
In black and white Mugford was likely facing prison for multiple cheque frauds at different locations
This is what Mugford would have been told by the police
The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.
It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.
-
JackieD is entitled to say Julie lied about Bamber. Because she committed one minor joint cheque book fraud. The defence at court used this tactic.
However JackieD claiming it was 'multiple' cheque book frauds & the police threatened her with prison, is an incorrect statement.
-
The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.
It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.
The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !
-
The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !
That money was spent by Bamber.
-
The money taken from Osea would also have been paid back too !
JM was involved with that as well but JB wasn't involved in her fraud.
-
JM was involved with that as well but JB wasn't involved in her fraud.
That is correct. Julie and Susan Battersby committed the cheque book fraud.
Bamber robbed from his family & got Julie to be his lookout.
-
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it.
----------
Just back from a deserved ban. Now resurfacing to be rude again. Feel free to provide the post. Rob didn't.
Why? You know what you posted. Rob knows what you posted. I know what you posted. That's three of us. Why go to the trouble of jumping through your hoops like an obedient dog?
It wasn't a deserved a ban, either. You caused all the trouble but seem to have got away scot-free. I asked elsewhere on here whether you or Steve have ever been banned and no answer came. It's all very interesting.
QC has used both tactics with me -
If I ask him a difficult question, he will usually not answer.
I ALWAYS answer questions, if I see them. Even my worst detractors, such as NGB1066 and Steve, will (or, if they're honest, should) concede that this is the case.
If he does answer, he will say he's already discussed it & I should search the forum. Rather than direct me to the thread.
This is untrue for the reason just stated above.
Sometimes when asked a question about something I have discussed previously, I will direct the member to other threads. It's either because I've been over it before and can't be bothered, or (in your case) I'm not inclined to assist you due to your general attitude. It's my prerogative, just as it is yours if I ask similar of you. I don't see what the issue is. The Forum has a search function.
He will also accuse me of saying something. The simple thing to then do is quote my post. However he will not do this but just say 'I definately said it'.
As usual, you are not telling the whole truth. This has happened a number of times and what actually happens is this:
1. I say you have said something.
2. You deny ever saying it.
3. I maintain you did say it.
4. You deny ever saying it and ask for a source.
5. Normally this is difficult, because the relevant thread is long gone and the effort in finding it is too much.
6. Eventually, the thread is found or resurfaces. You then maintain your denials or just insult me.
This happened with your assertion that Nevill was woken up when being shot by Jeremy (or words to that effect). For a very long time, you denied ever having said such a thing, even though an entire discussion on a thread was based on it. I did not bother finding the relevant thread, but eventually it resurfaced by random chance. I then quoted it to you, and you insulted me.
-
Never ever seen that
He's just done it again. Reply 896.
-
Why? You know what you posted. Rob knows what you posted. I know what you posted. That's three of us. Why go to the trouble of jumping through your hoops like an obedient dog?
It wasn't a deserved a ban, either. You caused all the trouble but seem to have got away scot-free. I asked elsewhere on here whether you or Steve have ever been banned and no answer came. It's all very interesting.
Just back from a deserved ban & already causing trouble.
To be fair it was up to Rob to quote my post. However you got involved.
-
The police didn't know about her joint minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until both had completed their comprehensive WS's.
It was one cheque book fraud. For £700. The money was paid back. The bank chose not to prosecute.
So you are stating as fact it was one cheque given fraudulently for one transaction of £700
Provide your source
-
He's just done it again. Reply 896.
I missed something in my criticism of you above.
You say something. Then you deny you said it. But I forgot to say why you behave like this.
It's because you sometimes overstep the mark and get things wrong. Instead of admitting it, when you get caught out on something, you just brazenly deny it.
Just back from a deserved ban & already causing trouble.
To be fair it was up to Rob to quote my post. However you got involved.
It's not up to anybody to do anything. This is a voluntary forum. You know as well I do that you should have been dealt with by moderation long, long ago. You're on a blag. I for one will not play your games, but I will stop by now and then to call you out.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie.
----------
Just back from a deserved ban & up to your old tricks again. Choosing to ignore JackieD's earlier rude posts towards me.
JackieD has been known as 'Mad' Jackie on both Red & Blue for years. Not hard to see why.
I don't condone other members insulting you - if that is what happened - but let's be completely honest about this.
You, and a certain other screenhandle here, have been at this now for years. Innumerable members have complained about you and expressed their frustrations at your attitude and behaviour and your posting style. You know the score. Let's not pretend.
-
So you are stating as fact it was one cheque given fraudulently for one transaction of £700
Provide your source
The source is ground 5 of the COA.
Only one cheque book fraud is mentioned. The one with Susan Battersby.
-
I missed something in my criticism of you above.
You say something. Then you deny you said it. But I forgot to say why you behave like this.
It's because you sometimes overstep the mark and get things wrong. Instead of admitting it, when you get caught out on something, you just brazenly deny it.
It's not up to anybody to do anything. This is a voluntary forum. You know as well I do that you should have been dealt with by moderation long, long ago. You're on a blag. I for one will not play your games, but I will stop by now and then to call you out.
I don't condone other members insulting you - if that is what happened - but let's be completely honest about this.
You, and a certain other screenhandle here, have been at this now for years. Innumerable members have complained about you and expressed their frustrations at your attitude and behaviour and your posting style. You know the score. Let's not pretend.
Why don't you just discuss the case.
You got a deserved ban. Don't try to take it out on me.
-
Why don't you just discuss the case.
You got a deserved ban. Don't try to take it out on me.
A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth. I'm not sure you're here for that. You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss. That's not the same as 'discussing the case'.
A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error. It's rather like having a religion.
Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.
You were the cause of the ban. You started the trouble. It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned. That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.
-
A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth. I'm not sure you're here for that. You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss. That's not the same as 'discussing the case'.
A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error. It's rather like having a religion.
Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.
You were the cause of the ban. You started the trouble. It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned. That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.
There you go again. Blaming other people for your deserved ban.
-
The source is ground 5 of the COA.
Only one cheque book fraud is mentioned. The one with Susan Battersby.
I have asked to provide your source. I want the details. You have nothing else going on in your life
I await the details of the one transaction of cheque fraud
-
A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth. I'm not sure you're here for that. You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss. That's not the same as 'discussing the case'.
A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error. It's rather like having a religion.
Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.
You were the cause of the ban. You started the trouble. It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned. That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.
Both have been banned in the past.
-
He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending
Miss Battersby's cheques
after reporting them stolen to the bank.
Cheques plural
-
I have asked to provide your source. I want the details. You have nothing else going on in your life
I await the details of the one transaction of cheque fraud
The source is in the COA. One minor joint fraud. The bank did not prosecute.
If it was multiple frauds Julie would not have been able to pay back everything. Which the judge said she had done.
-
He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending
Miss Battersby's cheques
after reporting them stolen to the bank.
Cheques plural
Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.
-
Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.
I am still waiting to see any evidence to show Jeremy was responsible
I am 99% sure there is t any
-
I am still waiting to see any evidence to show Jeremy was responsible
I am 99% sure there is t any
Bamber is the only alive possible suspect. All the evidence shows it was not Sheila.
Not sure what more can be supplied.
-
Latest podcast is about the phones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LefLvrfaWO0
-
Bamber is the only alive possible suspect. All the evidence shows it was not Sheila.
Not sure what more can be supplied.
You haven’t shown any evidence. Big fat zero and you choose to believe the chief prosecution witness who is a pathological liar with clear mental health issues
You continue to post lies on this forum saying there was only one fraudulent cheque transaction of £700
Even you with your lack of intelligence seem unable to grasp that even Julie would not be stupid enough to write a fraudulent cheque for £700 (today’s value over £2000) which would have looked suspicious.
I am fed up with looking at your long ridiculous posts and normally skip them but I will react when you post absolute lies
£700 (today’s value £2000) is not a minor cheque fraud and was from a number of retail outlets
Stop the lies or don’t post
-
You haven’t shown any evidence. Big fat zero and you choose to believe the chief prosecution witness who is a pathological liar with clear mental health issues
You continue to post lies on this forum saying there was only one fraudulent cheque transaction of £700
Even you with your lack of intelligence seem unable to grasp that even Julie would not be stupid enough to write a fraudulent cheque for £700 (today’s value over £2000) which would have looked suspicious.
I am fed up with looking at your long ridiculous posts and normally skip them but I will react when you post absolute lies
£700 (today’s value £2000) is not a minor cheque fraud and was from a number of retail outlets
Stop the lies or don’t post
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
-
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
I have posted this list several times before.
JackieD either has a very poor memory or chooses to ignore it. Believing all that matters is Julie identified the twins.
-
Bamber is the only alive suspect.
Each piece of evidence I have posted showing it was not Sheila, has at least one source. Nearly all has not been disputed by the CT.
Then there is the circumstantial evidence & Julie.
Not sure what more can be supplied.
-
I have posted this list several times before.
JackieD either has a poor memory or chooses to ignore it. Believing all that matters is Julie identified the twins.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
Do you believe Julie identifying the twins makes Bamber innocent?
-
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
You are completely right to post the above. It's claimed that he has been banned in the past. I'm not sure how many times. Just the once? It clearly didn't have the desired effect as he still spams the Forum and goads other posters with impunity.
In point of interest, I recall I did respond to that list of his a few months ago. I accepted some of it, while pointing out that much of it is wrong or his own misinterpretation of what the Court of Appeal or other sources had found or said. Predictably, he ignored my response and just ploughed on with the spamming, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. Steve has commented that he thinks this behaviour is admirable. I think it's disgraceful. But it's not my forum, so I will leave you to it. Given the impunity here, it is dangerous for those of us with eyes to see it to criticise it.
-
You haven’t shown any evidence. Big fat zero and you choose to believe the chief prosecution witness who is a pathological liar with clear mental health issues
You continue to post lies on this forum saying there was only one fraudulent cheque transaction of £700
Even you with your lack of intelligence seem unable to grasp that even Julie would not be stupid enough to write a fraudulent cheque for £700 (today’s value over £2000) which would have looked suspicious.
I am fed up with looking at your long ridiculous posts and normally skip them but I will react when you post absolute lies
£700 (today’s value £2000) is not a minor cheque fraud and was from a number of retail outlets
Stop the lies or don’t post
Obviously I had no choice but to post a list of evidence. At least one source supplied with each piece.
Bamber being the only alive suspect with motives, an opportunity, no alibi & Julie's WS/testimony must surely make it the most watertight conviction ever. Bamber's been trying to get released for 35 years.
Hopefully you won't forget again.
-
You are completely right to post the above. It's claimed that he has been banned in the past. I'm not sure how many times. Just the once? It clearly didn't have the desired effect as he still spams the Forum and goads other posters with impunity.
In point of interest, I recall I did respond to that list of his a few months ago. I accepted some of it, while pointing out that much of it is wrong or his own misinterpretation of what the Court of Appeal or other sources had found or said. Predictably, he ignored my response and just ploughed on with the spamming, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. Steve has commented that he thinks this behaviour is admirable. I think it's disgraceful. But it's not my forum, so I will leave you to it. Given the impunity here, it is dangerous for those of us with eyes to see it to criticise it.
If memory serves me right. Adam was banned a few times by either Maggie or Patti. This was several years ago now.
-
If memory serves me right. Adam was banned a few times by either Maggie or Patti. This was several years ago now.
You have also been banned.
-
Adam doesn't bother me as he's not going to get anywhere with the repetitive posts he keeps making, many of which are now old-hat and been proven to be untrue over the years when further investigations came to light.
It seems to me that he has to keep up his " hate-fest " for reasons unknown to the rest of us but there is an ulterior motive behind his posting. No full explanation has ever been given by him, personally, for JB's " guilt ", everything he writes is just copied from those who investigated the crime while most of us can see with half an eye that some things weren't altogether truthful during the investigation.
He has my sympathy !
-
Most posters have been banned. Some given permanent bans by Mike.
Some current/former posters were/are either elderly, former moderators or had dyslexia. Obviously they would have been fiercely protected & not banned.
Moderators are human & will have their favourites. Usually fellow supporters.
I have only requested David be banned. After he ignored Maggies instruction not to put an offensive picture up. I would have certainly been banned if I had ignored that instruction.
-
Most posters have been banned. Some given permanent bans by Mike.
Some current/former posters were/are either elderly, former moderators or had dyslexia. Obviously they would have been fiercely protected & not banned.
Moderators are human & will have their favourites. Usually fellow supporters.
I have only requested David be banned. After he ignored Maggies instruction not to put an offensive picture up. I would have certainly banned me if I had ignored that instruction.
Quite discriminatory too ! Because I'm " elderly " doesn't mean to say that I know any less than you do !
Then again, you've always had a hang-up about my age, but see if I care.
-
Bamber has only disputed 3 of the 71 pieces of evidence.
They focus on other aspects. Nevill calling the police, Sheila alive inside WHF, not released documents & Julie lying because she was jilted.
-
Anyone given the latest one a twirl?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-telephone-issues-resolved/id1555731881?i=1000533944875
-
Anyone given the latest one a twirl?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-telephone-issues-resolved/id1555731881?i=1000533944875
Four minutes in and they claim Sheila rang 999 for an ambulance at 6:09am.
Anyone reading Rowe or Burnells statements will know that never happened. Its on record that the police called for the ambulances.
This is either gross incompetence by the CT or wilful misrepresentation.
-
Anyone given the latest one a twirl?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-telephone-issues-resolved/id1555731881?i=1000533944875
Yes and the Campaign Team have yet again raised deceit into an art form. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Briefly:
1) The master bedroom was devoid of a telephone on the evening of 6th August 1985. Wouldn't June have preferred to take her sister's call at 10:00pm in bed, rather than have to stand around in the kitchen at so late an hour?
2) On Monday morning, around 10 o' clock, Douglas Pike called at the farm to collect the faulty cordless telephone from the kitchen; it had been a replacement for the original one, damaged during the lightning strikes. Sheila greeted him at the back door. He noticed Nicholas and Daniel: "I was very impressed, as a grandfather, by the way that the two boys were behaving. They were standing at the end of the kitchen table making paper flags and colouring them in with pencils." Pike left thinking what a happy family they seemed.
3) There's no credible evidence whatsoever that the telephone calls in the wee hours attributed to Sheila were ever made.
-
Four minutes in and they claim Sheila rang 999 for an ambulance at 6:09am.
Anyone reading Rowe or Burnells statements will know that never happened. Its on record that the police called for the ambulances.
This is either gross incompetence by the CT or wilful misrepresentation.
Who cares anymore? The superfluity of claims only marks their sheer desperation as to attracting attention at any cost.
-
Maybe it was Nevill ringing 999 at 6.09am. Chasing up his earlier call 3 hours earlier.
Nevill had realised Jeremy was not attending after he phoned him.
-
Four minutes in and they claim Sheila rang 999 for an ambulance at 6:09am. This is either gross incompetence by the CT or wilful misrepresentation.
It’s neither. There is documentation that has not been released yet into the public domain to support the contention that a 999 phone call was made from WHF at 06:09. It is assumed that Sheila was the only person alive at that time inside the house. Presumably the documents will be revealed during the appeal.
-
It’s neither. There is documentation that has not been released yet into the public domain to support the contention that a 999 phone call was made from WHF at 06:09. It is assumed that Sheila was the only person alive at that time inside the house. Presumably the documents will be revealed during the appeal.
Fortunately nobody believes a word Bill Robertson says anymore.
-
Anyone given the latest one a twirl?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-telephone-issues-resolved/id1555731881?i=1000533944875
Latest podcast very interesting, though I do remember some years back that Mike had posted about officers using the kitchen phone----after wiping it.
-
It’s neither. There is documentation that has not been released yet into the public domain to support the contention that a 999 phone call was made from WHF at 06:09. It is assumed that Sheila was the only person alive at that time inside the house. Presumably the documents will be revealed during the appeal.
Bullshit. We already know what happened at 06:09am and this idea of a 999 call is nothing but a misinterpretation of the document below.
(https://i.ibb.co/BTzLP7y/20121014-2204492.jpg)
-
Who is the officer who, when interviewed by Met police, expressed 'I didn't think there would be any record of that'? It was words to that effect and he was referring to the incident in question.
-
Fortunately nobody believes a word Bill Robertson says anymore.
Bit of a sweeping statement that Steve.
-
It’s neither. There is documentation that has not been released yet into the public domain to support the contention that a 999 phone call was made from WHF at 06:09. It is assumed that Sheila was the only person alive at that time inside the house. Presumably the documents will be revealed during the appeal.
If a phone is off the cradle would a operator be able to path a line through?
If the receiver would have to be replaced first this could be very interesting?
-
If a phone is off the cradle would a operator be able to path a line through?
If the receiver would have to be replaced first this could be very interesting?
The operator would have dealt with any calls coming through as back then operators manned the phone lines whether on or off the hook.
-
If the police hadn't dithered for 3+ hours outside the farmhouse, they'd have saved a life !
-
The operator would have dealt with any calls coming through as back then operators manned the phone lines whether on or off the hook.
Thanks, I know if the caller puts the phone down on the cradle to end the call but the person receiving the call does not then the person who received the call can hold the line open. A lot of scammers use this trick.
I was not sure if the operator can path into a line that is busy or off the cradle.
-
Thanks, I know if the caller puts the phone down on the cradle to end the call but the person receiving the call does not then the person who received the call can hold the line open. A lot of scammers use this trick.
I was not sure if the operator can path into a line that is busy or off the cradle.
With the older PBX system the operator would know if the handset was returned on its cradle after a call, otherwise if it wasn't, a recorded voice would remind the caller to " please replace the receiver".
-
Bit of a sweeping statement that Steve.
I won't have new members brainwashed. Older members can make their own minds up.
-
I won't have new members brainwashed. Older members can make their own minds up.
For new members because Steve and Adam are trying to brainwash them with lies and untruths
Mugford's evidence was crucial to the prosecution's case.
Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial.
Documents disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences.
Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
Julie provided Essex police with seven witness statements, however, these were not disclosed, and extracts from them made up a ‘served copy’ which was given to the defence and the 1986 trial.
The served copy omitted the majority of her criminal activities and focused on accusations against Jeremy.
According to Julie’s 8th of September 1985 witness statement Julie asked Jeremy if he loved her, to which he replied that he didn’t know and they discussed their relationship.
At one point of the conversation she said to Jeremy: “I told him I couldn’t hurt myself anymore and didn’t know what I would do and he asked me to promise not to kill myself. I told him I couldn’t promise anything.”
According to the same witness statement, they returned to her flat and whilst there Julie: “told him that I would really love to hurt him and told him that I had tried to stab the teddy bear he had given to me as a present.” She also admitted: “I asked Jeremy never to leave me because I was frightened and he said he would never leave me as there would always be a place in his heart.
We then went to bed. We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head. I took it off and he asked me why I did it and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
-
Maybe it was Nevill ringing 999 at 6.09am. Chasing up his earlier call 3 hours earlier.
Nevill had realised Jeremy was not attending after he phoned him.
I'm very different to JB in that I'd feel very bitter that I even bothered ringing for the police after Nevill had rang earlier, knowing what he knows now but it appears that he feels no bitterness nor resentment at having been fitted up. Why did JB bother to pick the phone up when his father called him ??
Procrastination hasn't appeared in JB's vocabulary for the past 36 years as he continues to prove his innocence, which after reams of paperwork should tell you something
-
Fortunately nobody believes a word Bill Robertson says anymore.
I have never posted false information on this website. Later, when I have time, I will post the details of the police documents that prove that Sheila made a 999 call using the cream coloured telephone in the kitchen.
-
I have never posted false information on this website. Later, when I have time, I will post the details of the police documents that prove that Sheila made a 999 call using the cream coloured telephone in the kitchen.
Unless you post the actual documents, nobody is going to believe you.
-
I have never posted false information on this website. Later, when I have time, I will post the details of the police documents that prove that Sheila made a 999 call using the cream coloured telephone in the kitchen.
When you have time? This will free Jeremy. He's been trying for 35 years.
Have the CT got these documents?
-
Unless you post the actual documents, nobody is going to believe you.
Yet you post newspaper articles in support of convictions.
-
Fortunately nobody believes a word Bill Robertson says anymore.
That’s coming from the person who supports Julie Mugford with her criminal history and mental health issues and ability to lie at a moments notice for financial gain. Someone that should never been allowed to work with children when the authorities knew about her history
-
Seems once again Bill has made a bold claim that he can't or wont deliver on. :-\
-
Seems once again Bill has made a bold claim that he can't or wont deliver on. :-\
It seems like once again 1819 can’t resist the urge to indulge in childish goading. Having better things to do than engage with an ass, I’m not sure that there is any point in discussing the issue further. For those in possession of an enquiring mind, consider why Stan Jones described the cream telephone as being in such a “state” that nobody would have wanted to use it. Presumably he meant blood-stained. Who is the most likely person in WHF to have handled the phone and covered it with blood? How did it then appear in pristine condition in crime scene photos?
Over and out.
-
Unless you post the actual documents, nobody is going to believe you.
Like your high definition crime scene photos then? When will they appear?
-
Have the CT got these documents?
Of course they have them.
-
Of course they have them.
Surprised they haven't put them all over the internet. They do for everything else.
-
It seems like once again 1819 can’t resist the urge to indulge in childish goading. Having better things to do than engage with an ass, I’m not sure that there is any point in discussing the issue further. For those in possession of an enquiring mind, consider why Stan Jones described the cream telephone as being in such a “state” that nobody would have wanted to use it. Presumably he meant blood-stained. Who is the most likely person in WHF to have handled the phone and covered it with blood? How did it then appear in pristine condition in crime scene photos?
Over and out.
This is would mean Nevill phoned Jeremy after Sheila had shot him 4 times upstairs. Although he wouldn't have been able to engage in purposeful talk. Also a bit late to be phoning Bamber.
Can you provide the source of the 6.09am 999 call from inside WHF.
-
It seems like once again 1819 can’t resist the urge to indulge in childish goading. Having better things to do than engage with an ass, I’m not sure that there is any point in discussing the issue further. For those in possession of an enquiring mind, consider why Stan Jones described the cream telephone as being in such a “state” that nobody would have wanted to use it. Presumably he meant blood-stained. Who is the most likely person in WHF to have handled the phone and covered it with blood? How did it then appear in pristine condition in crime scene photos?
Over and out.
I had missed that Stan Jones had described the "cream telephone as being in such a state" I m trying to look into all the things that police have changed, fabricated, lied or re-written statements etc.
This case had one very unreliable main witness, an extremely dodgy piece of evidence the silencer and on top of this if the police are lying, or not disclosing important details JB had no chance at trial.
I would like to see pictures of the office which may show the phone with the chord wrapped around it, as this would prove SJ was being dishonest or worse. Though I know why they are being withheld! every room was photographed so we know they exist.
-
This is would mean Nevill phoned Jeremy after Sheila had shot him 4 times upstairs. Although he wouldn't have been able to engage in purposeful talk. Also a bit late to be phoning Bamber.
Can you provide the source of the 6.09am 999 call from inside WHF.
We just don't know Adam, maybe the gun went off accidently downstairs maybe hitting Nevil in the arm, SC runs upstairs and Nevill phones for help??
-
Always lots of 'maybe's' in a Sheila scenario.
A Bamber scenario just follows the evidence.
-
I had missed that Stan Jones had described the "cream telephone as being in such a state" I m trying to look into all the things that police have changed, fabricated, lied or re-written statements etc.
This case had one very unreliable main witness, an extremely dodgy piece of evidence the silencer and on top of this if the police are lying, or not disclosing important details JB had no chance at trial.
I would like to see pictures of the office which may show the phone with the chord wrapped around it, as this would prove SJ was being dishonest or worse. Though I know why they are being withheld! every room was photographed so we know they exist.
'I had missed that Stan Jones had described the "cream telephone as being in such a state'.
----------
I have missed that as well.
-
Like your high definition crime scene photos then? When will they appear?
I sent them to NGB
-
It seems like once again 1819 can’t resist the urge to indulge in childish goading. Having better things to do than engage with an ass, I’m not sure that there is any point in discussing the issue further. For those in possession of an enquiring mind, consider why Stan Jones described the cream telephone as being in such a “state” that nobody would have wanted to use it. Presumably he meant blood-stained. Who is the most likely person in WHF to have handled the phone and covered it with blood? How did it then appear in pristine condition in crime scene photos?
Over and out.
Stan Jones was referring to the "state" of the kitchen as a whole not the actual telephone itself. How does this in any way relate to Sheila allegedly calling 999 at 6:09am?
-
I sent them to NGB
Why not post them on the forum?
-
I sent them to NGB
It is also safe to post your ' forensic evidence breakthrough' on the forum.
It's 5 years old & has not been & will not be used by the CT.
-
I don't believe NGB is part of Bamber's legal team. So not sure why David posts things to him via PM.
-
Unless you post the actual documents, nobody is going to believe you.
I agree that none of us should rest on anybody's claims. Evidence is needed. However, I don't agree that the claim is far-fetched. If it is thought that Jeremy is innocent, and the theory is that Sheila was still alive later that morning, then Sheila picking up an open line to an emergency operator, then terminating that call and re-dialling, is not such a far-fetched notion - though someone would need to check if it is technically possible.
I also disagree with you when you suggest that this scenario would be a misinterpretation of the document you produced at #935 above. It can be reconciled with that document.
What would be far-fetched is if it's asserted that Sheila carried on a conversation with somebody at the other end.
-
I agree that none of us should rest on anybody's claims. Evidence is needed. However, I don't agree that the claim is far-fetched. If it is thought that Jeremy is innocent, and the theory is that Sheila was still alive later that morning, then Sheila picking up an open line to an emergency operator, then terminating that call and re-dialling, is not such a far-fetched notion - though someone would need to check if it is technically possible.
I also disagree with you when you suggest that this scenario would be a misinterpretation of the document you produced at #935 above. It can that reconciled with that document.
What would be far-fetched is if it's asserted that Sheila carried on a conversation with somebody at the other end.
That's a fair post.
-
It is also safe to post your ' forensic evidence breakthrough' on the forum.
It's 5 years old & has not been & will not be used by the CT.
The CT don't even know about the forensic breakthrough, neither do they know about Julie's signed pre-trial contract.
-
The CT don't even know about the forensic breakthrough, neither do they know about Julie's signed pre-trial contract.
You passed your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber. Did he not pass it to the CT?
Where have you sent Julie's pre trial contract Bill?
-
You passed your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber. Did he not pass it to the CT.
Where have you sent Julie's pre trial contract Bill?
Sorry getting you mixed up with Bill.
-
You passed your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber. Did he not pass it to the CT?
Where have you sent Julie's pre trial contract Bill?
Bamber seems to be drawn into the crazy ideas perpetuated by the CT rather than pursuing worthwhile evidence.
If Bamber truly believes Bonnets log is a call from Nevill implicating Sheila and he also believes there was a 999 call at 6:09am, my discovery is not going to seem like much to him. Because from his point of view he has stuff far better, when in reality it is just a mirage.
-
Surprised they haven't put them all over the internet. They do for everything else.
Then we'd have the likes of you saying they were fakes ::)
No new found info will be on the internet while there's a submission.
-
Yes and the Campaign Team have yet again raised deceit into an art form. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Briefly:
1) The master bedroom was devoid of a telephone on the evening of 6th August 1985. Wouldn't June have preferred to take her sister's call at 10:00pm in bed, rather than have to stand around in the kitchen at so late an hour?
What is your evidence that Jeremy moved any phones?
2) On Monday morning, around 10 o' clock, Douglas Pike called at the farm to collect the faulty cordless telephone from the kitchen; it had been a replacement for the original one, damaged during the lightning strikes. Sheila greeted him at the back door. He noticed Nicholas and Daniel: "I was very impressed, as a grandfather, by the way that the two boys were behaving. They were standing at the end of the kitchen table making paper flags and colouring them in with pencils." Pike left thinking what a happy family they seemed.
How long was Douglas Pike at the farmhouse to form this evaluation of Sheila's mood, composure and parenting skills that you seem to want us to rely on?
Assuming Mr Pike's visit was brief and did not consist of a detailed observational study of Sheila and the children, why should Mr Pike's opinion override that of others, including people who lived with Sheila and professionals?
If somebody came and took the kitchen phone away, isn't it logical to assume that this was replaced with another phone and this explains why there was no phone in the master bedroom?
3) There's no credible evidence whatsoever that the telephone calls in the wee hours attributed to Sheila were ever made.
The CT say they have a document. Have you seen it? If not, how do you know there is no credible evidence?
Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.
I don't understand what you mean. The point of all this is that her evidence requires us to rely on things she says that Jeremy told her when no-one else was present or could hear. It is not to say her own criminality means she was lying, but it is to say that it must be a factor for consideration in the round, together with other personal factors, such as Jeremy's decision to split up with her.
You and Adam make the argument that it was just one criminal act and it was minor. Even if that is accepted, it still raises questions about her judgement and moral character. She was of mature age at this point - I think she was 20. People don't go on 'white collar crime sprees' at the age of 20 unless they have serious moral defects or broad psychological issues (wanting attention, etc.). You say it was 'spur-of-the-moment', but this is disingenuous. The plan itself may have been spur-of-the-moment, but you don't do something like that unless you have an inclination to do it.
Also, her criminal career did not just consist of one crime. Both you and Adam mislead people on here about this, and since you don't want new members "brainwashed", I think we should make it clear that she committed other offences. She assisted Jeremy with the robbery and also with smuggling drugs from the Netherlands. You will say that these escapades were Jeremy's idea. Maybe, but it is unclear how much Jeremy was influenced by Julie. It is also alleged that she was involved in other things on her own account, including smuggling drugs from Canada. I completely accept that Julie Smerchanski is an upstanding lady. We're not talking about her. We're talking about Julie Mugford, who in a sense was a completely different person, and hardly an upstanding character.
At trial, there was nothing in her evidence that only the killer could have told her. (Adam has attempted to demonstrate otherwise, but I was able to take that apart effortlessly. Not that he took any notice).
There was also the part in her evidence when she claimed that she volunteered to identify the bodies in the morgue because she wanted to channel their spirits. What was that all about?
Julie also mislead the court about her deal with the News of the World. I now know what the evidence is for that. I haven't actually seen it myself, but a summary of it has been imparted to me, and it sounds very credible indeed.
She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.
A truthful picture is not quite how you present it, though at the same time, I can understand why you would want to defend her. If Jeremy is guilty, then she helped to convict him.
Yet let us not forget what she did after Jeremy was convicted (or maybe before, who knows?). She posed for a rather racy snap that was published the next day in a scummy tabloid.
I repeat again that I do not airily dismiss Julie or her evidence. I am sceptical of her evidence, but I have thought-through reasons for that position. I add these remarks for balance, as I cannot abide the disingenuousness of both agenda-riven camps in this case. In the Bamber case, the truth is the first victim.
-
What is your evidence that Jeremy moved any phones?
How long was Douglas Pike at the farmhouse to form this evaluation of Sheila's mood, composure and parenting skills that you seem to want us to rely on?
Assuming Mr Pike's visit was brief and did not consist of a detailed observational study of Sheila and the children, why should Mr Pike's opinion override that of others, including people who lived with Sheila and professionals?
If somebody came and took the kitchen phone away, isn't it logical to assume that this was replaced with another phone and this explains why there was no phone in the master bedroom?
The CT say they have a document. Have you seen it? If not, how do you know there is no credible evidence?
I don't understand what you mean. The point of all this is that her evidence requires us to rely on things she says that Jeremy told her when no-one else was present or could hear. It is not to say her own criminality means she was lying, but it is to say that it must be a factor for consideration in the round, together with other personal factors, such as Jeremy's decision to split up with her.
You and Adam make the argument that it was just one criminal act and it was minor. Even if that is accepted, it still raises questions about her judgement and moral character. She was of mature age at this point - I think she was 20. People don't go on 'white collar crime sprees' at the age of 20 unless they have serious moral defects or broad psychological issues (wanting attention, etc.). You say it was 'spur-of-the-moment', but this is disingenuous. The plan itself may have been spur-of-the-moment, but you don't do something like that unless you have an inclination to do it.
Also, her criminal career did not just consist of one crime. Both you and Adam mislead people on here about this, and since you don't want new members "brainwashed", I think we should make it clear that she committed other offences. She assisted Jeremy with the robbery and also with smuggling drugs from the Netherlands. You will say that these escapades were Jeremy's idea. Maybe, but it is unclear how much Jeremy was influenced by Julie. It is also alleged that she was involved in other things on her own account, including smuggling drugs from Canada. I completely accept that Julie Smerchanski is an upstanding lady. We're not talking about her. We're talking about Julie Mugford, who in a sense was a completely different person, and hardly an upstanding character.
At trial, there was nothing in her evidence that only the killer could have told her. (Adam has attempted to demonstrate otherwise, but I was able to take that apart effortlessly. Not that he took any notice).
There was also the part in her evidence when she claimed that she volunteered to identify the bodies in the morgue because she wanted to channel their spirits. What was that all about?
Julie also mislead the court about her deal with the News of the World. I now know what the evidence is for that. I haven't actually seen it myself, but a summary of it has been imparted to me, and it sounds very credible indeed.
She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.
A truthful picture is not quite how you present it, though at the same time, I can understand why you would want to defend her. If Jeremy is guilty, then she helped to convict him.
Yet let us not forget what she did after Jeremy was convicted (or maybe before, who knows?). She posed for a rather racy snap that was published the next day in a scummy tabloid.
I repeat again that I do not airily dismiss Julie or her evidence. I am sceptical of her evidence, but I have thought-through reasons for that position. I add these remarks for balance, as I cannot abide the disingenuousness of both agenda-riven camps in this case. In the Bamber case, the truth is the first victim.
'She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.'
----------
How did she do this?
-
The judge said Julie & Jeremy had committed crimes in the past. However it does not mean that either lied during testimony.
-
Stan Jones is alleged to have said this.
“I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
He is referring to the state of the kitchen i.e stuff all over the floor with a dead body and a pool of blood ect ect. Not the phone itself.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400313.html#msg400313 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400313.html#msg400313)
-
What is your evidence that Jeremy moved any phones?
How long was Douglas Pike at the farmhouse to form this evaluation of Sheila's mood, composure and parenting skills that you seem to want us to rely on?
Assuming Mr Pike's visit was brief and did not consist of a detailed observational study of Sheila and the children, why should Mr Pike's opinion override that of others, including people who lived with Sheila and professionals?
If somebody came and took the kitchen phone away, isn't it logical to assume that this was replaced with another phone and this explains why there was no phone in the master bedroom?
The CT say they have a document. Have you seen it? If not, how do you know there is no credible evidence?
I don't understand what you mean. The point of all this is that her evidence requires us to rely on things she says that Jeremy told her when no-one else was present or could hear. It is not to say her own criminality means she was lying, but it is to say that it must be a factor for consideration in the round, together with other personal factors, such as Jeremy's decision to split up with her.
You and Adam make the argument that it was just one criminal act and it was minor. Even if that is accepted, it still raises questions about her judgement and moral character. She was of mature age at this point - I think she was 20. People don't go on 'white collar crime sprees' at the age of 20 unless they have serious moral defects or broad psychological issues (wanting attention, etc.). You say it was 'spur-of-the-moment', but this is disingenuous. The plan itself may have been spur-of-the-moment, but you don't do something like that unless you have an inclination to do it.
Also, her criminal career did not just consist of one crime. Both you and Adam mislead people on here about this, and since you don't want new members "brainwashed", I think we should make it clear that she committed other offences. She assisted Jeremy with the robbery and also with smuggling drugs from the Netherlands. You will say that these escapades were Jeremy's idea. Maybe, but it is unclear how much Jeremy was influenced by Julie. It is also alleged that she was involved in other things on her own account, including smuggling drugs from Canada. I completely accept that Julie Smerchanski is an upstanding lady. We're not talking about her. We're talking about Julie Mugford, who in a sense was a completely different person, and hardly an upstanding character.
At trial, there was nothing in her evidence that only the killer could have told her. (Adam has attempted to demonstrate otherwise, but I was able to take that apart effortlessly. Not that he took any notice).
There was also the part in her evidence when she claimed that she volunteered to identify the bodies in the morgue because she wanted to channel their spirits. What was that all about?
Julie also mislead the court about her deal with the News of the World. I now know what the evidence is for that. I haven't actually seen it myself, but a summary of it has been imparted to me, and it sounds very credible indeed.
She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.
A truthful picture is not quite how you present it, though at the same time, I can understand why you would want to defend her. If Jeremy is guilty, then she helped to convict him.
Yet let us not forget what she did after Jeremy was convicted (or maybe before, who knows?). She posed for a rather racy snap that was published the next day in a scummy tabloid.
I repeat again that I do not airily dismiss Julie or her evidence. I am sceptical of her evidence, but I have thought-through reasons for that position. I add these remarks for balance, as I cannot abide the disingenuousness of both agenda-riven camps in this case. In the Bamber case, the truth is the first victim.
What sanctimonious guff this all is. You may have been influenced by one of your role models, Matthew Steeples, who seems to have paraded himself about in life quite a bit with few tangible results. Kindred spirits methinks.
The telephones were moved around the house, and by the murder evening the master bedroom was devoid of one. Yet there was a telephone in good working order hidden amongst magazines. Did Jeremy ever pause to think that his mother might have wished for a little comfort and privacy and placed one of them in her room? Or is this the same man who was not on speaking terms with her and by the end of it all expressly manifested his contempt for her, her values and everything she stood for?
Douglas Pike took away the inoperable cordless telephone, which June didn't like and didn't use. This was at 10:30am on Monday 5th August, and the description of the incident and Mr. Pike's impression you can read on a previous thread. Jeremy had always been jealous of any normal, homely family scene because he had always in his own mind been deprived of such and the new family he attempted to create with Suzette proved abortive.
We have further indications of the state of the family up to and incuding Pamela's telephone call at 10:00pm the following evening. On the Monday Jean Boutell stayed until 3:30pm. The twins were settled in the kitchen, reading Little Red Hen, with Nevill and June. June, Sheila and the children went to the Osea Road shop late in the afternoon, as evidenced by Stuart Sinclair's statement, again nothing amiss. In the early evening Sheila and the twins waved to Philip Wilson, who was driving the tractor down Pages Lane. Is this when Nicholas expressed a wish to climb up onto a tractor, a wish which his mother granted the following day and the incident where details are scant and which Uncle Jeremy is so reticent about?
Regine Pargeter telephoned the Farm that same evening. Sheila had bathed the boys and put them to bed. Sheila then telephoned her friend Yvonne and arranged to meet her at 10:30am on the Wednesday. Hardly the actions of a woman contemplating suicide.
You once again dish the dirt on Julie, not differing much in your approach from Jackie in this regard. Julie's crimes were spur of the moment, white collar, which are crimes yes, but never to be placed in the same category as violence, terrorism or murder. She was hounded out of her job as Primary Teacher due to unscruplous Press behaviour and got tabloid journalists off her back by selling her story to the highest bidder, which happened to be the News of the World. Had Jeremy got off he was in line for a substantial payment from The Sun newspaper.
Julie did not mislead the court, as you've parroted from the Matthew Steeples video. It seems to me you two have a lot in common and exist symbiotically, Matthew having the superficiality of a little more class and breeding, but after the spadework has been completed often like yourself arriving at the most erroneous of conclusions.
-
I also disagree with you when you suggest that this scenario would be a misinterpretation of the document you produced at #935 above. It can be reconciled with that document.
Not when you include this document into the equation also.
(https://i.ibb.co/WH7gM6t/op1a.jpg)
-
Stan Jones is alleged to have said this.
“I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
He is referring to the state of the kitchen i.e stuff all over the floor with a dead body and a pool of blood ect ect. Not the phone itself.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400313.html#msg400313 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400313.html#msg400313)
With regards to other options for police using a phone in the farmhouse, can you please remind me, where were the other phones located? Genuine question.
-
With regards to other options for police using a phone in the farmhouse, can you please remind me, where were the other phones located? Genuine question.
There was one in the kitchen and one in the upstairs office.
-
Not when you include this document into the equation also.
(https://i.ibb.co/WH7gM6t/op1a.jpg)
I thought the line was closed down much earlier than 8.00? nice to see a statement taken relatively soon after the event!
There are lots of little bits of evidence pointing to the possibility of someone still being alive, I keep thinking about the two bodies on entry etc. it's the time difference between when the logs says a further three etc. that bothers me.
-
There was one in the kitchen and one in the upstairs office.
Ok, well that aids your theory. Is the context that Jones is trying deflect the notion that an officer used the kitchen phone per se? Why is it claimed by the defence that it was the kitchen phone used by an officer?
-
What sanctimonious guff this all is.
Not an argument.
You may have been influenced by one of your role models, Matthew Steeples, who seems to have paraded himself about in life quite a bit with few tangible results. Kindred spirits methinks.
In fact, I have low regard for Matthew Steeples' journalism and have been critical of him on here. You must not have seen that. (Note: I have no view on Mr Steeples as a person. I don't know him and any criticism I make of him is not personal to him and is not intended to offend him).
The telephones were moved around the house, and by the murder evening the master bedroom was devoid of one. Yet there was a telephone in good working order hidden amongst magazines. Did Jeremy ever pause to think that his mother might have wished for a little comfort and privacy and placed one of them in her room? Or is this the same man who was not on speaking terms with her and by the end of it all expressly manifested his contempt for her, her values and everything she stood for?
This doesn't tell me what evidence you have that Jeremy moved any of the phones.
Douglas Pike took away the inoperable cordless telephone, which June didn't like and didn't use. This was at 10:30am on Monday 5th August, and the description of the incident and Mr. Pike's impression you can read on a previous thread. Jeremy had always been jealous of any normal, homely family scene because he had always in his own mind been deprived of such and the new family he attempted to create with Suzette proved abortive.
Again, this does not answer my question. I imply from this that Douglas Pike only formed a momentary impression of Sheila and the boys, which means that his evidence is of little or no value to us.
We have further indications of the state of the family up to and incuding Pamela's telephone call at 10:00pm the following evening. On the Monday Jean Boutell stayed until 3:30pm. The twins were settled in the kitchen, reading Little Red Hen, with Nevill and June. June, Sheila and the children went to the Osea Road shop late in the afternoon, as evidenced by Stuart Sinclair's statement, again nothing amiss. In the early evening Sheila and the twins waved to Philip Wilson, who was driving the tractor down Pages Lane. Is this when Nicholas expressed a wish to climb up onto a tractor, a wish which his mother granted the following day and the incident where details are scant and which Uncle Jeremy is so reticent about?
I don't see the relevance of all this. It seems to me you want it both ways. You want to be able to talk up Sheila's abilities when it suits, then in the next breath you want to tell us she was a zombie. Likewise, you want to minimise Julie Mugford's criminality while giantising every tiny discernible character fault of Jeremy Bamber.
Your problem is simply this: you're biased.
Regine Pargeter telephoned the Farm that same evening. Sheila had bathed the boys and put them to bed. Sheila then telephoned her friend Yvonne and arranged to meet her at 10:30am on the Wednesday. Hardly the actions of a woman contemplating suicide.
None of this tells me she could not have committed suicide. In evidence for the defence, a very eminent psychiatrist posited that Sheila had ritually cleansed herself prior to committing suicide. Sheila's own psychiatrist stated (words to the effect) that the actions of a schizophrenic cannot be rationally understood.
You once again dish the dirt on Julie, not differing much in your approach from Jackie in this regard. Julie's crimes were spur of the moment, white collar, which are crimes yes, but never to be placed in the same category as violence, terrorism or murder. She was hounded out of her job as Primary Teacher due to unscruplous Press behaviour and got tabloid journalists off her back by selling her story to the highest bidder, which happened to be the News of the World.
Here you concede that everything I say is true. Yet you continue with your stubborn insistence that Julie's crime was 'spur-of-the-moment'. It may be narrowly true that it was a spontaneous crime spree, but you know well enough that the offences were part of a pattern of behaviour and not isolated. My point is vindicated and no more need be said.
Had Jeremy got off he was in line for a substantial payment from The Sun newspaper.
That is immaterial. Jeremy was the defendant and so could give evidence in his own defence while also arranging deals with newspapers without it impugning the trial. Julie's position was not the same because she was a prosecution witness, and so any such deal could bring her evidence into question. It would be more honest of you and other guilters if you could acknowledge this point, which is only a statement of how the law works.
I do agree with guilters that, if Jeremy did have a similar deal, it was perhaps tasteless of him, but we don't know what Jeremy planned to say. Did Jeremy intend to pose in his swimming trunks with a gaggle of attractive ladies? At any rate, there is no legal significance in it, whereas in the case of Julie there is.
Julie did not mislead the court, as you've parroted from the Matthew Steeples video.
No, I have not parroted it from the Matthew Steeples video. I have mentioned it myself on this very Forum a number of times in threads and posts that pre-date that video. I have discussed it at length in threads with NGB1066 and Adam. I have no need for Matthew Steeples. I beat him to it. She clearly did mislead the court. The evidence now available to support this seems credible. She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record. Sorry but these are facts. Like it or not.
It seems to me you two have a lot in common and exist symbiotically, Matthew having the superficiality of a little more class and breeding, but after the spadework has been completed often like yourself arriving at the most erroneous of conclusions.
You have now got a bee in your bonnet about Matthew Steeples, and you seem to want to link me to him, when I have already made clear that I do not rate Matthew Steeples very highly as a journalist and I think his case knowledge is poor. I would never rely on anything he said.
In fact, I have done my own spadework on this case. I had been reading about this case for years prior to joining this Forum and I have read every thread on this Forum and downloaded all Mike's documents and read those.
That's spadework! I have also contributed my own ideas and theories on the case - some of which are original (as even Adam has conceded once or twice). I could write a book on the case myself.
I don't need Matthew Steeples, thank you. I am brighter than he is and I am offended that you think I should need him. Until maybe two or so months ago, I had not even heard of him. I am the diametric opposite of Matthew Steeples. I actually do the spadework and when, as in this case, neutrality is warranted for the sake of intellectual integrity, I maintain my neutrality and jealousy guard it.
-
Not when you include this document into the equation also.
(https://i.ibb.co/WH7gM6t/op1a.jpg)
Sorry but I don't see how that helps. The lady operator giving that statement admits that she does not have personal knowledge of what happened on the line. She says the police were still monitoring the line when she went off-duty at 8.00 a.m., but she was not monitoring the line, so we don't know if they actually were or what 'monitoring the line' is supposed to mean.
-
Not an argument.
In fact, I have low regard for Matthew Steeples' journalism and have been critical of him on here. You must not have seen that. (Note: I have no view on Mr Steeples as a person. I don't know him and any criticism I make of him is not personal to him and is not intended to offend him).
This doesn't tell me what evidence you have that Jeremy moved any of the phones.
Again, this does not answer my question. I imply from this that Douglas Pike only formed a momentary impression of Sheila and the boys, which means that his evidence is of little or no value to us.
I don't see the relevance of all this. It seems to me you want it both ways. You want to be able to talk up Sheila's abilities when it suits, then in the next breath you want to tell us she was a zombie. Likewise, you want to minimise Julie Mugford's criminality while giantising every tiny discernible character fault of Jeremy Bamber.
Your problem is simply this: you're biased.
None of this tells me she could not have committed suicide. In evidence for the defence, a very eminent psychiatrist posited that Sheila had ritually cleansed herself prior to committing suicide. Sheila's own psychiatrist stated (words to the effect) that the actions of a schizophrenic cannot be rationally understood.
Here you concede that everything I say is true. Yet you continue with your stubborn insistence that Julie's crime was 'spur-of-the-moment'. It may be narrowly true that it was a spontaneous crime spree, but you know well enough that the offences were part of a pattern of behaviour and not isolated. My point is vindicated and no more need be said.
That is immaterial. Jeremy was the defendant and so could give evidence in his own defence while also arranging deals with newspapers without it impugning the trial. Julie's position was not the same because she was a prosecution witness, and so any such deal could bring her evidence into question. It would be more honest of you and other guilters if you could acknowledge this point, which is only a statement of how the law works.
I do agree with guilters that, if Jeremy did have a similar deal, it was perhaps tasteless of him, but we don't know what Jeremy planned to say. Did Jeremy intend to pose in his swimming trunks with a gaggle of attractive ladies? At any rate, there is no legal significance in it, whereas in the case of Julie there is.
No, I have not parroted it from the Matthew Steeples video. I have mentioned it myself on this very Forum a number of times in threads and posts that pre-date that video. I have discussed it at length in threads with NGB1066 and Adam. I have no need for Matthew Steeples. I beat him to it. She clearly did mislead the court. The evidence now available to support this seems credible. She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record. Sorry but these are facts. Like it or not.
You have now got a bee in your bonnet about Matthew Steeples, and you seem to want to link me to him, when I have already made clear that I do not rate Matthew Steeples very highly as a journalist and I think his case knowledge is poor. I would never rely on anything he said.
In fact, I have done my own spadework on this case. I had been reading about this case for years prior to joining this Forum and I have read every thread on this Forum and downloaded all Mike's documents and read those.
That's spadework! I have also contributed my own ideas and theories on the case - some of which are original (as even Adam has conceded once or twice). I could write a book on the case myself.
I don't need Matthew Steeples, thank you. I am brighter than he is and I am offended that you think I should need him. Until maybe two or so months ago, I had not even heard of him. I am the diametric opposite of Matthew Steeples. I actually do the spadework and when, as in this case, neutrality is warranted for the sake of intellectual integrity, I maintain my neutrality and jealousy guard it.
Although you still think Jeremy may be guilty I would love to read your book
-
I don't need to giantize Bamber's faults. He stole money from the family business, sold cannabis on the side, killed five members of his adopted family, laughed about it behind closed doors, refused to allow devout June to be buried as she would have wished, attempted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister and a whole load of other family heirlooms, shoved the twins' possessions into a binbag for Colin to collect and went on foreign jaunts with the blood money.
He is a thoroughly evil human being.
-
I don't need to giantize Bamber's faults. He stole money from the family business, sold cannabis on the side, killed five members of his adopted family, laughed about it behind closed doors, refused to allow devout June to be buried as she would have wished, attempted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister and a whole load of other family heirlooms, shoved the twins' possessions into a binbag for Colin to collect and went on foreign jaunts with the blood money.
He is a thoroughly evil human being.
Are you sure about all these?
(i). He did steal money from the family business. You are right about that. But he did it once and you did say we should ignore things that people do once, so let us be consistent and call it a - what was that phrase you were using earlier? - 'spur-of-the-moment' 'white collar crime spree'. Let's also remember that, when confronted about it, he admitted it. He didn't have to come clean. He could have just remained silent or even brazened it out and put them to proof. Since he is supposed to be guilty, what would he have had to lose? Where I do agree with guilters about this is that the whole excuse he gave at the time, and maintains now, that he was checking security arrangements is just spurious. Clearly he robbed the site for the money. We know he did it for that motive, because he promptly spent the money.
(ii). He did sell cannabis on the side. Not necessarily the worst crime and lots of young men of similar character engage in that kind of minor offending. What is bad about the drugs side of things is that he also trafficked drugs into the country for resale, which tells me he was on his way to getting himself into serious trouble at some point anyway.
(iii). You are correct that he was convicted of killing five members of his family. This whole forum is about whether he actually did it, but at this point in time he stands convicted.
(iv). Jeremy denies laughing about the shootings behind closed doors, but even if he did laugh, it's not a crime and it doesn't mean he committed the killings. People even laugh and joke at funerals sometimes. I'm not sure what we can deduce from it, and it's dangerous to make deductions about odd, erratic or eccentric behaviour because we may be stringing together isolated facts that have no particular significance. Jeremy was somewhat immature. That doesn't mean he was a murderer. He played around with Julie in the back of the car [Q. What does that say about Julie? Nobody asks that], but that may have been a way of relieving tension and/or a reaction to grief. It's not often that your parents' funeral is filmed live in front of the world's media.
(v). Jeremy disputes what you say about June's funeral arrangements. He says that, as June was murdered, it was appropriate that she should be cremated and this was in line with June's Christian beliefs.
(vi). The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased. I see no reason to believe the journalist. It may also be that there is no reason to believe Jeremy, but the two cancel each other out. I can't remember what Brett Collins, who was supposed to be there, has to say about it all, but I'm equally reluctant to believe a word he says - which probably explains why I've forgotten. If Brett Collins told me the time of day, I'd have to ring up the Greenwich Meridian to double-check. There are also one or two chronological holes in the story. For instance, it's said that Jeremy would have had nothing to sell, as the negatives had been taken by Colin. Colin may contradict this, but then, Colin has every reason to be biased. Moreover, Colin wrote a book about how robins solve murders and Betty Shine revealed his destiny, so I'm not sure what credence can be put on things he says.
(vii). Jeremy sold family heirlooms because that is what he was entitled to do, and supposed to do. Unless you're suggesting that he should have maintained The White House as it was, as if his parents were still living there? Like a museum? That is rather ridiculous. Maybe he did act with some insensitivity, but he was adopted, so would not have had the same emotional connection to the heirlooms as a blood son would have had. I suppose you blame him for that too? He would also have had bills to pay and, if he is innocent, he would have been grieving amidst it all. I also find it doubtful that he murdered five people just so that he could sell some antiques.
(viii). If it is true that Jeremy cleared out the twins' possessions and put them in bin bags, that was insensitive, but I'm not sure what can be read into it. People can be insensitive. Jeremy was an arrogant young man - that is not disputed by most people. I feel sorry for Colin in that situation because he must have felt that he had suffered loss upon loss and that he had lost a tangible connection with his sons that he wanted to say Goodbye to, in one final poignant moment. That's horrible, but it doesn't make Jeremy 'evil' or a murderer.
(ix). Jeremy went on holiday. People go on holiday. You call that 'foreign jaunts with the blood money'. Are you saying when a relative dies, there is a fixed period during which somebody should not go on holiday or take any sort of restful break? When do you suggest he should have stopped publicly grieving? And from memory, didn't Colin go on holiday and also buy himself a new car during this period? Or am I mistaken? Not that this, even if true, would excuse Jeremy if he was unpardonably insensitive, but why are you insisting on precise adherence to careful, neo-Victorian social mores from Jeremy and not others? Did the Eatons go on holiday that year? Maybe we should check with everybody? What if Stan and Taff went off on a lads' drinking blag to Ibiza? How would that look?
This may be an opportune moment to mention again what happened immediately after the trial:
1. The entire CID capacity of Essex Police repaired to a nearby hotel for an orgiastic, sweaty, mayhemic bender in which, to the man, they got themselves snozzled on cheap acidic ale, in the company of one Kelvin MacKenzie, and quite possibly, a certain David Boutflour. Not only that, one member of this Forum who claimed to be in know - and I stress, as matters stand, this claim is unproven - told us that this Kelvin MacKenzie told the following to anybody who could hear him above the deafening music: "We know the little sh*t is innocent".
2. A certain student teacher by the name Julie Mugford was posing for racy snaps in her lingerie for a scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper. Not just any scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper, but the worst of the worst of the worst. The very scum that decades later hacked the phones of the families of murder victims.
Think on that. Think on.
-
Are you sure about all these?
(i). He did steal money from the family business. You are right about that. But he did it once and you did say we should ignore things that people do once, so let us be consistent and call it a - what was that phrase you were using earlier? - 'spur-of-the-moment' 'white collar crime spree'. Let's also remember that, when confronted about it, he admitted it. He didn't have to come clean. He could have just remained silent or even brazened it out and put them to proof. Since he is supposed to be guilty, what would he have had to lose? Where I do agree with guilters about this is that the whole excuse he gave at the time, and maintains now, that he was checking security arrangements is just spurious. Clearly he robbed the site for the money. We know he did it for that motive, because he promptly spent the money.
(ii). He did sell cannabis on the site. Not necessarily the worst crime and lots of young men of similar character engage in that kind of minor offending. What is bad about the drugs side of things is that he also trafficked drugs into the country for resale, which tells me he was on his way to getting himself into serious trouble at some point anyway.
(iii). You are correct that he was convicted of killing five members of his family. This whole forum is about whether he actually did it, but at this point in time he stands convicted.
(iv). Jeremy denies laughing about the shootings behind closed doors, but even if he did laugh, it's not a crime and it doesn't mean he committed the killings. People even laugh and joke at funerals sometimes. I'm not sure what we can deduce from it, and it's dangerous to make deductions about odd, erratic or eccentric behaviour because we may be stringing together isolated facts that have no particular significance. Jeremy was somewhat immature. That doesn't mean he was a murderer. He played around with Julie in the back of the car [Q. What does that say about Julie? Nobody asks that], but that may have been a way of relieving tension and/or a reaction to grief. It's not often that your parents' funeral is filmed live in front of the world's media.
(v). Jeremy disputes what you say about June's funeral arrangements. He says that, as June was murdered, it was appropriate that she should be cremated and this was in line with June's Christian beliefs.
(vi). The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased. I see no reason to believe the journalist. It may also be that there is no reason to believe Jeremy, but the two cancel each other out. I can't remember what Brett Collins, who was supposed to be there, has to say about it all, but I'm equally reluctant to believe a word he says - which probably explains why I've forgotten. If Brett Collins told me the time of day, I'd have to ring up the Greenwich Meridian to double-check. There are also one or two chronological holes in the story. For instance, it's said that Jeremy would have had nothing to sell, as the negatives had been taken by Colin. Colin may contradict this, but then, Colin has every reason to be biased. Moreover, Colin wrote a book about how robins solve murders and Betty Shine revealed his destiny, so I'm not sure what credence can be put on things he says.
(vii). Jeremy sold family heirlooms because that is what he was entitled to do, and supposed to do. Unless you're suggesting that he should have maintained The White House as it was, as if his parents were still living there? Like a museum? That is rather ridiculous. Maybe he did act with some insensitivity, but he was adopted, so would not have had the same emotional connection to the heirlooms as a blood son would have had. I suppose you blame him for that too? He would also have had bills to pay and, if he is innocent, he would have been grieving amidst it all. I also find it doubtful that he murdered five people just so that he could sell some antiques.
(viii). If it is true that Jeremy cleared out the twins' possessions and put them in bin bags, that was insensitive, but I'm not sure what can be read into it. People can be insensitive. Jeremy was an arrogant young man - that is not disputed by most people. I feel sorry for Colin in that situation because he must have felt that he had suffered loss upon loss and that he had lost a tangible connection with his sons that he wanted to say Goodbye to, in one final poignant moment. That's horrible, but it doesn't make Jeremy 'evil' or a murderer.
(ix). Jeremy went on holiday. People go on holiday. You call that 'foreign jaunts with the blood money'. Are you saying when a relative dies, there is a fixed period during which somebody should not go on holiday or take any sort of restful break? When do you suggest he should have stopped publicly grieving? And from memory, didn't Colin go on holiday and also buy himself a new car during this period? Or am I mistaken? Not that this, even if true, would excuse Jeremy if he was unpardonably insensitive, but why are you insisting on precise adherence to careful, neo-Victorian social mores from Jeremy and not everybody else? Did the Eatons go on holiday that year? Maybe we should check with everybody? What if Stan and Taff went off on a lads' drinking blag to Ibiza? How would that look?
This may be an opportune moment to mention again what happened immediately after the trial:
1. The entire CID capacity of Essex Police repaired to a nearby hotel for an orgiastic, mayhemic bender in which, to the man, they got themselves snozzled on cheap acidic ale, in the company of one Kelvin MacKenzie, and quite possibly, a certain David Boutflour. Not only that, one member of this Forum who claimed to be in know - and I stress, as matters stand, this claim is unproven - told us that this Kelvin MacKenzie told this to anybody who could hear him above the deafening music: "We know the little sh*t is innocent".
2. A certain student teacher by the name Julie Mugford was posing for racy snaps in her lingerie for a scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper. Not just any scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper, but the worst of the worst of the worst. The very scum that decades later hacked the phones of the families of murder victims.
Think on that. Think on.
The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased.
----------
Have you got some examples?
-
Bamber offerred The Sun his life story & photos.
Maybe he didn't have any photos, but felt it would get the journalist interested & give him more chance of clinching a deal.
Suspect Bamber found some worthwhile things when him & Brett took over Sheila's flat.
-
I don't need to giantize Bamber's faults. He stole money from the family business, sold cannabis on the side, killed five members of his adopted family, laughed about it behind closed doors, refused to allow devout June to be buried as she would have wished, attempted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister and a whole load of other family heirlooms, shoved the twins' possessions into a binbag for Colin to collect and went on foreign jaunts with the blood money.
He is a thoroughly evil human being.
Can your posts be anymore embarrassing??? You have never posted on this forum from a neutral position and your defence of Mugford is mind blowing. If Mugford were telling the truth it would make her a hundred times worse than Maxine Carr and she should have been prevented from ever working with children. If it is shown she lied she will go down as one of the most wicked women ever to stand in a witness box
Her actions either way are vile
Let’s release every witness statement the women ever made, let’s know her ‘truth’ step by step and then watch the shit hit the fan.
-
Can your posts be anymore embarrassing??? You have never posted on this forum from a neutral position and your defence of Mugford is mind blowing. If Mugford were telling the truth it would make her a hundred times worse than Maxine Carr and she should have been prevented from ever working with children. If it is shown she lied she will go down as one of the most wicked women ever to stand in a witness box
Her actions either way are vile
Let’s release every witness statement the women ever made, let’s know her ‘truth’ step by step and then watch the shit hit the fan.
This is why EP are in between a rock and a hard place Jackie, if EP release everything they have it may not prove JB is 100% innocent but it would show a lot of people JM and certain police officers and others were corrupt and dishonest and gave misleading evidence and worse.
-
This is why EP are in between a rock and a hard place Jackie, if EP release everything they have it may not prove JB is 100% innocent but it would show a lot of people JM and certain police officers and others were corrupt and dishonest and gave misleading evidence and worse.
If apparant unreleased material shows Bamber is 100% innocent, does that mean all the released material showing he is guilty, was fabricated by the police & experts?
The police really were determined.
-
Can your posts be anymore embarrassing??? You have never posted on this forum from a neutral position and your defence of Mugford is mind blowing. If Mugford were telling the truth it would make her a hundred times worse than Maxine Carr and she should have been prevented from ever working with children. If it is shown she lied she will go down as one of the most wicked women ever to stand in a witness box
Her actions either way are vile
Let’s release every witness statement the women ever made, let’s know her ‘truth’ step by step and then watch the shit hit the fan.
Maxine Carr gave Ian Huntley an alibi. I'm surprised as a woman you're so harsh on Maxine Carr anyway: she was used and abused by Huntley and I would have thought as a woman you would have known that.
-
Not an argument.
In fact, I have low regard for Matthew Steeples' journalism and have been critical of him on here. You must not have seen that. (Note: I have no view on Mr Steeples as a person. I don't know him and any criticism I make of him is not personal to him and is not intended to offend him).
This doesn't tell me what evidence you have that Jeremy moved any of the phones.
Again, this does not answer my question. I imply from this that Douglas Pike only formed a momentary impression of Sheila and the boys, which means that his evidence is of little or no value to us.
I don't see the relevance of all this. It seems to me you want it both ways. You want to be able to talk up Sheila's abilities when it suits, then in the next breath you want to tell us she was a zombie. Likewise, you want to minimise Julie Mugford's criminality while giantising every tiny discernible character fault of Jeremy Bamber.
Your problem is simply this: you're biased.
None of this tells me she could not have committed suicide. In evidence for the defence, a very eminent psychiatrist posited that Sheila had ritually cleansed herself prior to committing suicide. Sheila's own psychiatrist stated (words to the effect) that the actions of a schizophrenic cannot be rationally understood.
Here you concede that everything I say is true. Yet you continue with your stubborn insistence that Julie's crime was 'spur-of-the-moment'. It may be narrowly true that it was a spontaneous crime spree, but you know well enough that the offences were part of a pattern of behaviour and not isolated. My point is vindicated and no more need be said.
That is immaterial. Jeremy was the defendant and so could give evidence in his own defence while also arranging deals with newspapers without it impugning the trial. Julie's position was not the same because she was a prosecution witness, and so any such deal could bring her evidence into question. It would be more honest of you and other guilters if you could acknowledge this point, which is only a statement of how the law works.
I do agree with guilters that, if Jeremy did have a similar deal, it was perhaps tasteless of him, but we don't know what Jeremy planned to say. Did Jeremy intend to pose in his swimming trunks with a gaggle of attractive ladies? At any rate, there is no legal significance in it, whereas in the case of Julie there is.
No, I have not parroted it from the Matthew Steeples video. I have mentioned it myself on this very Forum a number of times in threads and posts that pre-date that video. I have discussed it at length in threads with NGB1066 and Adam. I have no need for Matthew Steeples. I beat him to it. She clearly did mislead the court. The evidence now available to support this seems credible. She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record. Sorry but these are facts. Like it or not.
You have now got a bee in your bonnet about Matthew Steeples, and you seem to want to link me to him, when I have already made clear that I do not rate Matthew Steeples very highly as a journalist and I think his case knowledge is poor. I would never rely on anything he said.
In fact, I have done my own spadework on this case. I had been reading about this case for years prior to joining this Forum and I have read every thread on this Forum and downloaded all Mike's documents and read those.
That's spadework! I have also contributed my own ideas and theories on the case - some of which are original (as even Adam has conceded once or twice). I could write a book on the case myself.
I don't need Matthew Steeples, thank you. I am brighter than he is and I am offended that you think I should need him. Until maybe two or so months ago, I had not even heard of him. I am the diametric opposite of Matthew Steeples. I actually do the spadework and when, as in this case, neutrality is warranted for the sake of intellectual integrity, I maintain my neutrality and jealousy guard it.
If you have such a low opinion of Matthew Steeples it is curious that you post a lengthy video the subject of which is his take on the Bamber crimes. In parts its contentis as erroneous as some of your posts and similarly adds nothing to the sum of our knowledge. Douglas Pike's evidence confirms the view of those akin to myself: that Jeremy hated any harmonious domestic scene and as with the adoption discussion which he initiated would do anything to unsettle. And what do you mean we don't know what Jeremy planned to say? Do you think he was going to admit his guilt with a £50000 cheque from The Sun newspaper paid into his bank account?
-
Are you sure about all these?
(i). He did steal money from the family business. You are right about that. But he did it once and you did say we should ignore things that people do once, so let us be consistent and call it a - what was that phrase you were using earlier? - 'spur-of-the-moment' 'white collar crime spree'. Let's also remember that, when confronted about it, he admitted it. He didn't have to come clean. He could have just remained silent or even brazened it out and put them to proof. Since he is supposed to be guilty, what would he have had to lose? Where I do agree with guilters about this is that the whole excuse he gave at the time, and maintains now, that he was checking security arrangements is just spurious. Clearly he robbed the site for the money. We know he did it for that motive, because he promptly spent the money.
(ii). He did sell cannabis on the site. Not necessarily the worst crime and lots of young men of similar character engage in that kind of minor offending. What is bad about the drugs side of things is that he also trafficked drugs into the country for resale, which tells me he was on his way to getting himself into serious trouble at some point anyway.
(iii). You are correct that he was convicted of killing five members of his family. This whole forum is about whether he actually did it, but at this point in time he stands convicted.
(iv). Jeremy denies laughing about the shootings behind closed doors, but even if he did laugh, it's not a crime and it doesn't mean he committed the killings. People even laugh and joke at funerals sometimes. I'm not sure what we can deduce from it, and it's dangerous to make deductions about odd, erratic or eccentric behaviour because we may be stringing together isolated facts that have no particular significance. Jeremy was somewhat immature. That doesn't mean he was a murderer. He played around with Julie in the back of the car [Q. What does that say about Julie? Nobody asks that], but that may have been a way of relieving tension and/or a reaction to grief. It's not often that your parents' funeral is filmed live in front of the world's media.
(v). Jeremy disputes what you say about June's funeral arrangements. He says that, as June was murdered, it was appropriate that she should be cremated and this was in line with June's Christian beliefs.
(vi). The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased. I see no reason to believe the journalist. It may also be that there is no reason to believe Jeremy, but the two cancel each other out. I can't remember what Brett Collins, who was supposed to be there, has to say about it all, but I'm equally reluctant to believe a word he says - which probably explains why I've forgotten. If Brett Collins told me the time of day, I'd have to ring up the Greenwich Meridian to double-check. There are also one or two chronological holes in the story. For instance, it's said that Jeremy would have had nothing to sell, as the negatives had been taken by Colin. Colin may contradict this, but then, Colin has every reason to be biased. Moreover, Colin wrote a book about how robins solve murders and Betty Shine revealed his destiny, so I'm not sure what credence can be put on things he says.
(vii). Jeremy sold family heirlooms because that is what he was entitled to do, and supposed to do. Unless you're suggesting that he should have maintained The White House as it was, as if his parents were still living there? Like a museum? That is rather ridiculous. Maybe he did act with some insensitivity, but he was adopted, so would not have had the same emotional connection to the heirlooms as a blood son would have had. I suppose you blame him for that too? He would also have had bills to pay and, if he is innocent, he would have been grieving amidst it all. I also find it doubtful that he murdered five people just so that he could sell some antiques.
(viii). If it is true that Jeremy cleared out the twins' possessions and put them in bin bags, that was insensitive, but I'm not sure what can be read into it. People can be insensitive. Jeremy was an arrogant young man - that is not disputed by most people. I feel sorry for Colin in that situation because he must have felt that he had suffered loss upon loss and that he had lost a tangible connection with his sons that he wanted to say Goodbye to, in one final poignant moment. That's horrible, but it doesn't make Jeremy 'evil' or a murderer.
(ix). Jeremy went on holiday. People go on holiday. You call that 'foreign jaunts with the blood money'. Are you saying when a relative dies, there is a fixed period during which somebody should not go on holiday or take any sort of restful break? When do you suggest he should have stopped publicly grieving? And from memory, didn't Colin go on holiday and also buy himself a new car during this period? Or am I mistaken? Not that this, even if true, would excuse Jeremy if he was unpardonably insensitive, but why are you insisting on precise adherence to careful, neo-Victorian social mores from Jeremy and not others? Did the Eatons go on holiday that year? Maybe we should check with everybody? What if Stan and Taff went off on a lads' drinking blag to Ibiza? How would that look?
This may be an opportune moment to mention again what happened immediately after the trial:
1. The entire CID capacity of Essex Police repaired to a nearby hotel for an orgiastic, sweaty, mayhemic bender in which, to the man, they got themselves snozzled on cheap acidic ale, in the company of one Kelvin MacKenzie, and quite possibly, a certain David Boutflour. Not only that, one member of this Forum who claimed to be in know - and I stress, as matters stand, this claim is unproven - told us that this Kelvin MacKenzie told the following to anybody who could hear him above the deafening music: "We know the little sh*t is innocent".
2. A certain student teacher by the name Julie Mugford was posing for racy snaps in her lingerie for a scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper. Not just any scummy two-bit tabloid newspaper, but the worst of the worst of the worst. The very scum that decades later hacked the phones of the families of murder victims.
Think on that. Think on.
Yes I'm quite sure thank you. I'm glad you accept my first three points, but sooner or later in your posts you do start to make excuses for a convicted mass murderer. As far as the funeral at St Nicholas' Parish Church is concerned it's true that there is no specific prohibition on cremation in either the Church of England or Roman Catholicism but it was June's wish to be buried, and her son failed to carry out that wish. I will leave members to speculate as I do whether there was a subterfuge in Bamber's actions: namely he was frightened his parents' bodies would be dug up at a future date for forensic analysis.
The Bamberettes have to deny the accused attmepted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister. It's quite clear not just from Fielder's evidence but corroborated by Colin that he attempted to do so. By the way: you have confused the photographs Bamber discovered of Sheila with the ones Colin took at White House Farm several years previously and which June confiscated, keeping them locked in her bureau in her mind for safe keeping.
One further point: the heirlooms weren't his until probate had been granted. As it turned out subsequently they weren't his then either.
-
Yes I'm quite sure thank you. I'm glad you accept my first three points, but sooner or later in your posts you do start to make excuses for a convicted mass murderer. As far as the funeral at St Nicholas' Parish Church is concerned it's true that there is no specific prohibition on cremation in either the Church of England or Roman Catholicism but it was June's wish to be buried, and her son failed to carry out that wish. I will leave members to speculate as I do whether there was a subterfuge in Bamber's actions: namely he was frightened his parents' bodies would be dug up at a future date for forensic analysis.
The Bamberettes have to deny the accused attmepted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister. It's quite clear not just from Fielder's evidence but corroborated by Colin that he attempted to do so. By the way: you have confused the photographs Bamber discovered of Sheila with the ones Colin took at White House Farm several years previously and which June confiscated, keeping them locked in her bureau in her mind for safe keeping.
One further point: the heirlooms weren't his until probate had been granted. As it turned out subsequently they weren't his then either.
Who the fuck is a bamberette ? You absolute waste of space
It’s time you started explaining yourself and enlightening us on your obsession with Mugford
-
This is why EP are in between a rock and a hard place Jackie, if EP release everything they have it may not prove JB is 100% innocent but it would show a lot of people JM and certain police officers and others were corrupt and dishonest and gave misleading evidence and worse.
I know Roch. I still have great faith that there will be a really good book followed by a lengthy series where the facts are laid out in minute detail. The public deserve to hear the truth. Personally I have always believed Mugford is the key to the conviction being unsafe. There will be documents that will show her own part in this. Followed by the silencer evidence and corruption by the police involved.
Throw Priti Patel in the mix and you have a blockbuster waiting to happen
The biggest mystery is how these people sleep at nigh
-
Who the fuck is a bamberette ? You absolute waste of space
It’s time you started explaining yourself and enlightening us on your obsession with Mugford
'obsession with Mugford'
----------
Pot calling kettle black.
-
Who the fuck is a bamberette ? You absolute waste of space
It’s time you started explaining yourself and enlightening us on your obsession with Mugford
It's shorthand really, for a supporter of Jeremy Bamber.
The profanity does you a disservice. Men don't respect ladies who swear.
-
If you have such a low opinion of Matthew Steeples it is curious that you post a lengthy video the subject of which is his take on the Bamber crimes. In parts its contentis as erroneous as some of your posts and similarly adds nothing to the sum of our knowledge. Douglas Pike's evidence confirms the view of those akin to myself: that Jeremy hated any harmonious domestic scene and as with the adoption discussion which he initiated would do anything to unsettle. And what do you mean we don't know what Jeremy planned to say? Do you think he was going to admit his guilt with a £50000 cheque from The Sun newspaper paid into his bank account?
What are you talking about? I posted the video in a thread called "A thread for Shaun Attwood podcasts". I didn't post it because it had Matthew Steeples in it. This was explained in the thread itself. Do you actually even read what people say?
Furthermore, just because I post a video in which a particular person speaks, it doesn't follow that I endorse what that person says. If that was your assumption, then I really don't know what to say. The only thing I could say about it is something quite insulting about your intelligence, which would probably earn me another questionable ban. Then again, since you spend most of your time on here insulting our intelligence, you could argue that there would be nothing in it.
You say that some of my posts are erroneous. I'm sure they are, but whenever you try to correct me, you fail, so wherever these erroneous posts of mine are, they seem curiously difficult to find - which suggests at least some of them exist in your head. I'm doing better than you anyway, because most of what you post on here is erroneous.
We do not know what Jeremy planned to tell a newspaper, assuming he did have a deal with them. That is true, isn't it. Since what I say is self-evidently true, I'm not clear what your bone of contention is.
Thus, I'm also not clear why you're not sure what I mean when I say we don't know. As usual, it's not clear what you're babbling about. Unless you share Betty Shine's talent and you can channel to Jeremy through the fourth dimension and tell us? If so, we're all on tenterhooks.
You say that Douglas Pike's evidence confirms Jeremy's hatred of domestic harmony. It does nothing of the kind. That's arrant, illogical nonsense. You simply do not know what you are talking about and I am having difficulty taking you seriously. My interventions in these threads are for the purpose of correcting you, and I must say, given your arrogance and rudeness, I am taking great pleasure in ripping your posts to shreds.
-
Yes I'm quite sure thank you. I'm glad you accept my first three points, but sooner or later in your posts you do start to make excuses for a convicted mass murderer.
To me, this sentence sums up perfectly the way your mind works and how you think. In your narrow, tiny mind, you think that because I defend Jeremy on one point, even if on a factual or rational basis, that must mean I am also defending the very worst thing he could have done. You don't exactly phrase it like this. Instead, you put it more carefully: as me defending him on something, therefore I am defending a convicted mass murderer. The care with which you put it implies disingenuousness. It's like suggesting that if I point out that something factual put about concerning, say, Ian Huntley, is incorrect or could be misconceived, that means I am defending a convicted child killer.
That's how disingenuous you are. You can't say I am defending child killing or excusing a child killer, because you know I haven't done that and never would. Instead, you're dishonestly trying to associate me with the stain of a convicted mass murderer because I respect facts and fairness. It's scummy. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a tabloid or housewives on Mail Online or Mumsnet, or from inferior IQ morons on something like Facebook.
As far as the funeral at St Nicholas' Parish Church is concerned it's true that there is no specific prohibition on cremation in either the Church of England or Roman Catholicism but it was June's wish to be buried, and her son failed to carry out that wish. I will leave members to speculate as I do whether there was a subterfuge in Bamber's actions: namely he was frightened his parents' bodies would be dug up at a future date for forensic analysis.
Essex Police recommended a verdict to the coroner, who then released the bodies to Jeremy. Sheila and the boys were buried, not cremated. In the case of Nevill and June, since you concede that my rationalisation of Jeremy's actions is plausible, we're left to speculate as to whether, as you say, there was some ulterior motive for it. I don't know.
The Bamberettes have to deny the accused attmepted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister. It's quite clear not just from Fielder's evidence but corroborated by Colin that he attempted to do so. By the way: you have confused the photographs Bamber discovered of Sheila with the ones Colin took at White House Farm several years previously and which June confiscated, keeping them locked in her bureau in her mind for safe keeping.
I'm not denying that he attempted to sell such photographs. I am expressing scepticism about it. I do not believe the say-so of this Fielder can be relied on at all, and what Colin says has to be treated with caution. It is all the word of Fielder and Colin. There is no hard proof. One thing I have asked myself is why Fielder did not go ahead with the transaction in order to establish his newspaper's story. Instead, the entire story rests on Fielder's account of a meeting. And where are these photographs you (i.e. Carol Ann Lee) say were in the bureau? What happened to them? Is it likely that June would retain such photographs, given her conservative moral outlook?
One further point: the heirlooms weren't his until probate had been granted. As it turned out subsequently they weren't his then either.
This not true. In fact, possessions can be sold before probate is granted, and I note that Jeremy kept a record of the transactions, thus he was acting properly and correctly. This must be another of those 'erroneous' points you say I have made that actually turned out not to be erroneous; in fact the error is on your part.
-
What are you talking about? I posted the video in a thread called "A thread for Shaun Attwood podcasts". I didn't post it because it had Matthew Steeples in it. This was explained in the thread itself. Do you actually even read what people say?
Furthermore, just because I post a video in which a particular person speaks, it doesn't follow that I endorse what that person says. If that was your assumption, then I really don't know what to say. The only thing I could say about it is something quite insulting about your intelligence, which would probably earn me another questionable ban. Then again, since you spend most of your time on here insulting our intelligence, you could argue that there would be nothing in it.
You say that some of my posts are erroneous. I'm sure they are, but whenever you try to correct me, you fail, so wherever these erroneous posts of mine are, they seem curiously difficult to find - which suggests at least some of them exist in your head. I'm doing better than you anyway, because most of what you post on here is erroneous.
We do not know what Jeremy planned to tell a newspaper, assuming he did have a deal with them. That is true, isn't it. Since what I say is self-evidently true, I'm not clear what your bone of contention is.
Thus, I'm also not clear why you're not sure what I mean when I say we don't know. As usual, it's not clear what you're babbling about. Unless you share Betty Shine's talent and you can channel to Jeremy through the fourth dimension and tell us? If so, we're all on tenterhooks.
You say that Douglas Pike's evidence confirms Jeremy's hatred of domestic harmony. It does nothing of the kind. That's arrant, illogical nonsense. You simply do not know what you are talking about and I am having difficulty taking you seriously. My interventions in these threads are for the purpose of correcting you, and I must say, given your arrogance and rudeness, I am taking great pleasure in ripping your posts to shreds.
Well I'm sure we're indebted to you for bringing Shaun Attwood to our attention, described on Wikipedia thus:
an English former ecstasy trafficker turned YouTuber,[3] speaker, activist and author.
6.[4] After travelling to Arizona regularly to visit his aunts, Attwood moved there and became involved in the rave scene as an ecstasy smuggler and dealer.[5] He was arrested in 2002, released in 2007 and was deported back to England. Following his release, Attwood became a speaker and author, chronicling his experiences in prison.[2]
Drugs are responsible for so many of the most horrendous crimes. But you give him airtime. Enough said.
-
Well I'm sure we're indebted to you for bringing Shaun Attwood to our attention, described on Wikipedia thus:
an English former ecstasy trafficker turned YouTuber,[3] speaker, activist and author.
6.[4] After travelling to Arizona regularly to visit his aunts, Attwood moved there and became involved in the rave scene as an ecstasy smuggler and dealer.[5] He was arrested in 2002, released in 2007 and was deported back to England. Following his release, Attwood became a speaker and author, chronicling his experiences in prison.[2]
Drugs are responsible for so many of the most horrendous crimes. But you give him airtime. Enough said.
Just more ridiculousness. He is a personality on YouTube. I am not giving him 'airtime'. I am linking to a video that contains a discussion about the case, so is relevant to the Forum.
Moderator: Isn't there a point when this has to stop? This is supposed to be a Forum for adult discussion of the case, not a day-care facility for childish people with mental and personality issues.
-
It's shorthand really, for a supporter of Jeremy Bamber.
The profanity does you a disservice. Men don't respect ladies who swear.
And you and your mate Mugford are pure evil. I bet you get off on the thought of Mugfords visit to the mortuary.
There are no words for people like you. I bet you were a pen pal of Myra Hindley too
You can see the truth but refuse to acknowledge it
Sad person
-
To me, this sentence sums up perfectly the way your mind words and how you think. In your narrow, tiny mind, you think that because I defend Jeremy on one point, even if on a factual or rational basis, that must mean I am also defending the very worst thing he could have done. You don't exactly phrase it like this. Instead, you put it more carefully: as me defending him on something, therefore I am defending a convicted mass murderer. The care with which you put it implies disingenuousness. It's like suggesting that if I point out that something factual put about concerning, say, Ian Huntley, is incorrect or could be misconceived, that means I am defending a convicted child killer.
That's how disingenuous you are. You can't say I am defending child killing or excusing a child killer, because you know I haven't done that and never would. Instead, you're dishonestly trying to associate me with the stain of a convicted mass murderer because I respect facts and fairness. It's scummy. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a tabloid or housewives on Mail Online or Mumsnet, or from inferior IQ morons on something like Facebook.
Essex Police recommended a verdict to the coroner, who then released the bodies to Jeremy. Sheila and the boys were buried, not cremated. In the case of Nevill and June, since you concede that my rationalisation of Jeremy's actions is plausible, we're left to speculate as to whether, as you say, there was some ulterior motive for it. I don't know.
I'm not denying that he attempted to sell such photographs. I am expressing scepticism about it. I do not believe the say-so of this Fielder can be relied on at all, and what Colin says has to be treated with caution. It is all the word of Fielder and Colin. There is no hard proof. One thing I have asked myself is why Fielder did not go ahead with the transaction in order to establish his newspaper's story. Instead, the entire story rests on Fielder's account of a meeting. And where are these photographs you (i.e. Carol Ann Lee) say were in the bureau? What happened to them? Is it likely that June would retain such photographs, given her conservative moral outlook?
This not true. In fact, possessions can be sold before probate is granted, and I note that Jeremy kept a record of the transactions, thus he was acting properly and correctly. This must be another of those 'erroneous' points you say I have made that actually turned out not to be erroneous; in fact the error is on your part.
You see this is you all over. You do strive for some impartiality but your credibility is torn to shreds in the process. Jeremy Bamber is not a predator, but even on a bad day you're 96% certain he's guilty. Don't try to wriggle out of it.
You did deny that Bamber attempted to sell photographs, because you put Michael Fielder and Jeremy Bamber on a par with each other. You always get round to skewing your posts in favour of a mass murderer somehow, don't you?
I'll leave you to do the spadework on the Sheila photographs. I'm sick and tired of figuratively wiping your bottom.
-
Just more ridiculousness. He is a personality on YouTube. I am not giving him 'airtime'. I am linking to a video that contains a discussion about the case, so is relevant to the Forum.
Moderator: Isn't there a point when this has to stop? This is supposed to be a Forum for adult discussion of the case, not a day-care facility for childish people with mental and personality issues.
It adds nothing to our sum of knowledge on the case and is indicative of how your second-rate mind works.
-
What are you talking about? I posted the video in a thread called "A thread for Shaun Attwood podcasts". I didn't post it because it had Matthew Steeples in it. This was explained in the thread itself. Do you actually even read what people say?
Furthermore, just because I post a video in which a particular person speaks, it doesn't follow that I endorse what that person says. If that was your assumption, then I really don't know what to say. The only thing I could say about it is something quite insulting about your intelligence, which would probably earn me another questionable ban. Then again, since you spend most of your time on here insulting our intelligence, you could argue that there would be nothing in it.
You say that some of my posts are erroneous. I'm sure they are, but whenever you try to correct me, you fail, so wherever these erroneous posts of mine are, they seem curiously difficult to find - which suggests at least some of them exist in your head. I'm doing better than you anyway, because most of what you post on here is erroneous.
We do not know what Jeremy planned to tell a newspaper, assuming he did have a deal with them. That is true, isn't it. Since what I say is self-evidently true, I'm not clear what your bone of contention is.
Thus, I'm also not clear why you're not sure what I mean when I say we don't know. As usual, it's not clear what you're babbling about. Unless you share Betty Shine's talent and you can channel to Jeremy through the fourth dimension and tell us? If so, we're all on tenterhooks.
You say that Douglas Pike's evidence confirms Jeremy's hatred of domestic harmony. It does nothing of the kind. That's arrant, illogical nonsense. You simply do not know what you are talking about and I am having difficulty taking you seriously. My interventions in these threads are for the purpose of correcting you, and I must say, given your arrogance and rudeness, I am taking great pleasure in ripping your posts to shreds.
And I’m enjoying reading your posts ripping Steve’s posts to shreads 🥰🥰🥰
-
And I’m enjoying reading your posts ripping Steve’s posts to shreads 🥰🥰🥰
I'm glad you're entertained by an ex-con and a former drug dealer. In fact: two ex-cons.
-
And you and your mate Mugford are pure evil. I bet you get off on the thought of Mugfords visit to the mortuary.
There are no words for people like you. I bet you were a pen pal of Myra Hindley too
You can see the truth but refuse to acknowledge it
Sad person
I can see that Maxine Carr and Julie Mugford were victims of persuasive conmen, both of whom turned to murder.
-
It adds nothing to our sum of knowledge on the case and is indicative of how your second-rate mind works.
Who is this 'our'? People who visit this Forum will have different levels of knowledge on the case, and there will be people here who are new to the case. Goodness knows what they make of these threads and your arrogant and obnoxious attitude, but that aside, the interview of Steeples serves as an introduction from a pro-innocent point-of-view.
I don't necessarily agree with the innocent point-of-view, but I am impartial enough to allow it and consider it. Personally, I think Matthew Steeples' understanding of the case is quite basic, and I have made that clear several times now, including in the past on a different thread.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what else there is to say. I still don't quite understand what point you're trying to get across to us here.
As an aside, if I ever come across a pro-guilt podcast or video or whatever that I think has not been posted here yet, I will post it up, and on several occasions I have already done so.
-
I can see that Maxine Carr and Julie Mugford were victims of persuasive conmen, both of whom turned to murder.
The difference is Maxine Carr never made any requests to view Jessica or Hollies bodies
-
The difference is Maxine Carr never made any requests to view Jessica or Hollies bodies
Maxine Carr did not have that option.
Julie offerred. No one else did. She might as well try to do something helpful after Bamber told her 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.
-
JM didn't have to offer. Why did she anyway ? I never did see the logic in it.
-
JM didn't have to offer. Why did she anyway ? I never did see the logic in it.
Why not offer? No one else did. It's called 'trying to help".
-
The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased.
----------
Have you got some examples?
It looks like I am not going to get a response from QC on this. Which is disappointing as would have been good to know.
-
It seems that according to Bill, the "evidence" that Sheila rang 999 is Stan Jones saying in 2002 he wouldn't want to use the kitchen phone due to the state of the kitchen.
Or maybe the "forces of darkness" are preventing him for revealing more?
The data uncovered is stunning and conclusive; won't be long to wait now. Can't say any more. The forces of darkness are watching.
-
It looks like I am not going to get a response from QC on this. Which is disappointing as would have been good to know.
I'm still in a sulk Adam because you didn't recommend me for the CT.
It's good that I'm still receiving your moral support via the PM system. Appreciate this may require you to give me the 'hard word' now and then, plus the odd ban. It's all character-building.
-
It seems that according to Bill, the "evidence" that Sheila rang 999 is Stan Jones saying in 2002 he wouldn't want to use the kitchen phone due to the state of the kitchen.
Or maybe the "forces of darkness" are preventing him for revealing more?
The phone was covered in blood ::) Until it was wiped for use.
-
The phone was covered in blood ::) Until it was wiped for use.
No, it wasn’t.
-
No, it wasn’t.
On the morning of the tragedies a police officer used the phone in the kitchen after wiping it first.
-
On the morning of the tragedies a police officer used the phone in the kitchen after wiping it first.
No, they didn't.
-
Lookout gets carried away & says things happened or exist that didn't/don't.
Come to think of it, so does Bill, JackieD, Nugs, QC & David.
-
Lookout gets carried away & says things happened or exist that didn't/don't.
Come to think of it, so does Bill, JackieD, Nugs, QC & David.
Come to think of it, so do you Adam. Such as but not limited to - The Confession Countdown and Bamber shooting Sheila in her bed then carrying her like the "groom carries the bride" to the main bedroom before changing her bedsheets.
-
Come to think of it, so do you Adam. Such as but not limited to - The Confession Countdown and Bamber shooting Sheila in her bed then carrying her like the "groom carries the bride" to the main bedroom before changing her bedsheets.
The Confession Countdown thread was for a laugh. He will never confess as he likes the attention. .
It is possible Bamber carried Sheila a few feet into the main bedroom. She would not be too heavy.
-
https://youtu.be/et9fRwQzLb0
-
The Confession Countdown thread was for a laugh. He will never confess as he likes the attention. .
It is possible Bamber carried Sheila a few feet into the main bedroom. She would not be too heavy.
No, you took Paul Harrison's claims hook, line and sinker. Then anticipated Bamber would confess after Paul Harrisons book was published. You only say its a laugh now because otherwise it makes you look stupid.
As for the idea of Bamber carrying Sheila, I will let people make up their own minds
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7201.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7201.0.html)
-
No, you took Paul Harrison's claims hook, line and sinker. Then anticipated Bamber would confess after Paul Harrisons book was published. You only say its a laugh now because otherwise it makes you look stupid.
As for the idea of Bamber carrying Sheila, I will let people make up their own minds
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7201.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7201.0.html)
I know nothing about Paul Harrison's book.
I also don't know about what happened at the meetings with Jeremy's legal team you cycled to.
-
As David is quoting 6 year old threads again.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6697.msg305156.html#msg305156
-
My 3 month old posts are good. David the hardcore guilter.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10618.msg491489.html#msg491489
-
Lookout gets carried away & says things happened or exist that didn't/don't.
Come to think of it, so does Bill, JackieD, Nugs, QC & David.
Thanks Adam. This moral support is crucial. It's this kind of advice and mentoring that I need. Appreciate that you also warned me about magic mushrooms, as they cause me to hallucinate. Last time I took the psilocybin I ended up on Tollesbury Road in my windsurfing gear trying to recreate Jeremy's movements that night. Just as well you turned up. No wonder the CCRC can't take me seriously. Oh well. I need to learn to give the mushrooms a miss!
-
Lookout gets carried away & says things happened or exist that didn't/don't.
Come to think of it, so does Bill, JackieD, Nugs, QC & David.
Lookout doesn't get carried away, just because I have a better memory than yourself I can remember who said what as it was QC who posted last year about the blood on the phone and how an officer wiped it before using. but the incident was neither logged nor recorded so possibly/ probably a rookie cop.
-
Lookout doesn't get carried away, just because I have a better memory than yourself I can remember who said what as it was QC who posted last year about the blood on the phone and how an officer wiped it before using. but the incident was neither logged nor recorded so possibly/ probably a rookie cop.
I find it amazing that a officer would even touch a phone at a crime scene? It just shows how certain they were that it was 4 murders and a suicide.
-
Lookout doesn't get carried away, just because I have a better memory than yourself I can remember who said what as it was QC who posted last year about the blood on the phone and how an officer wiped it before using. but the incident was neither logged nor recorded so possibly/ probably a rookie cop.
If it wasn't logged or recorded, how would anyone know?
Hopefully QC will reveal all. Or confirm he didn't say it.
-
I find it amazing that a officer would even touch a phone at a crime scene? It just shows how certain they were that it was 4 murders and a suicide.
Protocols were not as strict as they are now.
The phone was used, but not moved. After photos had been taken. Mobiles didn't exist.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html
A photo of the phone at a crime scene is here.
-
I find it amazing that a officer would even touch a phone at a crime scene? It just shows how certain they were that it was 4 murders and a suicide.
..or it shows how some members have misconstrued information available in the public domain.
-
..or it shows how some members have misconstrued information available in the public domain.
Maybe Steve, but I am sure if the crime scene looked dubious no officer would have used the phone, though in this case perhaps not?
-
Latest podcast from the CT is the statement of Michael Abel, head of Westminster City Council Social Services:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMYZcSi3Jb8
-
Latest podcast from the CT is the statement of Michael Abel, head of Westminster City Council Social Services:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMYZcSi3Jb8
Why would they bother with this stuff when they claim to have documents showing Sheila calling 999 at 6:09am?
We are still waiting for Bill to elaborate on this, so far all that has been forthcoming is a misinterpreted sentence about the state of the kitchen.
JP thinks the CT have cost Jeremy is freedom. I have to say I agree.
-
Why would they bother with this stuff when they claim to have documents showing Sheila calling 999 at 6:09am?
We are still waiting for Bill to elaborate on this, so far all that has been forthcoming is a misinterpreted sentence about the state of the kitchen.
JP thinks the CT have cost Jeremy is freedom. I have to say I agree.
Have you got a source that Bamber thinks the CT has cost him his freedom?
-
Have you got a source that Bamber thinks the CT has cost him his freedom?
JP not JB
I still believe the campaign team making Jeremy distance himself from Neil, Simon and Mark has cost Jeremy his freedom
This case being referred needs public opinion on Jeremy side
Removing the help offered from the people above is unforgivable
-
It’s true David. JB had a criminal barrister, top solicitor and documentary maker on speed dial and the ct were Eaton up with jealousy because they weren’t involved.
It’s all a game of egos playing with someone’s life.
From what I can see there are promises being made that are unlikely to be fulfilled. Time will tell.
Mugfords notes are the key to Jeremys conviction being unsafe
-
It’s true David. JB had a criminal barrister, top solicitor and documentary maker on speed dial and the ct were Eaton up with jealousy because they weren’t involved.
It’s all a game of egos playing with someone’s life.
From what I can see there are promises being made that are unlikely to be fulfilled. Time will tell.
Mugfords notes are the key to Jeremys conviction being unsafe
Draft WS's & interview notes will have been discarded. She was a witness, not the accused.
Bamber's police interviews are online & very damaging to him.
Keep digging.
-
Why would they bother with this stuff when they claim to have documents showing Sheila calling 999 at 6:09am?
The same thought did occur to me. I have no idea what the answer is. They claim to have a new document and this has not yet been seen publicly, so the strength of what they have is unclear. I am not necessarily endorsing the content of what the CT produce. All I am doing here is posting up links to the podcast series and adding my own comments now and then.
-
Later, when I have time, I will post the details of the police documents that prove that Sheila made a 999 call using the cream coloured telephone in the kitchen.
Still waiting.
-
Still waiting.
Perhaps you failed to understand that because you are so rude and disrespectful I changed my mind; there is no point in attempting to debate anything with you.
-
Perhaps you failed to understand that because you are so rude and disrespectful I changed my mind; there is no point in attempting to debate anything with you.
Bill we may have treated you unfairly and if so I apologize on behalf of all members. But we have had so many members down the years claiming to have new evidence in their possession it's only fair that if you do choose to post that you are subject to the same scrutiny as others.
-
Latest podcast from the CT is the statement of Michael Abel, head of Westminster City Council Social Services:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMYZcSi3Jb8
I imagine that further information regarding social services is being withheld on account of confidentiality.
-
I imagine that further information regarding social services is being withheld on account of confidentiality.
I doubt there is anything to withhold. It seems with so many different individuals involved one of them would have blown the whistle by now had there been anything of a sensationalist nature to disclose.
-
Bill we may have treated you unfairly and if so I apologize on behalf of all members. I But we have had so many members down the years claiming to have new evidence in their possession it's only fair that if you do choose to post that you are subject to the same scrutiny as others.
As for information from the campaign team you know full well not everything used to get the case referred to the court of appeal would be put out in the public arena.
Your behaviour once again is unacceptable to question Bill in this way when you fail to accept the notorious pathological liar, bunny boiler Mugford was NOT a credible prosecution witness.
How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself
-
Another distasteful post from you. Wether Bill has a serious illness or not did you get his permission to post such private information. I find that disgusting behaviour. As for information from the campaign team you know full well not everything used to get the case referred to the court of appeal would be put out in the public arena.
Your behaviour once again is unacceptable to question Bill in this way when you fail to accept the notorious pathological liar, bunny boiler Mugford was NOT a credible prosecution witness.
How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself
It was meant to be a conciliatory post. It's a compliment that we don't make allowances for anybody whatever their circumstances but treat them as equals.
-
Bill we may have treated you unfairly and if so I apologize on behalf of all members. But we have had so many members down the years claiming to have new evidence in their possession it's only fair that if you do choose to post that you are subject to the same scrutiny as others.
Please do not presume to apologise on my behalf. I did not insult him in the first place and have nothing to apologise for.
As for his claims, it is well known that the Campaign Team are claiming to have new evidence that challenges various points. I for one do not know what the quality of that evidence is, but it's hardly surprising that they will not want to put it in the public domain at this stage as the matter is still under consideration by the CCRC.
-
Another distasteful post from you. I find that disgusting behaviour.
How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself.
I agree with the point you make. If Bill requests it I will edit the post.
-
Steve, I normally don't criticise your posts - but the framing of your question to Bill wasn't great tbf.
-
In response to the above posts I have removed one sentence from #1047. The information contained therein was already in the public domain, but I have deleted it and hope this will satisfy complainers.
-
I doubt there is anything to withhold. It seems with so many different individuals involved one of them would have blown the whistle by now had there been anything of a sensationalist nature to disclose.
Believe you me Steve, the social services are a force to be reckoned with once they have their claws out. Because of the seemingly laxed way in which this particular case was handled, notes would have been already made for future reference and the minutes which were discussed would be interesting to read.
I did read somewhere that it was Nevill who'd called a halt to any further intervention from the team overseeing the children's welfare. Money and position speaks loudly, doesn't it ?
The ordinary woman in the street would have had her children taken for a longer stretch in foster care under the circumstances that the twins endured.
There was far less understanding of severe depression back then than there is now, though as this illness stands we haven't moved that further on as we still read about child cruelty and murder. ALL the signs are there but with lack of experience and resources in many areas it becomes sadly too late for some children.
Even today in the Mail there's a case where a woman crashed her car and she's being charged with the deaths of her two children. The woman, who had four children fled abroad after their funerals. The case is ongoing. Her dangerous driving had taken the lives of the two of them. Drink ? Drugs ? We don't know but I can bet this is one case in thousands that has vanished under the radar !!
-
Please do not presume to apologise on my behalf. I did not insult him in the first place and have nothing to apologise for.
As for his claims, it is well known that the Campaign Team are claiming to have new evidence that challenges various points. I for one do not know what the quality of that evidence is, but it's hardly surprising that they will not want to put it in the public domain at this stage as the matter is still under consideration by the CCRC.
The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.
-
The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.
Unfortunately that is a very naive statement. The CPS has been approached and have rejected any notion that they will override the proscribed procedure. The CPS on principle defends the original court decision and, in my experience, is institutionally hostile towards suggestions that a guilty verdict is incorrect, not just in Jeremy’s case but in all MOJ situations.
-
Unfortunately that is a very naive statement. The CPS has been approached and have rejected any notion that they will override the proscribed procedure. The CPS on principle defends the original court decision and, in my experience, is institutionally hostile towards suggestions that a guilty verdict is incorrect, not just in Jeremy’s case but in all MOJ situations.
Ive always been lead to believe that the only way of getting your case back before the courts is through referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). I could be wrong but I don’t think the CPS would get involved before the CCRC even if they were approached Bill?
-
I see the Louis Theroux documentary is being promoted as coming this month. Interesting to see if ‘Daisy’ is included
-
Sorry but I think David is correct.
First, if you read the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 carefully, you will note that no explicit statutory exclusivity is given to the CCRC for criminal appeals. In other words, there is nothing in that Act that says you have to go through the CCRC first.
Why, then, do people bother with the CCRC? Because of the Court's powers in section 5(1). As a practical matter, if somebody did try to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal, then the judges would almost-certainly invoke section 5(1) of the 1995 Act (which is section 23A of the 1968 Act it amends), which is the power to order that the CCRC investigate the case - effectively putting the matter in the hands of the CCRC anyway.
In view of all this, normally Jeremy would go through the CCRC, like virtually everybody else. However, David's point is that the Campaign Team claim to hold exonerating evidence. With such evidence, it would not be unreasonable for his Campaign Team to dispense with the CCRC and go direct to Essex Police or the CPS, or both, and ask them to consider their position on the basis that an agreed application could be made to the Court - maybe starting with an application for bail.
There is case law on this point arising from the joint enterprise appeals. A number of cases say that the Court of Appeal acknowledges its direct jurisdiction and that an appeal without the CCRC is permissible, though it is also stressed that this is rare.
The cases are R v Walsh [2007] NICA 4, Christopher Boughton-Fox v Regina [2014] EWCA Crim. 227 and R v Yassain [2015] 3 WLR 1571. In these judgments, the appeal judges are effectively rebuffing the CCRC. The Commission had always claimed an exclusive right of appeal in criminal cases once the immediate appeal period is exhausted (and the Commission still impliedly claims it has this right). The Court decided this is not the case, albeit that direct jurisdiction is to be exercised exceptionally.
None of this is to say the Campaign Team should follow the unconventional route, but as David rightly says, you have to ask, why mess around with the CCRC if there is evidence that exonerates Jeremy?
-
The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.
I also accept this, though we should elide the two points. It's one thing to pursue an accelerated appeal direct to the Court, perhaps with the co-operation of the CPS, on the basis of exonerating evidence; it is quite another thing to release the evidence to every Jack, James and Sandra.
However, I think if there is exonerating evidence, you have to ask why it's not being circulated. There is no obligation on the Campaign Team to do so, and it could be that they lack a platform to do so as there is an understandable caution among prominent people in the media and politics about being associated with a supposed double child killer, but why not release it to forums like this?
I think the only answer is that the evidence does not exonerate Jeremy, it merely casts doubt potentially, and given that Jeremy's cause lacks penetration into mainstream culture, it would be imprudent to release such evidence and allow critical evaluation and discussion of it.
Just as the neutrality of people like me can add natural weight to the pro-innocence cause in free discussion of the case, the downside is that neutrality means criticism. The pro-guilt case can be ripped to shreds, but anything put up by Jeremy can come under the same scrutiny.
-
I also accept this, though we should elide the two points. It's one thing to pursue an accelerated appeal direct to the Court, perhaps with the co-operation of the CPS, on the basis of exonerating evidence; it is quite another thing to release the evidence to every Jack, James and Sandra.
However, I think if there is exonerating evidence, you have to ask why it's not being circulated. There is no obligation on the Campaign Team to do so, and it could be that they lack a platform to do so as there is an understandable caution among prominent people in the media and politics about being associated with a supposed double child killer, but why not release it to forums like this?
I think the only answer is that the evidence does not exonerate Jeremy, it merely casts doubt potentially, and given that Jeremy's cause lacks penetration into mainstream culture, it would be imprudent to release such evidence and allow critical evaluation and discussion of it.
Just as the neutrality of people like me can add natural weight to the pro-innocence cause in free discussion of the case, the downside is that neutrality means criticism. The pro-guilt case can be ripped to shreds, but anything put up by Jeremy can come under the same scrutiny.
Good post.
-
Sorry but I think David is correct.
First, if you read the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 carefully, you will note that no explicit statutory exclusivity is given to the CCRC for criminal appeals. In other words, there is nothing in that Act that says you have to go through the CCRC first.
Why, then, do people bother with the CCRC? Because of the Court's powers in section 5(1). As a practical matter, if somebody did try to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal, then the judges would almost-certainly invoke section 5(1) of the 1995 Act (which is section 23A of the 1968 Act it amends), which is the power to order that the CCRC investigate the case - effectively putting the matter in the hands of the CCRC anyway.
In view of all this, normally Jeremy would go through the CCRC, like virtually everybody else. However, David's point is that the Campaign Team claim to hold exonerating evidence. With such evidence, it would not be unreasonable for his Campaign Team to dispense with the CCRC and go direct to Essex Police or the CPS, or both, and ask them to consider their position on the basis that an agreed application could be made to the Court - maybe starting with an application for bail.
There is case law on this point arising from the joint enterprise appeals. A number of cases say that the Court of Appeal acknowledges its direct jurisdiction and that an appeal without the CCRC is permissible, though it is also stressed that this is rare.
The cases are R v Walsh [2007] NICA 4, Christopher Boughton-Fox v Regina [2014] EWCA Crim. 227 and R v Yassain [2015] 3 WLR 1571. In these judgments, the appeal judges are effectively rebuffing the CCRC. The Commission had always claimed an exclusive right of appeal in criminal cases once the immediate appeal period is exhausted (and the Commission still impliedly claims it has this right). The Court decided this is not the case, albeit that direct jurisdiction is to be exercised exceptionally.
None of this is to say the Campaign Team should follow the unconventional route, but as David rightly says, you have to ask, why mess around with the CCRC if there is evidence that exonerates Jeremy?
Thanks for that, I was always under the impression that it was because the CCRC was created to deal with cases where people have used up their normal rights of appeal?
-
Thanks for that, I was always under the impression that it was because the CCRC was created to deal with cases where people have used up their normal rights of appeal?
Yes, that's absolutely correct, but what David is saying is that if the Campaign Team have exculpatory/exonerating evidence, then why not just go straight to the police/CPS and the Court of Appeal? Even if the police/CPS aren't interested, Jeremy can still go straight to the Court, present his evidence, maybe ask for bail pending a full hearing, and insist that the Court clears him.
I went into detail about the law to show that there is nothing in the 1995 statute to prevent Jeremy going down this route. The CCRC does not have exclusive rights over the consideration of appeals, though it is true that - barring exceptional circumstances - the Court will invoke section 5(1) and send it to the CCRC for investigation.
Surely evidence proving innocence is 'exceptional' and puts the Bamber appeal within the ambit of the case law I mention above where the judges re-asserted their direct jurisdiction?
-
Indeed, now I'm warming to the theme, you could even argue that the CCRC themselves should decline to consider Jeremy case on the basis that he has evidence that proves him innocent. If he's clearly innocent, then what's it got to do with the CCRC? Surely that's a matter for the Court of Appeal? We needn't stand on ceremony.
-
However, I think if there is exonerating evidence, you have to ask why it's not being circulated. There is no obligation on the Campaign Team to do so, and it could be that they lack a platform to do so as there is an understandable caution among prominent people in the media and politics about being associated with a supposed double child killer, but why not release it to forums like this?
To the extent that there is a functioning Campaign Team, they dare not even fart without permission of the lawyers. The legal advisors determine everything and have done so for years now. Therefore, it seems that the lawyers don’t want any information in the public domain.
-
The only way I can see the CCRC being bypassed is if a key/only witness went to the police & said their testimony was totally wrong.
This has happened before. The 'Rough Justice' TV programme interviewed the woman who committed perjury. The man was then released. Assume without going through the CCRC/COA.
There would have to be little or no other evidence against the convicted. Which is not the case with Bamber. So he may still have to go through the CCRC/COA if Julie retracted everything. He would then probably get released on the technicality of an unsafe conviction.
-
The only way I can see the CCRC being bypassed is if a key/only witness went to the police & said their testimony was totally wrong.
This has happened before. The 'Rough Justice' TV programme interviewed the woman who committed perjury. The man was then released. Assume without going through the CCRC/COA.
There would have to be little or no other evidence against the convicted. Which is not the case with Bamber. So he may still have to go through the CCRC/COA if Julie retracted everything. He would then probably get released on the technicality of an unsafe conviction.
I think David is correct to the extent that any evidence they have would not exonerate Jeremy, it just raises doubt potentially, so they have to go through the CCRC like virtually everybody else.
-
Some of what the CT claim has been passed to the CCRC exonerates Bamber - calls by Nevill, proof Sheila was still alive in WHF.
It is a good tactic to claim documents relating to this are with the CCRC. Supporters become convinced of Bamber's innocence & then more convinced of a cover up if the CCRC reject it.
-
Some of what the CT claim has been passed to the CCRC exonerates Bamber - calls by Nevill, proof Sheila was still alive in WHF.
It is a good tactic to claim documents relating to this are with the CCRC. Supporters become convinced of Bamber's innocence & then more convinced of a cover up if the CCRC reject it.
When they say it 'exonerates' Bamber, that's just their spin, as you know. In reality, it only casts doubt, potentially, by suggesting that particular evidence on this or that point is unreliable, thus (as they will argue) the conviction is unsafe.
If any of their submissions actually exonerated him, he would be out right now making 3 a.m. phone calls and this Forum would be totally redundant.
-
To the extent that there is a functioning Campaign Team, they dare not even fart without permission of the lawyers. The legal advisors determine everything and have done so for years now. Therefore, it seems that the lawyers don’t want any information in the public domain.
So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?
-
So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?
Swop 'evidence' for 'information' and the sentence makes more sense.
I noticed the same error but resisted the temptation to comment.
-
Issue 2 – The telephone calls – Substantial fresh evidence regarding the telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy and two phone calls to the police, one made by Nevill at 03:26, one made by Jeremy at 03:36.
----------
This is strictly for the media. The CT have been saying this for years. However it was not in the 2002 COA or 2012 CCRC submissions.
-
Ditto this -
Issue 5 – Sheila Caffell – Multiple grounds which prove Sheila was alive until after the raid team entered the house. In addition, fresh evidence regarding Sheila at the scene.
----------
Suspect the grounds are very sombre.
-
I respect anyone working pro bono but I can't help but think that the Campaign Team and its associates are just stringing everyone along, though why I do not know.
-
Swop 'evidence' for 'information' and the sentence makes more sense.
I noticed the same error but resisted the temptation to comment.
Also for the record. It has been four years since the CT came up with this idea.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8578.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8578.0.html)
-
I respect anyone working pro bono but I can't help but think that the Campaign Team and its associates are just stringing everyone along, though why I do not know.
I don't think it's so much about stringing everyone along as hanging fire while awaiting news from the CCRC. With little or nothing to add it's now a case of repeating what everyone already knows about the case without giving anything away which would be damaging before any would-be appeal.
-
So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?
Depends on how much credence you give the content of the podcasts. They suggest evidence exists to underpin the claims made. But like you said yourself, would the evidence stand up to critical scrutiny? Ambiguity in interpretation has not been a good servant for the defence cause so far.
-
Also for the record. It has been four years since the CT came up with this idea.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8578.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8578.0.html)
To make matters worse. The Campaign Team also claim that an event log sheet shows Sheila was "in a conversation" with the police outside. If that was the case why would she then need to contact them via telephone in the first place? lol
-
Depends on how much credence you give the content of the podcasts. They suggest evidence exists to underpin the claims made. But like you said yourself, would the evidence stand up to critical scrutiny? Ambiguity in interpretation has not been a good servant for the defence cause so far.
I have only listened to four minutes worth of the podcasts. There are now 35 podcasts. Talk about quantity over quality.
Furthermore "evidence" has been made public before, such as -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440)
-
I have only listened to four minutes worth of the podcasts. There are now 35 podcasts. Talk about quantity over quality.
Furthermore "evidence" has been made public before, such as -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440)
I think your attitude towards the podcasts is self defeating. But it's your choice to only listen to four minutes. They're quite varied.
-
I think your attitude towards the podcasts is self defeating. But it's your choice to only listen to four minutes. They're quite varied.
For them the last one was mercifully mild.
-
To make matters worse. The Campaign Team also claim that an event log sheet shows Sheila was "in a conversation" with the police outside. If that was the case why would she then need to contact them via telephone in the first place? lol
Why wouldn't she? It's not like the officers outside provided her with a mobile number or a walkie-talkie.
-
Why wouldn't she? It's not like the officers outside provided her with a mobile number or a walkie-talkie.
Why would you call the police when they are literally outside on your front lawn? ::)
According to CTs (incorrect) interpretation of the message log. Sheila was already having a conversation with the officers outside.
-
Why would you call the police when they are literally outside on your front lawn? ::)
According to CTs (incorrect) interpretation of the message log. Sheila was already having a conversation with the officers outside.
How do you know she was in the mood for shouting by 6.09am? Re the earlier log entry.. how can you know for certain that the interpretation is incorrect? You can certainly suggest it is incorrect but you cannot know that it is.
-
Why would you call the police when they are literally outside on your front lawn? ::)
According to CTs (incorrect) interpretation of the message log. Sheila was already having a conversation with the officers outside.
CT keeping their options open.
Sheila having conversations with outside police officers together with phoning 999.
New evidence showing Bamber is innocent, together with withheld evidence which would prove his innocence.
-
How do you know she was in the mood for shouting by 6.09am? Re the earlier log entry.. how can you know for certain that the interpretation is incorrect? You can certainly suggest it is incorrect but you cannot know that it is.
I know its incorrect because, when you read further down the log it states nobody responded to the attempts to communicate.
Moreover if such event took place, all the police and everyone outside (including Jeremy) would have noticed and he would never have been convicted in the first place.
-
I know its incorrect because, when you read further down the log it states nobody responded to the attempts to communicate.
Moreover if such event took place, all the police and everyone outside (including Jeremy) would have noticed and he would never have been convicted in the first place.
Check the time between both entries. Moreover, Jeremy was given the impression that there were people alive within the farmhouse. This is the reason why, when first told everyone was dead, his immediate response was to exclaim that the TFG must have shot everyone.
-
Check the time between both entries. Moreover, Jeremy was given the impression that there were people alive within the farmhouse. This is the reason why, when first told everyone was dead, his immediate response was to exclaim that the TFG must have shot everyone.
No. The police simply told him "everything will be alright" in order to calm him down. That is why he accused he TFG of shooting.
-
No. The police simply told him "everything will be alright" in order to calm him down. That is why he accused he TFG of shooting.
Not so. The police behaved like there were people still alive inside the house. In the build up and during the raid.
-
Not so. The police behaved like there were people still alive inside the house. In the build up and during the raid.
Because they had no way of knowing if they were dead or alive.
-
Because they had no way of knowing if they were dead or alive.
In which case, neither would JB. He would therefore not have accused police of having shot his family members - as he would have been aware of the possibility, that a silent house with no signs of life might indicate the very worst case scenario.
-
In which case, neither would JB. He would therefore not have accused police of having shot his family members - as he would have been aware of the possibility, that a silent house with no signs of life might indicate the very worst case scenario.
What has this got to do with the subject? I thought you didn't believe Sheila rang 999 for an ambulance?
-
What has this got to do with the subject? I thought you didn't believe Sheila rang 999 for an ambulance?
I have been mostly dubious about the claim that a 999 call was made - but have never completely wrote-off the claim. To me it is a possibility. It was looked at for a reason and one of the ex officers interviewed said something a bit odd. He expressed that he was surprised there was any record of the event. This could imply that he was previously under the impression that such a record had been destroyed. 999 is a number anyone remembers, including Sheila. If a 999 call was made, I doubt it was in relation to requesting an ambulance. I think it more likely that the police brought up the ambulance as a result of the 999 call. However, as I have said, I remain unconvinced such a call took place.
-
An operator at the time would have known the times of 999 calls---if they were truthful. All emergency lines were checked/logged. It's difficult to find the truth in this case !
-
Latest podcast, this time on 'homophobia' in the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159bxYsekQY
-
Latest podcast, this time on 'homophobia' in the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159bxYsekQY
You have been designated official point of contact for relations between the forum and podcast makers.
-
You have been designated official point of contact for relations between the forum and podcast makers.
Thanks Roch. You did try to steal my thunder on the last podcast by re-posting the link from another source, which sent me into a sulk, but I've recovered and I am willing to forgive you.
Just don't do it again...
-
I wouldn't have even given homophobia a mention as the crime was in 1985 before the " woke brigade " kicked in. Now that is scraping the barrel and has no connection to the crime.
-
I wouldn't have even given homophobia a mention as the crime was in 1985 before the " woke brigade " kicked in. Now that is scraping the barrel and has no connection to the crime.
Not sure I agree Lookout. Not if it worked against Jeremy.
-
Not sure I agree Lookout. Not if it worked against Jeremy.
To me it has no relevance and was just another subject which was blown out of all proportion to continue in blackening JB's character.
-
I have amended my original post to this thread to add a complete list of the podcast series to date with YouTube links. Hope this assists.
Here is a link back to the post and the list:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg489249.html#msg489249
-
Latest podcast from the Campaign Team. This time it's a presentation by Mike O'Brien, who has suffered through a miscarriage of justice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r46tPrQ7wg8
-
I enjoyed that latest podcast. A lot of positivity. Hat's off to Mike for his down to earth insights of life inside and out of prison.
-
The Shaun Attwood interview has now been added to the Bamber Campaign Team's YouTube channel as well. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_fgy1ZENMQ
-
The Shaun Attwood interview has now been added to the Bamber Campaign Team's YouTube channel as well. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_fgy1ZENMQ
What did you think QC?
-
There were one or two hints of things to come in that video.
-
38. Jeremy's Arrest, On Remand and Preparation for Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwbQwGiKbc
-
Another good podcast, but it failed to include the time when JM had been questioned by Rivlin and she " cried " so much that she hadn't been able to answer ( conveniently ) and so it had been halted.
The whole fiasco just beggars belief.
-
What did you think QC?
Not much. I think the Campaign Team are bringing up old points from the past and claiming to have found new evidence to support what they say about these old points. Old wine in new bottles, but admissible because these are points not rigorously tested at trial. We will have to see if there really is new evidence of any significance or it's a bluff. I doubt there is any evidence that 'exculpates' Jeremy, as one of the interviewees claims, though I certainly do accept that there is reasonable doubt, but what I think and what will happen are different things. It's down to the courts and the CCRC.
Shaun Attwood is attaching his flag to this. We will have to see what effect this has, both for Attwood himself and for Jeremy. I suppose Attwood's calculation is that Jeremy is never going to fall down and confess now, and Jeremy's cause aligns with Attwood's target audience: mainly disaffected YouTubers and people inclined to conspiracy theories and criticism of the police, that sort of thing. Conversely, I can see why one or two pro-guilt posters here on the Forum are worried about Attwood's support for the campaign and have reacted tempestuously to it. What Jeremy has always lacked is momentum behind his campaigns. I personally have never taken to Attwood or Steeples. I think they are both fairly superficial and craft their content with their target audience in mind, rather than due to any belief in pursuing the truth. They have both fallen for the Savile-era sex abuse hysteria.
Nevertheless, support from a social media personality could change everything, and this can - I believe - affect the legal outcome. I recall it was said at the time of the Birmingham Six appeals that the appellate judges resented the involvement of the media in the Chris Mullins' campaign, which included at least two documentaries (I remember way back when I had a TV, the Granada documentary on the case was quite good), but even if the judiciary resented the crude 'legal populism' of Mullins, I also suspect that the mass of support and 'atmosphere' this generated must have influenced things.
If Jeremy can penetrate the mainstream media, and even have his own 'Granada' treatment, his campaign may gain traction. However, as I think I have observed previously, the Birmingham Six cause fell within the Zeitgeist of the times, whereas a convicted mass murderer/double child killer does not, or may not. Is the 'air war' of public perception more important than the 'land battles' of the CCRC and the courts? They are both important, but I think success in the former can affect the latter, though maybe not always for the better. How does Jeremy go about winning this 'air war'? I think it will be difficult because, in my view, the 'big picture' theories of the innocent camp are overblown and misguided and reek of desperation. If I am wrong about that and it was all a conspiracy, then it's Pulitzer Prizes all round and somebody has a blockbuster Hollywood movie on their hands, starring Tom Cruise as the aging victorious Count of Monte Tolleshunt. We must wait to see what is this evidence that the Campaign Team and the legal team have got in their possession.
My view is a bit more down-to-earth. Nobody knows what happened in the farmhouse that night, except possibly for Jeremy - and perhaps even Jeremy does not know. The 'big picture' theories involving the police cannot be rationally proved or disproved, due to a lack of evidence. The evidence for the police accidentally shooting Sheila and then swopping out a bullet is weak and contrived. I would say the same for the claims that Nevill and/or Sheila made 999 calls and/or calls to a police station. This is a case that rests on technicalities and raising doubt about little things that add up to big things affecting the safety of the convictions.
To be clear: I think the convictions are unsafe, but that is not the same as saying Jeremy is innocent.
-
It's the most difficult form of conviction when using a blank sheet of paper !
-
38. Jeremy's Arrest, On Remand and Preparation for Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImwbQwGiKbc
The Campaign Team has upped its game for those superficially acquainted with the case. However presentation is no substitute for knowledge of the facts. No scrutiny of Jeremy for his monosyllabic answers, a lame excuse for picking fibres from his white Aran sweater, uncritical of his use of Sheila's flat, which he inherited as a direct result of the murders, no scrutiny of his actions in dancing the night away at Stringfellows, frequenting a gym or waltzing off to France, no mention of the Amsterdam cannabis trip where he stayed at 5-star Hotel Europe.
He was never inquisitive as to alternative theories for the murders, because that would have been a bootless errand, wouldn't it Jeremy..
-
The Campaign Team has upped its game for those superficially acquainted with the case. However presentation is no substitute for knowledge of the facts. No scrutiny of Jeremy for his monosyllabic answers, a lame excuse for picking fibres from his white Aran sweater, uncritical of his use of Sheila's flat, which he inherited as a direct result of the murders, no scrutiny of his actions in dancing the night away at Stringfellows, frequenting a gym or waltzing off to France, no mention of the Amsterdam cannabis trip where he stayed at 5-star Hotel Europe.
He was never inquisitive as to alternative theories for the murders, because that would have been a bootless errand, wouldn't it Jeremy..
What alternative theories? I thought it was either Sheila or Jeremy, and Jeremy said it was Sheila - and so did the police, at first.
Anyway, the latest podcast from the Campaign Team is an audio version of the Shaun Attwood/Matthew Steeples interview with Philip Walker and Yvonne Hartley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I
-
Body temperatures ! When I first came onto the forum I can remember posing this question and since I'd learned that none were taken, so far as I was concerned it was case closed.
Having worked in a hospital it was part of the training that when a patient died you recorded that time of death, among other things, as it was important for lots of reasons.
-
What alternative theories? I thought it was either Sheila or Jeremy, and Jeremy said it was Sheila - and so did the police, at first.
Anyway, the latest podcast from the Campaign Team is an audio version of the Shaun Attwood/Matthew Steeples interview with Philip Walker and Yvonne Hartley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I
I mean he never speculated as to why Sheila had run amok with a rifle, because he knew it wasn't true.
-
I mean he never speculated as to why Sheila had run amok with a rifle, because he knew it wasn't true.
He did.
-
Latest podcasts from the CT:
39. Yvonne and Philip on the Shaun Attwood show, with Matthew Steeples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzfb7rECw_I&t=480s
40. Jeremy Bamber: A Life of Less Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFO1eZ6ZjFY&t=194s
41. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7qnCKGr980&t=2359s
42. Yvonne and Emma discuss the recent Mindhouse programme 'The Bambers: Murder at the Farm' Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hwo99LneJI
43. Presentation by Peter Tatchell to Jeremy Bamber Campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDvHgUDy6ow&t=1790s
I don't have much comment on the above, save that Peter Tatchell seems not to be saying he believes Jeremy to be innocent, only that there are questions about legal fairness and quality of the evidence. In other words, he takes broadly a similar line to mine.
Tatchell suggests direct militant (but lawful) action, such as demonstrations outside Essex Police headquarters. I must say that I am still not clear about the PII issue. Public interest immunity requires a court order. When did the court order this? Which court ordered this? The CT and responses here on the Forum have always been opaque about this, partly I think because the legal process is not widely understood, but also because maintaining the state secrecy theory seems to suit Jeremy. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that disclosure in this case has been a problem, and as we all know, there has been destruction of evidence, as Essex Police have frankly admitted.
-
Today's podcast from the CT is an interview with Barbara De'Ath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP38IkZJEkc
In my view, this is one of the better podcasts and worth listening to because it's new and original content and involves real people speaking, not a robot.
Barbara De'Ath is an established supporter of decades standing. Her loyalty to Jeremy is obvious. This has to be taken into account in what she says.
Some key points:
(i). She talks about the history of the site from the 1980s onwards, and how after the tragedy, the family sought to commercialise and homogenise the site, with the result that Osea lost its original working-class and communitarian ethos, and friendliness and informality, and became more profit-driven.
(ii). She avers that the retired Mike Ainsley who worked at Osea was a horrible man, a bully, etc., and she was threatened by Ainsley on behalf of the family, as they wanted her family off the site because they did not fit in with the new plans.
(iii). She talks about how Jeremy was shy. (This is a revelation, but it does not come as a surprise to me).
(iv). She took well to both June and Nevill, and comments about how they were both pleasant, friendly and welcoming.
The Campaign Team are moving into a second season of the podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlYDHVCyu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omrfk0mH8Wk
Lessons for the Campaign Team for Season 2:
(i). Get rid of the HAL9000. "Sorry Dave, but I can't stand you". Natural speech from ordinary people is fine, scripted or unscripted. Doesn't need to be overly-polished.
(ii). More interviews with CT members, supporters, etc., speaking from the heart and offering original insights and experiences. Maybe interviews with opponents as well.
(iii). More of a structure/chronology to the series overall is needed. Needs to progress to a conclusion and highlight key points.
(iv). A lot of YouTube channels offer 'membership' - with insider Q & As and so forth. The CT could think up ideas for pulling people in to the campaign's themes and messages and developing loyalty.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks.
-
Today's podcast from the CT is an interview with Barbara De'Ath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP38IkZJEkc
In my view, this is one of the better podcasts and worth listening to because it's new and original content and involves real people speaking, not a robot.
Barbara De'Ath is an established supporter of decades standing. Her loyalty to Jeremy is obvious. This has to be taken into account in what she says.
Some key points:
(i). She talks about the history of the site from the 1980s onwards, and how after the tragedy, the family sought to commercialise and homogenise the site, with the result that Osea lost its original working-class and communitarian ethos, and friendliness and informality, and became more profit-driven.
(ii). She avers that the retired Mike Ainsley who worked at Osea was a horrible man, a bully, etc., and she was threatened by Ainsley on behalf of the family, as they wanted her family off the site because they did not fit in with the new plans.
(iii). She talks about how Jeremy was shy. (This is a revelation, but it does not come as a surprise to me).
(iv). She took well to both June and Nevill, and comments about how they were both pleasant, friendly and welcoming.
The Campaign Team are moving into a second season of the podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlYDHVCyu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omrfk0mH8Wk
Lessons for the Campaign Team for Season 2:
(i). Get rid of the HAL9000. "Sorry Dave, but I can't stand you". Natural speech from ordinary people is fine, scripted or unscripted. Doesn't need to be overly-polished.
(ii). More interviews with CT members, supporters, etc., speaking from the heart and offering original insights and experiences. Maybe interviews with opponents as well.
(iii). More of a structure/chronology to the series overall is needed. Needs to progress to a conclusion and highlight key points.
(iv). A lot of YouTube channels offer 'membership' - with insider Q & As and so forth. The CT could think up ideas for pulling people in to the campaign's themes and messages and developing loyalty.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks.
While I admire YH's tenacity and commitment, I'm not certain she is an ideal narrator. With regards to podcasts, I think there's too many.
I wish the resource was better spent on a slick video presentation with appropriate diagrams, images etc., solely around the actions of Mick Ainsley, ideally in chronological order. I'm talking about something that avoids any ambiguous evidence. It would need to basically blow the podcasts away with style content and presentation. You couldn't have YH narrating. Nor HAL. It would need to be professional affair designed for longevity in terms of impact. Something that's going to go viral for the right reasons.
-
While I admire YH's tenacity and commitment, I'm not certain she is an ideal narrator. With regards to podcasts, I think there's too many.
I wish the resource was better spent on a slick video presentation with appropriate diagrams, images etc., solely around the actions of Mick Ainsley, ideally in chronological order. I'm talking about something that avoids any ambiguous evidence. It would need to basically blow the podcasts away with style content and presentation. You couldn't have YH narrating. Nor HAL. It would need to be professional affair designed for longevity in terms of impact. Something that's going to go viral for the right reasons.
You have to take a step back and ask: 'What is all this social media for?' Why 'campaign' at all? Why not just treat it as a legal matter and leave it to the courts, investigators/researchers and lawyers?
As I suggested in a previous post, you could say that there is an air war and a land war. The air war is propaganda and media; the land war is the nuts and bolts of the law and evidence. The aim of the air war is to capture a critical mass of support and interest to build some sort of political momentum behind the case in the belief that this will affect the legal outcome in some way. Yet 'everybody knows' that Michael Stone is 'innocent', but he is still in prison. I wonder if, similarly, Jeremy Bamber's case is suitable for campaigning at all? Remember that he stands convicted of mass murder, including two young children. The Birmingham Six case was mass murder, but there was a political dimension to it that helped to generate interest among people with agendas of their own, including those who wanted to subvert confidence in the British Establishment and the English criminal justice system. Jeremy's case is not comparable.
On the other hand, Jeremy' case offers some constitutional issues that should interest 'political' people, such as disclosure failures and the destruction of evidence. There is also the theme of Jeremy as social outsider. I agree that lengthy series may not be a good idea as delving too much into detail can put people off and also leave you open to attack, but frankly, the man has been in prison for nearly 36 years and has at least four failed appeal attempts behind him, so you have to accept that they may be past the stage of fretting about tactics. And if he's innocent, he's innocent.
I sense the podcasts represent them feeling their way and they are going to learn lessons from it. They probably don't have a creative director on board who can take over that 'department' of the campaign and steer things for them. I think a single movie-length production would be a good idea. It could be something along the lines of the Michael Moore-style, which nowadays might not be too expensive to put together professionally as it's based on montages, with original interviews cut in.
If I was doing this, I would come up with a compelling title, such as The Innocent Man or Innocence, or whatever, secure a domain name, pay for a professional 'Coming Soon' trailer promising excitement and revelations, and put everything into promoting that on social media. On the back of that, you'd then secure some funding to finish it off.
-
An outline of how I would do this if I was a supporter:
Provisional Title:
AN INNOCENT MAN
Sub-titles:
The sensational framing of Jeremy Bamber
The inside story of Britain's worst-ever miscarriage of justice
Length:
70 minutes.
Goal:
To promote Jeremy's cause to a wider audience.
Aim:
To show why and how Jeremy is innocent and why and how he was wrongly-convicted, without compromising the ongoing CCRC application.
Themes:
'Inside story'
The real Jeremy.
Inconsistencies and problems with the evidence.
Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Jeremy.
Content:
I take my inspiration here partly from Granada's World in Action drama-documentary about The Birmingham Six, and partly from Michael Moore. It would be a hybrid of the two styles.
The film would be a pseudo-dramatic account of the Campaign Team's fight for Jeremy, with a full script written, but only a small fraction of this would make it into the final production. Starring Yvonne and Philip, maybe a couple of others. The aim would be to have conversations between the two principals and others as a link between different revelations about the case. It sounds a bit corny and cringey, but one of them would play the 'sceptic' character (the ersatz 'John Hurt') who ends up being totally convinced, whereas the other would be the 'true believer' character (ersatz 'Martin Shaw') who knows Jeremy is innocent.
You would need an indoor location, which could be a temporarily-rented office, and there could be outdoor shots at key locations.
One idea I have is that they could have a scene with Barbara De'Ath at the quay with them trying to figure out how Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.
Montages would highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, and consist of media footage, documents, and interviews.
There would also be new interviews with sympathisers.
There could also be interviews with figures from the opposing side - though that could be a legally difficult due to the ongoing CCRC application.
Anyway, that's just an idea. In principle, there is no reason why ordinary supporters could not produce something like this. It would require a bit of technical nous, some money - maybe a couple of thousand, if using existing equipment - and some acting ability.
If I was going to do something like this, I would produce it from a strictly neutral point-of-view, so it would be a bit different, but inevitably the leaning would be towards Jeremy because of all the doubts and questions.
-
An outline of how I would do this if I was a supporter:
Provisional Title:
AN INNOCENT MAN
Sub-titles:
The sensational framing of Jeremy Bamber
The inside story of Britain's worst-ever miscarriage of justice
Length: 70 minutes.
Goal:
To promote Jeremy's cause to a wider audience.
Aim:
To show why and how Jeremy is innocent and why and how he was wrongly-convicted.
Themes:
'Inside story'
The real Jeremy.
Inconsistencies and problems with the evidence.
Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Jeremy.
Content:
I take my inspiration here partly from Granada's World in Action drama-documentary about The Birmingham Six, and partly from Michael Moore. It would be a hybrid of the two styles.
The film would be a pseudo-dramatic account of the Campaign Team's fight for Jeremy, with a full script written, but only a small fraction of this would make it into the final production. Starring Yvonne and Philip, maybe a couple of others. The aim would be to have conversations between the two principals and others as a link between different revelations about the case.
You would need an indoor location, which could be a temporarily-rented office, and there could be outdoor shots at key locations.
One idea I have is that they could have a scene with Barbara De'Ath at the quay with them trying to figure out how Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.
Montages would highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, and consist of media footage, documents, and interviews.
There would also be new interviews with sympathisers.
Anyway, that's just an idea. In principle, there is no reason why ordinary supporters could not produce something like this. It would require a bit of technical nous, some money - maybe a couple of thousand, if using existing equipment - and some acting ability.
If I was going to do something like this, I would produce it from a strictly neutral point-of-view, so it would be a bit different, but inevitably the leaning would be towards Jeremy because of all the doubts and questions.
Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.
----------
Even the CT have never said this.
-
Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.
----------
Even the CT have never said this.
Actually, they explicitly have - in the latest podcast, for one.
-
Actually, they explicitly have - in the latest podcast, for one.
Where in the podcast?
-
Where in the podcast?
Just listen to the podcast, if you're so inclined.
-
Just listen to the podcast, if you're so inclined.
It should come with some sort of health warning its so bad!
I got to the part when Ms De'Ath tells the listener Bamber was a lovely man and DCI Ainsley was a horrible man, or words to this effect, and decided to turn off. I mean they're hardly likely to say otherwise are they? ::) Its the stuff of playgrounds. Seriously embarrassing. For those who are campaigning on Bamber's behalf what on earth have the trials and tributlations of Ms De'Ath's family life and her caravan got to do with him?
-
An outline of how I would do this if I was a supporter:
Provisional Title:
AN INNOCENT MAN
Sub-titles:
The sensational framing of Jeremy Bamber
The inside story of Britain's worst-ever miscarriage of justice
Length:
70 minutes.
Goal:
To promote Jeremy's cause to a wider audience.
Aim:
To show why and how Jeremy is innocent and why and how he was wrongly-convicted, without compromising the ongoing CCRC application.
Themes:
'Inside story'
The real Jeremy.
Inconsistencies and problems with the evidence.
Evidence of a conspiracy to frame Jeremy.
Content:
I take my inspiration here partly from Granada's World in Action drama-documentary about The Birmingham Six, and partly from Michael Moore. It would be a hybrid of the two styles.
The film would be a pseudo-dramatic account of the Campaign Team's fight for Jeremy, with a full script written, but only a small fraction of this would make it into the final production. Starring Yvonne and Philip, maybe a couple of others. The aim would be to have conversations between the two principals and others as a link between different revelations about the case. It sounds a bit corny and cringey, but one of them would play the 'sceptic' character (the ersatz 'John Hurt') who ends up being totally convinced, whereas the other would be the 'true believer' character (ersatz 'Martin Shaw') who knows Jeremy is innocent.
You would need an indoor location, which could be a temporarily-rented office, and there could be outdoor shots at key locations.
One idea I have is that they could have a scene with Barbara De'Ath at the quay with them trying to figure out how Jeremy could have walked or cycled to the farmhouse that night and then realising he couldn't have done.
Montages would highlight inconsistencies in the evidence, and consist of media footage, documents, and interviews.
There would also be new interviews with sympathisers.
There could also be interviews with figures from the opposing side - though that could be a legally difficult due to the ongoing CCRC application.
Anyway, that's just an idea. In principle, there is no reason why ordinary supporters could not produce something like this. It would require a bit of technical nous, some money - maybe a couple of thousand, if using existing equipment - and some acting ability.
If I was going to do something like this, I would produce it from a strictly neutral point-of-view, so it would be a bit different, but inevitably the leaning would be towards Jeremy because of all the doubts and questions.
Sometimes less is more!
The general public are not remotely interested in Bamber per se. They tuned into the 2020 ITV and 2021 Sky progs as they fall under the very popular genre of TRUE crime.
If the review commission rejects Bamber's latest submission it will really sound the death knell. Most, lay and professional, will think 'hey hang about this guy has been to the appeal courts and review commission umpteen times he must be guilty'. And if the 2021 submission is rejected will Bamber disclose its findings or will he withhold like the 2012 findings?
Those that believe Bamber innocent form an insignificant number and are rightly written off as a freak show of sorts.
-
It should come with some sort of health warning its so bad!
I got to the part when Ms De'Ath tells the listener Bamber was a lovely man and DCI Ainsley was a horrible man, or words to this effect, and decided to turn off. I mean they're hardly likely to say otherwise are they? ::) Its the stuff of playgrounds. Seriously embarrassing. For those who are campaigning on Bamber what on earth have the trials and tributlations of Ms De'Ath's family life and her caravan got to do with Bamber?
Where does it say Bamber could not walk or cycle to WHF?
I can face listening to those 2 minutes.
-
While I admire YH's tenacity and commitment, I'm not certain she is an ideal narrator. With regards to podcasts, I think there's too many.
I wish the resource was better spent on a slick video presentation with appropriate diagrams, images etc., solely around the actions of Mick Ainsley, ideally in chronological order. I'm talking about something that avoids any ambiguous evidence. It would need to basically blow the podcasts away with style content and presentation. You couldn't have YH narrating. Nor HAL. It would need to be professional affair designed for longevity in terms of impact. Something that's going to go viral for the right reasons.
As far as I know Yvonne and the support group do not post on forums? They produce a lot of what I would describe as propaganda cutting off the opportunity for feedback. They obviously can't do this with the review commission and I think they will have a rude awakening when the submission is inevitably demolished.
-
Where does it say Bamber could not walk or cycle to WHF?
I can face listening to those 2 minutes.
I can't recall the exact words but it says something about lots of people about partying and fishing as it was summer hol time and therefore he would have been seen. I think it was along those lines as opposed to him not being up to the physicality of cycling/walking.
-
I can't recall the exact words but it says something about lots of people about partying and fishing as it was summer hol time and therefore he would have been seen. I think it was along those lines as opposed to him not being up to the physicality of cycling/walking.
Fishing. As people do at 2am.
Partying. As people used to do in the dark fields of Tolleshunt D'arcy. At 2am.
What do think of Bamber's reason for bringing June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre - So Julie could cycle to the train station when going home.
-
Fishing. As people do at 2am.
Partying. As people used to do in the dark fields of Tolleshunt D'arcy. At 2am.
What do think of Bamber's reason for bringing June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre - So Julie could cycle to the train station when going home.
Obvious what he wanted it for!
Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description.
If the defence employed two private detectives to look into Sheila's background they were surely able to call at least one witness at trial who could say 'I was there and I didn't meet anyone fitting Bamber's description'. I can only assume Ms De'Ath was wrong with her recollections and the place wasn't as busy as she thought. In fact totally isolated seems more likely. Bamber probably did a recce in the nights leading up to the murders.
-
I've sent Yvonne a further email -
asking again for a copy of the 2012 commissions statement of reasons
pointing out she is seeking public support therefore we surely have a right to make an informed decision on all the available info
pointing out the hypocrisy in Bamber talking about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing
asking if Peter Tatchell is aware of Bamber's position re the above (bet Tatchell hasn't seen it).
asking when expect to hear from commission
asking regardless of decision will Bamber disclose the statement of reasons
-
Where does it say that JB himself is withholding evidence ?
-
Where does it say that JB himself is withholding evidence ?
Who do you think is withholding it if not Bamber?
-
I've sent Yvonne a further email -
asking again for a copy of the 2012 commissions statement of reasons
pointing out she is seeking public support therefore we surely have a right to make an informed decision on all the available info
pointing out the hypocrisy in Bamber talking about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing
asking if Peter Tatchell is aware of Bamber's position re the above (bet Tatchell hasn't seen it).
asking when expect to hear from commission
asking regardless of decision will Bamber disclose the statement of reasons
There is no hypocrisy.
Jeremy is not under any duty to disclose the Statement of Reasons. It's a private document. Jeremy is a private individual engaged in litigation. He is not a public body.
A court can order Jeremy to disclose private documents, but let us consider what the word 'disclosure' actually means.
It's when in litigation, or potential litigation, one party reveals to another documents on which it intends to rely. The Crown can't rely on the Statement of Reasons, as it's not relevant to the current application. Nor do they need to, as the same body that issued the Statement of Reasons is now reviewing Jeremy's latest CCRC application and will not normally accept re-submissions of evidence already disposed of.
That's why, whatever it may contain, disclosing the Statement of Reasons would be a pointless exercise in terms of the legal process.
What you really mean is not that Jeremy should disclose the Statement of Reasons, but that he should share it with the public and publish it for all to see. Why should he? You may say that if it's no longer relevant to the legal process, then what's the harm? But if it's no longer relevant, then why should he bother? Would you share with all the world private correspondence with a public body if you were undertaking a criminal appeal or some other sort of litigation? You are asking him to voluntarily do this. Or you think, failing that, the CCRC should be permitted to publish the document on its own initiative, yet the CCRC is not allowed to do that, as the document is directed at the applicant.
In contrast, documents generated by and held by public bodies, such as the police, are not just directed at police officers and there is no expectation that only other police officers will ever read them. They are public property and potentially disclosable.
-
Obvious what he wanted it for!
Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description.
If the defence employed two private detectives to look into Sheila's background they were surely able to call at least one witness at trial who could say 'I was there and I didn't meet anyone fitting Bamber's description'. I can only assume Ms De'Ath was wrong with her recollections and the place wasn't as busy as she thought. In fact totally isolated seems more likely. Bamber probably did a recce in the nights leading up to the murders.
Strange how none of these party-goers, fishermen or anyone else for that matter, have surfaced to say they were there that night but never saw or heard anyone fitting Bamber's description.
----------
That is a good point.
Seeing Bamber on a bike at that time would not be hard to forget. Or fishing/partying at 2am & seeing nothing would not be hard to forget.
There were 3 cycle routes to/from WHF,. So options for Bamber in ensuring he is not seen.
Doubtful there would be a potential witness on one route, let alone three. But if one witness had come forward, the CT would be all over it.
-
Who do you think is withholding it if not Bamber?
You distinctly said that JB was withholding evidence, such as him personally ??
-
There is no hypocrisy.
Jeremy is not under any duty to disclose the Statement of Reasons. It's a private document. Jeremy is a private individual engaged in litigation. He is not a public body.
A court can order Jeremy to disclose private documents, but let us consider what the word 'disclosure' actually means.
It's when in litigation, or potential litigation, one party reveals to another documents on which it intends to rely. The Crown can't rely on the Statement of Reasons, as it's not relevant to the current application. Nor do they need to, as the same body that issued the Statement of Reasons is now reviewing Jeremy's latest CCRC application and will not normally accept re-submissions of evidence already disposed of.
That's why, whatever it may contain, disclosing the Statement of Reasons would be a pointless exercise in terms of the legal process.
What you really mean is not that Jeremy should disclose the Statement of Reasons, but that he should share it with the public and publish it for all to see. Why should he? You may say that if it's no longer relevant to the legal process, then what's the harm? But if it's no longer relevant, then why should he bother? Would you share with all the world private correspondence with a public body if you were undertaking a criminal appeal or some other sort of litigation? You are asking him to voluntarily do this. Or you think, failing that, the CCRC should be permitted to publish the document on its own initiative, yet the CCRC is not allowed to do that, as the document is directed at the applicant.
In contrast, documents generated by and held by public bodies, such as the police, are not just directed at police officers and there is no expectation that only other police officers will ever read them. They are public property and potentially disclosable.
Bamber isn't a litigant. He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!
And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms. He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding. Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.
A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure. If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.
-
You distinctly said that JB was withholding evidence, such as him personally ??
Yes that is exactly what I meant.
-
Why would he himself hold on to something that could overturn his conviction ?
If anything's being withheld it's by EP.
-
Why would he himself hold on to something that could overturn his conviction ?
If anything's being withheld it's by EP.
No Lookout. When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor). In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why. This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it. If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!
-
Bamber isn't a litigant. He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!
And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms. He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding. Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.
A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure. If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
-
No Lookout. When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor). In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why. This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it. If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!
No Lookout.
----------
;D
-
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Of course you don't ::)
-
Bamber isn't a litigant. He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!
And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms. He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding. Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.
A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure. If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.
And lets not forget at one time Bamber and the support group had the begging bowl out supposedly for forensic tests. Who would part with cash without knowing why the review commission threw out the 2012 submission. Utter madness.
-
And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant ;D
-
And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant ;D
Do I recall Bamber suing HMP for whiplash injury when he was being ferried around and on another occassion he had his play station stolen from his cell? These are cases he could be referred to as a litigant. Mass murder/child killing - litigation ;D
-
No Lookout. When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor). In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why. This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it. If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!
That was in 2012 when it was possible that a summary of reasons why could well have been repetitive from the earlier appeal. Since 2012, there has been a number of documents released which might tie-in with those which had been held back and until we hear that hopefully there's a further submission, those " reasons " could come to light and connect like the missing pieces of the jigsaw.
I don't envisage the " alarm bells " that you pessimistically continue to sound as I think this is all about not knowing what the contents of the CCRC are more than anything else, so you'll just have to be patient won't you ?
-
And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant ;D
Because he is, though strictly speaking he is currently an applicant to the CCRC, not a 'litigant'. In the message you replied to, I referred to him as a "private individual engaged in litigation". I meant in the context of disclosure in respect of litigation and potential litigation, which is what this subject is about. It was you who used the word 'disclosure' or 'disclosing', not me.
I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.
-
That was in 2012 when it was possible that a summary of reasons why could well have been repetitive from the earlier appeal. Since 2012, there has been a number of documents released which might tie-in with those which had been held back and until we hear that hopefully there's a further submission, those " reasons " could come to light and connect like the missing pieces of the jigsaw.
I don't envisage the " alarm bells " that you pessimistically continue to sound as I think this is all about not knowing what the contents of the CCRC are more than anything else, so you'll just have to be patient won't you ?
Lookout, Bambers last appeal was 2002. Finished. Gone. Roll on nearly 20 years and he has now filed a brand new submission with the review commission supposedly containing all new evidence. Why wont he release the 100 page doc issued by the review commission detailing why they threw out the last submission in 2012. He might get a lot of new support on the back of it.
I wonder who has seen this document? I don't think Carol Ann Lee had access to it or any of the recent prog makers?
Is it possible you can send an Christmas card and ask for a copy?
-
Because he is, though strictly speaking he is currently an applicant to the CCRC, not a 'litigant'. In the message you replied to, I referred to him as a "private individual engaged in litigation". I meant in the context of disclosure in respect of litigation and potential litigation, which is what this subject is about. It was you who used the word 'disclosure' or 'disclosing', not me.
I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.
Likewise. I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.
If Bamber refuses to release the sor for the submission made this year and at the same time is still running a public campaign I will flag it up with the media.
-
Lookout, Bambers last appeal was 2002. Finished. Gone. Roll on nearly 20 years and he has now filed a brand new submission with the review commission supposedly containing all new evidence. Why wont he release the 100 page doc issued by the review commission detailing why they threw out the last submission in 2012. He might get a lot of new support on the back of it.
I wonder who has seen this document? I don't think Carol Ann Lee had access to it or any of the recent prog makers?
Is it possible you can send an Christmas card and ask for a copy?
Why would he get any new support off the back of a document that rejected his last application for appeal? That makes no sense. Why would he voluntarily do that? Would you do that?
I don't always defend Jeremy on here, but I'm defending him on this point because I think you're being unfair and the whole point is a futile tangent. Jeremy is not in charge of a public body. He has no duty of disclosure other than that ordered by a court in litigation. The document you refer to is no longer relevant, and its only effect can be to do him damage by opening up discussion about the CCRC's previous interpretation of points that it rejected and that can't be considered anyway.
Don't misunderstand me: I would like to see the document too. But I don't accept he is being hypocritical in not releasing it. Different duties and expectations apply to Jeremy and public bodies respectively.
-
Likewise. I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.
If Bamber refuses to release the sor for the submission made this year and at the same time is still running a public campaign I will flag it up with the media.
I'm sure the Campaign Team are quivering with fear.
-
I'm sure the Campaign Team are quivering with fear.
I tell you one thing if the likes of Peter Tatchell and Eric Allison continue to support Bamber knowing he's withholding 2 lengthy docs, running into hundreds of pages, it will say more about them than anything.
Front page of the tabloids 'Bamber once again withholds document detailing why review commission threw out his claims'!
-
I tell you one thing if the likes of Peter Tatchell and Eric Allison continue to support Bamber knowing he's withholding 2 lengthy docs, running into hundreds of pages, it will say more about them than anything.
Front page of the tabloids 'Bamber once again withholds document detailing why review commission threw out his claims'!
This, I repeat, is how I understand things:
Private documents - the expectation is that the documents will only be seen by the people reading or receiving them, unless a court orders otherwise or there is a duty of disclosure under litigation protocols (e.g. exchanging all relevant evidence before a trial).
Public/regulated documents - the expectation is that the documents may be seen by people other than those who read or receive them, including the whole world/the public-at-large.
There is some overlap between the two, but the expectations are different. An example of the former is the Statement of Reasons. It is private - for Jeremy and his advisors only. If Jeremy wishes to publish the document, he can do so, but there is no specific expectation that he should do so, and there is no duty of disclosure as the document is not relevant.
An example of the latter could be a report written by a police officer as part of an investigation. When he writes it, he knows that it may one day be considered in a court or disclosed to the world-at-large.
On this basis, I see no hypocrisy.
If Jeremy had in his possession a document of material relevance to the case that represented new evidence and he refused to disclose this because it helps the Crown, again that would not be hypocrisy unless it could be shown there is a specific obligation on him to disclose this evidence. Since when do people incriminate themselves or weaken their own case? Is that what you would do? People don't do that, so it's not hypocrisy as there is no expectation on him to do so, and as I have shown, no duty either.
And as for double standards, the existence of two different and unequal standards does not equate to a double standard. The standards are not the same for one as they are for the other, for good reasons.
-
This, I repeat, is how I understand things:
Private documents - the expectation is that the documents will only be seen by the people reading or receiving them, unless a court orders otherwise or there is a duty of disclosure under litigation protocols (e.g. exchanging all relevant evidence before a trial).
Public/regulated documents - the expectation is that the documents may be seen by people other than those who read or receive them, including the whole world/the public-at-large.
There is some overlap between the two, but the expectations are different. An example of the former is the Statement of Reasons. It is private - for Jeremy and his advisors only. If Jeremy wishes to publish the document, he can do so, but there is no specific expectation that he should do so, and there is no duty of disclosure as the document is not relevant.
An example of the latter could be a report written by a police officer as part of an investigation. When he writes it, he knows that it may one day be considered in a court or disclosed to the world-at-large.
On this basis, I see no hypocrisy.
If Jeremy had in his possession a document of material relevance to the case that represented new evidence and he refused to disclose this because it helps the Crown, again that would not be hypocrisy unless it could be shown there is a specific obligation on him to disclose this evidence. Since when do people incriminate themselves or weaken their own case? Is that what you would do? People don't do that, so it's not hypocrisy as there is no expectation on him to do so, and as I have shown, no duty either.
And as for double standards, the existence of two different and unequal standards does not equate to a double standard. The standards are not the same for one as they are for the other, for good reasons.
Let the media make of it what it will if Bamber refuses to release the latest sor when its issued.
-
Let the media make of it what it will if Bamber refuses to release the latest sor when its issued.
It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.
-
It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.
If the review commission throws out Bamber's latest submission and he continues to protest his innocence, seek public support etc then the public has a right to know what the score is! The media need to flag up the fact Bamber is withholding two lengthy reports as to why his submission was thrown out. Then interested parties can say 'Oh those people at the review commission are treating this appellant unfairly I must lend my support to his cause'! Or those people at the review commission are bang on and Bamber's at the end of the road time to throw away the key'!
-
If the review commission throws out Bamber's latest submission and he continues to protest his innocence, seek public support etc then the public has a right to know what the score is! The media need to flag up the fact Bamber is withholding two lengthy reports as to why his submission was thrown out. Then interested parties can say 'Oh those people at the review commission are treating this appellant unfairly I must lend my support to his cause'! Or those people at the review commission are bang on and Bamber's at the end of the road time to throw away the key'!
I'm sure with your help the media will be right on this. There was a Provisional Statement of Reasons issued by the CCRC in January 2011 and then a somewhat longer Final Statement of Reasons in April 2012.
-
I'm sure with your help the media will be right on this. There was a Provisional Statement of Reasons issued by the CCRC in January 2011 and then a somewhat longer Final Statement of Reasons in April 2012.
The one available for public consumption relates to the new forensic tests in Arizona and amounts to a few pages. The somewhat longer final statement of reasons you refer to amounts ot about 100 pages and Bamber has withheld.
-
The one available for public consumption relates to the new forensic tests in Arizona and amounts to a few pages. The somewhat longer final statement of reasons you refer to amounts ot about 100 pages and Bamber has withheld.
I'm talking about:
- a Provisional Statement of Reasons released in January 2011, which is 89 pages;
- a Final Statement of Reasons released in April 2012, which is 109 pages.
-
I'm talking about:
- a Provisional Statement of Reasons released in January 2011, which is 89 pages;
- a Final Statement of Reasons released in April 2012, which is 109 pages.
You are obviously in the know ;) but I have it on reliable terms there's a 100 page doc not for public consumption. Anyway water under the bridge now. We will see what this submission throws up.
-
And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant ;D
And why shouldn't he be a litigant ? It's what you do when fighting for your rights isn't it ?
-
It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.
..you may as well add his spiked hair to the list, formed with shampoo akin to the photographs of Nicholas and Daniel: the twins, remember, whose picture you posted on a thread of your own, yet castigated me for using a similar image as my Avatar.
I could give further examples.
-
And why shouldn't he be a litigant ? It's what you do when fighting for your rights isn't it ?
Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder. He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant. Bamber is absolutely not a litigant.
-
Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder. He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant. Bamber is absolutely not a litigant.
So you keep saying, Polly.
-
Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder. He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant. Bamber is absolutely not a litigant.
An appellant is a type of litigant.
-
So you keep saying, Polly.
Well I have to keep repeating myself in an attempt to get through to you people!
-
An appellant is a type of litigant.
Here's the court of appeal doc. Bamber is referred to as appellant as that is what he is. If he was a litigant it would say as much.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Here's the court of appeal doc. Bamber is referred to as appellant as that is what he is. If he was a litigant it would say as much.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Doesn't the appellant make an appeal? If Jeremy was suing cousin Ann he would be a litigant.
-
Here's the court of appeal doc. Bamber is referred to as appellant as that is what he is. If he was a litigant it would say as much.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I repeat: an appellant is a type of litigant.
For the benefit of both you and Steve, the term 'litigant' can apply generically to criminal proceedings as well as civil.
I also stress again that I did not use the term 'litigant' in the post to which you referred, but there is civil litigation and there is criminal litigation, and there are criminal litigants and civil litigants, and some criminal litigants are defendants, some are appellants, and so on.
-
Doesn't the appellant make an appeal? If Jeremy was suing cousin Ann he would be a litigant.
Yes.
An appellant is someone who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court.
If Bamber's conviction is ever overturned he could enter into litigation with cousin Ann over the estate and would then be a litigant.
-
Yes.
An appellant is someone who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court.
If Bamber's conviction is ever overturned he could enter into litigation with cousin Ann over the estate and would then be a litigant.
Didn't he drag her to a hearing at HMP Full Sutton several years back I believe..
-
Didn't he drag her to a hearing at HMP Full Sutton several years back I believe..
Yes something to do with the estate I think. In this case he was a litigant.
-
Yes something to do with the estate I think. In this case he was a litigant.
The podcasts never discuss these details. They are glossed over, albeit as much as Yvonne Hartley with her charisma and charm skills can gloss over anything.
-
The podcasts never discuss these details. They are glossed over, albeit as much as Yvonne Hartley with her charisma and charm skills can gloss over anything.
Here it is
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/killer-bamber-sues-family-again-7447596
-
The podcasts never discuss these details. They are glossed over, albeit as much as Yvonne Hartley with her charisma and charm skills can gloss over anything.
Producing podcasts which are disabled for feedback is an altogether different ball game compared with entering into live debate on forums.
Yvonne has gone from sitting around with like minded people in a group hug all patting each other on the back to the bear pit of the commission. If the submission fails I wonder how she will emerge?
-
Sadly I've found those supporting JB need a good kick up the behind. The times I've felt frustrated at their snail-like movements to get things underway has sometimes left me feeling quite despondent.
Why is there no " go " in anyone any more ? My own approach would have been far more forthright. It mightn't have been the right way, but for heaven's sake act as though you mean business.
-
Here it is
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/killer-bamber-sues-family-again-7447596
He owned 8% of the shares of the caravan park before the killings. But was he by law entitled to directors' fees and bonuses?
-
Producing podcasts which are disabled for feedback is an altogether different ball game compared with entering into live debate on forums.
Yvonne has gone from sitting around with like minded people in a group hug all patting each other on the back to the bear pit of the commission. If the submission fails I wonder how she will emerge?
Well you did rather put your finger on it when you described the whole thing as "a circus".
I wonder who is the ringleader and who is the clown..
-
Sadly I've found those supporting JB need a good kick up the behind. The times I've felt frustrated at their snail-like movements to get things underway has sometimes left me feeling quite despondent.
Why is there no " go " in anyone any more ? My own approach would have been far more forthright. It mightn't have been the right way, but for heaven's sake act as though you mean business.
I agree lookout and Roch made a similar point a few days ago. If I were on your side I'd say it's time to clean the Augean stable.
-
Well you did rather put your finger on it when you described the whole thing as "a circus".
I wonder who is the ringleader and who is the clown..
Yes I wonder too :-\
We have Bamber, Yvonne and Phillip and then the elusive Sarah who seems to be camera and publicity shy but might be pulling all the strings :-\
-
He owned 8% of the shares of the caravan park before the killings. But was he by law entitled to directors' fees and bonuses?
If they were part and parcel of share dividend or such like he may have had entitlement. He would be entitled to retain any property or rights he owned pre murders/verdict. He forefeited his parents estate as he was unable to benefit from his crimes. All water under the bridge now. What would he do with large sums of money? Pig out on sweets from the prison shop :)) I suppose he could fund forensic tests rather than getting out the begging bowl.
-
I agree lookout and Roch made a similar point a few days ago. If I were on your side I'd say it's time to clean the Augean stable.
If the current submission fails its difficult to see where Bamber and the support group can go. I guess they will still try to big up non-disclosure attempting to sell the idea to anyone who cares to listen that something exists amongst the material that's Bamber's get out of jail card.
Perish the thought of more podcasts :'(
Meanwhile, this January Bamber will be the same age as Mr Bamber snr when his life was cut short by his son.
-
Didn't he drag her to a hearing at HMP Full Sutton several years back I believe..
That was an Agricultural Land Tribunal, as it was then called. The parties were Jeremy, the Henry Smith Charity and the Eatons (Ann and Peter).
He owned 8% of the shares of the caravan park before the killings. But was he by law entitled to directors' fees and bonuses?
That would depend on what documentation was in place between the Company and its directors and what those documents said. The Company would also have had a detailed constitution in the form of Articles of Association and the Companies Act (as it was then) applied. In the absence of anything specific, you would expect that Jeremy would be entitled to reasonable remuneration for any services rendered to the Company. The position would be still more complicated if Jeremy claimed he was an employee of the Company as opposed to a director simply providing services to the Company.
If they Company wanted to refuse to pay him because he had been imprisoned, I think the remaining directors would have to prove bad faith on his part in the conduct of his duties for the Company.
-
Yes.
An appellant is someone who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court.
If Bamber's conviction is ever overturned he could enter into litigation with cousin Ann over the estate and would then be a litigant.
Yes something to do with the estate I think. In this case he was a litigant.
He would be a litigant in all the examples you mention, both civil and criminal. The term 'litigant' is generic for somebody who is party to any legal proceedings and is rarely actually used by lawyers, court officers and judges, except when referring to people who represent themselves - who are known as 'litigants-in-person', or, more rarely, 'pro se litigants'. I once told a Crown Court judge I was representing myself 'pro se'. He didn't bat an eyelid. Anyway, I have a book called 'Criminal Litigation'. It is the official book used by most educational providers to train prospective solicitors.
In the case of estates litigation, and other civil litigation, he would either be the Claimant or the Defendant (depending on how is bringing the proceedings), though in some civil litigation (such as family courts), the parties can be known as Applicant and Respondent.
The point I am making to you is that the term 'litigant' is generic and correct in all cases when referring to parties, but nobody who is actually involved in the law ever uses it in the way you insist on using it on this thread, and even then you are not using it correctly because you seem to think it is only a term for civil litigation.
-
Meanwhile, this January Bamber will be the same age as Mr Bamber snr when his life was cut short by his son.
As you're no doubt already aware, it is far more likely that Jeremy's main protector from his relatives' jealousy and avarice, was himself slain by his own daughter. My own lay-person's theory is that Nevill died because he attempted to stop Sheila from joining her children on the other side.
-
I can go along with that Roch.
-
As you're no doubt already aware, it is far more likely that Jeremy's main protector from his relatives' jealousy and avarice, was himself slain by his own daughter. My own lay-person's theory is that Nevill died because he attempted to stop Sheila from joining her children on the other side.
So, is your scenario that Sheila was upstairs already when Nevill confronted her? She had already killed the children and shot June at least once, and Nevill tried to stop her killing herself, is that right?
In that scenario, when does Nevill make the phone call to Jeremy and why?
If Nevill makes the call after discovering or realising that the children have been shot, why does he ring Jeremy at all? Why not 999?
How do Nevill and Sheila end up downstairs and how does the struggle or fight take place?
-
So, is your scenario that Sheila was upstairs already when Nevill confronted her? She had already killed the children and shot June at least once, and Nevill tried to stop her killing herself, is that right?
In that scenario, when does Nevill make the phone call to Jeremy and why?
If Nevill makes the call after discovering or realising that the children have been shot, why does he ring Jeremy at all? Why not 999?
How do Nevill and Sheila end up downstairs and how does the struggle or fight take place?
Is it possible Nevill didn't know the children had already been shot? That he is instead, engaged in attempting to prevent Sheila from committing suicide? Nobody can truly know the fate of the twins unless they enter the room. Of course, their fate could be guessed upon, if the shots were heard from the adjacent room. The thing is, neither parent would have any idea whatsoever that Sheila was capable of sending her own children to heaven, so to speak. I realize I've not fully answered your questions.
-
Is it possible Nevill didn't know the children had already been shot? That he is instead, engaged in attempting to prevent Sheila from committing suicide? Nobody can truly know the fate of the twins unless they enter the room. Of course, their fate could be guessed upon, if the shots were heard from the adjacent room. The thing is, neither parent would have any idea whatsoever that Sheila was capable of sending her own children to heaven, so to speak. I realize I've not fully answered your questions.
Well you did propose that Nevill was trying to stop Sheila killing herself after killing her children. But if you want to change it, then Nevill trying to stop her committing suicide also raises a problem. It's not plausible due to the specification of the weapon. Just think about how she would have to go about killing herself using that rifle. It would be a very deliberative process, giving Nevill ample chance to intervene and stop her.
In my view, and after due consideration of the available facts and evidence, the only plausible and internally consistent Sheila scenario - in outline - is the following:
1. Sheila is schizophrenic. Schizophrenics wander around at night. Sheila can't sleep and wanders round the house. She is upset and fearful (or angstful) as she considers the kitchen conversation earlier.
2. Nevill finds Sheila in the kitchen. Sheila has the weapon. It is loaded.
3. Nevill is trying to reason with Sheila, and rings Jeremy as a way of stalling her or persuading her to stop. "If you don't stop, I'll ring Jeremy....Right, I'm calling Jeremy now...", etc. That type of thing.
4. As Jeremy answers the phone, Sheila runs out of the kitchen and makes for the stairs.
5. Nevill terminates the call and goes after her.
6. Sheila fires on Nevill from the stairs, injuring him badly. This is consistent with the blood evidence and the distribution of the spent cartridges on the landing. She is advancing on him. He turns and conspicuously makes for the kitchen, in an attempt to draw her away from the rest of the family upstairs.
7. Nevill and Sheila are now struggling in the kitchen, or Sheila just hits Nevill with the butt of the rifle, or whatever. (Note: it is possible that the phone call to Jeremy happened at this point, just before Sheila reaches the kitchen, rather than earlier, but that would require that a police officer wipes the kitchen phone).
8. Nevill is unconscious. I suspect he didn't die for some time and may have been alive and in and out of consciousness when Sheila killed herself later. This is due to the accumulation of blood.
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself?
10. Sheila shoots June, initially only injuring her. Sheila realises she out of ammunition. She returns downstairs. June is now crawling round the master bedroom towards the link door to the twins' room.
11. Sheila reloads the rifle and returns upstairs. This time she shoots the twins, then shoots June, or maybe the order was June first, then the twins. There may be at least one further fusillade if she has to re-load, depending on whether she could re-load the magazine fully.
12. Sheila then washes or cleans herself, and wipes the rifle action, then deliberately shoots herself. She has a flash of clarity, and is ashamed of what she has done, therefore she doesn't commit this act in the twins' room but assumes she faces a long prison sentence and public opprobrium, etc., and thinks suicide is now her only way out. She cries. She knows her body will be found - obviously - and looking clean is important to her.
13. I have no idea if the movement at the window was Sheila. The starting point with that would be astronomical charts to ascertain if moon light is a plausible explanation. It doesn't necessarily matter to this scenario if Sheila was alive at a later point or not, was seen in the kitchen by the Raid Group, or even cut into an emergency phone line. The ending is the same in either event.
I posted more detailed Sheila scenarios in the past, but that will do as an outline. Obviously there will be questions and issues with it. I don't say this is perfect. I also don't presume to say I know what happened, but I do say that this is roughly (allowing for variations) the only plausible way it could have happened if Jeremy is innocent.
-
1. Sheila is schizophrenic. Schizophrenics wander around at night. Sheila can't sleep and wanders round the house. She is upset and fearful (or angstful) as she considers the kitchen conversation earlier.
----------
Do they wander around at night?
What conversation?
-
2. Nevill finds Sheila in the kitchen. Sheila has the weapon. It is loaded.
----------
A fully fit Nevill takes weapon off Sheila.
-
1. Sheila is schizophrenic. Schizophrenics wander around at night. Sheila can't sleep and wanders round the house. She is upset and fearful (or angstful) as she considers the kitchen conversation earlier.
----------
Do they wander around at night?
What conversation?
I am addressing Roch. I am not terribly interested in what you have to say about it.
Your proposition is that Jeremy’s guilt is obvious. If that were the case, this Forum would not exist and, to reverse your own logic, countless lawyers would not have worked on his applications for appeal over decades. They have professional duties and if his case was hopeless, they would have just told him that he had no basis for a viable appeal and shouldn’t bother.
Clearly his guilt is not clear-cut, or you would not spend a large chunk of your own time over many years on this Forum.
-
3. Nevill is trying to reason with Sheila, and rings Jeremy as a way of stalling her or persuading her to stop. "If you don't stop, I'll ring Jeremy....Right, I'm calling Jeremy now...", etc. That type of thing
----------
See my last post.
Ringing Bamber ;D
-
2. Nevill finds Sheila in the kitchen. Sheila has the weapon. It is loaded.
----------
A fully fit Nevill takes weapon off Sheila.
You can't make that assumption. I've explained why in the past - at length. I won't go over it again.
-
4. As Jeremy answers the phone, Sheila runs out of the kitchen and makes for the stairs.
----------
See post 1195.
Nevill would have had to wait several minutes for Bamber to answer. What was Sheila doing?
-
3. Nevill is trying to reason with Sheila, and rings Jeremy as a way of stalling her or persuading her to stop. "If you don't stop, I'll ring Jeremy....Right, I'm calling Jeremy now...", etc. That type of thing
----------
See my last post.
Ringing Bamber ;D
You are an arrogant, ignorant idiot. You know nothing about the case. I will not engage with you.
-
MODERATOR:
Please ensure this person is warned not to spam threads with repetitive posts that cover only one point at a time.
He must be told that he has to think about his posts and put his points in one or two posts, so that threads are not unduly long.
He does not follow a normal posting pattern. He is deliberately spamming.
-
5. Nevill terminates the call and goes after her.
--------
Poor Jeremy. Was in the middle of sleeping 'like a log'.
-
5. Nevill terminates the call and goes after her.
--------
Poor Jeremy. Was in the middle of sleeping 'like a log'.
Stop spamming this thread. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but don't post one point at a time.
You are doing this on purpose.
-
6. Sheila fires on Nevill from the stairs, injuring him badly. This is consistent with the blood evidence and the distribution of the spent cartridges on the landing. She is advancing on him. He turns and conspicuously makes for the kitchen, in an attempt to draw her away from the rest of the family upstairs.
----------
Nevill's two face shots were from inches away. Not consistant with him being on the stairs & Sheila in the bedroom.
-
7. Nevill and Sheila are now struggling in the kitchen, or Sheila just hits Nevill with the butt of the rifle, or whatever.
----------
Even more likely an injured Nevill would use his 8 stone and 9 inch advantage to take Sheila to the ground.
-
8. Nevill is unconscious. I suspect he didn't die for some time and may have been alive and in and out of consciousness when Sheila killed herself later. This is due to the accumulation of blood.
----------
Nevill would certainly be unconcious after the kitchen fight. His next 4 shots would have killed him. When ever they were.
Bamber agrees Nevill's back was burnt to check for signs of life.
-
Adam - I do think you are posting in a way intended to annoy or provoke other members. By all means contribute to the debate, but please avoid repetitive posts which simply clog up the thread and add nothing to the debate. Thank you.
-
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself.
----------
Are you saying June had not been shot yet. But had remained in bed despite all the noise. Then let herself get shot 5 times in bed.
-
10. Sheila shoots June, initially only injuring her. Sheila realises she out of ammunition. She returns downstairs. June is now crawling round the master bedroom towards the link door to the twins' room.
----------
If Nevill had been shot 8 times, June would have only been shot 3 times in bed.
Bit risky leaving Nevill downstairs with only 4 shots.
-
11. Sheila reloads the rifle and returns upstairs. This time she shoots the twins, then shoots June, or maybe the order was June first, then the twins. There may be at least one further fusillade if she has to re-load, depending on whether she could re-load the magazine fully.
----------
The twins had slept through it all?
-
12. Sheila then washes or cleans herself, and wipes the rifle action, then deliberately shoots herself. She has a flash of clarity, and is ashamed of what she has done, therefore she doesn't commit this act in the twins' room but assumes she faces a long prison sentence and public opprobrium, etc., and thinks suicide is now her only way out. She cries. She knows her body will be found - obviously - and looking clean is important to her.
----------
You believe she washed herself afterwards. Lucky she had time prior to the police arriving.
Her nightdress was not damaged. So only correct she was also clean.
-
You're insane !!
-
Adam - I do think you are posting in a way intended to annoy or provoke other members. By all means contribute to the debate, but please avoid repetitive posts which simply clog up the thread and add nothing to the debate. Thank you.
QC kindly posted a 12 point Sheila scenario. At last.
I responded to each point. As I did with Rob's scenario.
Not sure why QC should have such a tantrum & be so aggressive. Surely he knew I would respond.
QC's scenario is a new scenario. So impossible for my posts today to be repetitive. Certainly not Spam as I am responding to somebodies post.
It will be disappointing if posters are not allowed to respond to Sheila scenarios. I posted my Bamber scenario years ago & have always welcomed responses.
-
Well you did propose that Nevill was trying to stop Sheila killing herself after killing her children. But if you want to change it, then Nevill trying to stop her committing suicide also raises a problem. It's not plausible due to the specification of the weapon. Just think about how she would have to go about killing herself using that rifle. It would be a very deliberative process, giving Nevill ample chance to intervene and stop her.
In my view, and after due consideration of the available facts and evidence, the only plausible and internally consistent Sheila scenario - in outline - is the following:
1. Sheila is schizophrenic. Schizophrenics wander around at night. Sheila can't sleep and wanders round the house. She is upset and fearful (or angstful) as she considers the kitchen conversation earlier.
2. Nevill finds Sheila in the kitchen. Sheila has the weapon. It is loaded.
3. Nevill is trying to reason with Sheila, and rings Jeremy as a way of stalling her or persuading her to stop. "If you don't stop, I'll ring Jeremy....Right, I'm calling Jeremy now...", etc. That type of thing.
4. As Jeremy answers the phone, Sheila runs out of the kitchen and makes for the stairs.
5. Nevill terminates the call and goes after her.
6. Sheila fires on Nevill from the stairs, injuring him badly. This is consistent with the blood evidence and the distribution of the spent cartridges on the landing. She is advancing on him. He turns and conspicuously makes for the kitchen, in an attempt to draw her away from the rest of the family upstairs.
7. Nevill and Sheila are now struggling in the kitchen, or Sheila just hits Nevill with the butt of the rifle, or whatever. (Note: it is possible that the phone call to Jeremy happened at this point, just before Sheila reaches the kitchen, rather than earlier, but that would require that a police officer wipes the kitchen phone).
8. Nevill is unconscious. I suspect he didn't die for some time and may have been alive and in and out of consciousness when Sheila killed herself later. This is due to the accumulation of blood.
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself?
10. Sheila shoots June, initially only injuring her. Sheila realises she out of ammunition. She returns downstairs. June is now crawling round the master bedroom towards the link door to the twins' room.
11. Sheila reloads the rifle and returns upstairs. This time she shoots the twins, then shoots June, or maybe the order was June first, then the twins. There may be at least one further fusillade if she has to re-load, depending on whether she could re-load the magazine fully.
12. Sheila then washes or cleans herself, and wipes the rifle action, then deliberately shoots herself. She has a flash of clarity, and is ashamed of what she has done, therefore she doesn't commit this act in the twins' room but assumes she faces a long prison sentence and public opprobrium, etc., and thinks suicide is now her only way out. She cries. She knows her body will be found - obviously - and looking clean is important to her.
13. I have no idea if the movement at the window was Sheila. The starting point with that would be astronomical charts to ascertain if moon light is a plausible explanation. It doesn't necessarily matter to this scenario if Sheila was alive at a later point or not, was seen in the kitchen by the Raid Group, or even cut into an emergency phone line. The ending is the same in either event.
I posted more detailed Sheila scenarios in the past, but that will do as an outline. Obviously there will be questions and issues with it. I don't say this is perfect. I also don't presume to say I know what happened, but I do say that this is roughly (allowing for variations) the only plausible way it could have happened if Jeremy is innocent.
Point 7 - Impossible for the claimed phone call to take place after the upstairs gunshot injuries as these rendered Mr Bamber snr incapable of purposeful talk thereafter.
-
Point 7 - Impossible for the claimed phone call to take place after the upstairs gunshot injuries as these rendered Mr Bamber snr incapable of purposeful talk thereafter.
Phone call was made before he went upstairs.
-
Phone call was made before he went upstairs.
If you believe Bamber received such a call.
-
Well you did propose that Nevill was trying to stop Sheila killing herself after killing her children. But if you want to change it, then Nevill trying to stop her committing suicide also raises a problem. It's not plausible due to the specification of the weapon. Just think about how she would have to go about killing herself using that rifle. It would be a very deliberative process, giving Nevill ample chance to intervene and stop her.
In my view, and after due consideration of the available facts and evidence, the only plausible and internally consistent Sheila scenario - in outline - is the following:
1. Sheila is schizophrenic. Schizophrenics wander around at night. Sheila can't sleep and wanders round the house. She is upset and fearful (or angstful) as she considers the kitchen conversation earlier.
2. Nevill finds Sheila in the kitchen. Sheila has the weapon. It is loaded.
3. Nevill is trying to reason with Sheila, and rings Jeremy as a way of stalling her or persuading her to stop. "If you don't stop, I'll ring Jeremy....Right, I'm calling Jeremy now...", etc. That type of thing.
4. As Jeremy answers the phone, Sheila runs out of the kitchen and makes for the stairs.
5. Nevill terminates the call and goes after her.
6. Sheila fires on Nevill from the stairs, injuring him badly. This is consistent with the blood evidence and the distribution of the spent cartridges on the landing. She is advancing on him. He turns and conspicuously makes for the kitchen, in an attempt to draw her away from the rest of the family upstairs.
7. Nevill and Sheila are now struggling in the kitchen, or Sheila just hits Nevill with the butt of the rifle, or whatever. (Note: it is possible that the phone call to Jeremy happened at this point, just before Sheila reaches the kitchen, rather than earlier, but that would require that a police officer wipes the kitchen phone).
8. Nevill is unconscious. I suspect he didn't die for some time and may have been alive and in and out of consciousness when Sheila killed herself later. This is due to the accumulation of blood.
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself?
10. Sheila shoots June, initially only injuring her. Sheila realises she out of ammunition. She returns downstairs. June is now crawling round the master bedroom towards the link door to the twins' room.
11. Sheila reloads the rifle and returns upstairs. This time she shoots the twins, then shoots June, or maybe the order was June first, then the twins. There may be at least one further fusillade if she has to re-load, depending on whether she could re-load the magazine fully.
12. Sheila then washes or cleans herself, and wipes the rifle action, then deliberately shoots herself. She has a flash of clarity, and is ashamed of what she has done, therefore she doesn't commit this act in the twins' room but assumes she faces a long prison sentence and public opprobrium, etc., and thinks suicide is now her only way out. She cries. She knows her body will be found - obviously - and looking clean is important to her.
13. I have no idea if the movement at the window was Sheila. The starting point with that would be astronomical charts to ascertain if moon light is a plausible explanation. It doesn't necessarily matter to this scenario if Sheila was alive at a later point or not, was seen in the kitchen by the Raid Group, or even cut into an emergency phone line. The ending is the same in either event.
I posted more detailed Sheila scenarios in the past, but that will do as an outline. Obviously there will be questions and issues with it. I don't say this is perfect. I also don't presume to say I know what happened, but I do say that this is roughly (allowing for variations) the only plausible way it could have happened if Jeremy is innocent.
9 - The forensic and pathological evidence shows Mrs Bamber was first shot in bed. 13 cartridge cases were found in the main bedroom with 1 on the landing. The forensic and pathological evidence shows Mr Bamber was shot 4 times upstairs. All of this is at odds with your scenario.p
-
9 - The forensic and pathological evidence shows Mrs Bamber was first shot in bed. 13 cartridge cases were found in the main bedroom with 1 on the landing. The forensic and pathological evidence shows Mr Bamber was shot 4 times upstairs. All of this is at odds with your scenario.p
Neville's blood was not found in the master bedroom.
If June was first shot in bed, that is not at odds with my scenario.
-
QC kindly posted a 12 point Sheila scenario. At last.
I responded to each point. As I did with Rob's scenario.
Not sure why QC should have such a tantrum & be so aggressive. Surely he knew I would respond.
QC's scenario is a new scenario. So impossible for my posts today to be repetitive. Certainly not Spam as I am responding to somebodies post.
It will be disappointing if posters are not allowed to respond to Sheila scenarios. I posted my Bamber scenario years ago & have always welcomed responses.
Noone is throwing any tantrum. You have been asked politely by the moderator to cease spamming the thread and you have ignored him.
Noone objects to you critiquing posts. That is not the point being put to you. Please do not misrepresent me or lie about what I say.
The scenario I posted above is not new - something similar has been posted before. Indeed you commented on it on the previous occasion.
-
Point 7 - Impossible for the claimed phone call to take place after the upstairs gunshot injuries as these rendered Mr Bamber snr incapable of purposeful talk thereafter.
I disagree. It depends on when he sustained the relevant injuries and in what order. I only moot it as a possibility anyway. It is not essential to the scenario.
-
Nevill phoning Bamber after he had been shot?
A bit late.
-
Phone call was made before he went upstairs.
What was Sheila doing during the long time it took Bamber to -
Wake from sleeping 'like a log'. Upstairs.
Realise the phone was ringing.
Think about whether to answer it. Or ignore it.
Decide to get up, go downstairs and answer.
-
Neville's blood was not found in the master bedroom.
If June was first shot in bed, that is not at odds with my scenario.
Nevill was out of the bedroom in less than 10 seconds after receiving his first shot.
No time for any blood to drip.
Nevill's first two shots were from inches away. While he was in bed next to June.
-
Neville's blood was not found in the master bedroom.
If June was first shot in bed, that is not at odds with my scenario.
I think you will find Mr Bamber's first name is without the 'e'. Just sayin like since you seem rather pedantic and take great delight in pulling others up about such matters.
I posted the other day about bloodstaining from gunshot wounds so please keep up otherwise I will make a case for a ban for wasting time! I will quote again from the defence pathologist at trial, Prof Bernard Knight, but there will not be a third time so please take note! It also begs the question as to whether or not you actually read case material and if you do whether you are able to absorb, store and retrieve.
"Bleeding is not as immediate as some people suspect. There is often a momentary delay before bleeding starts. The shock causes blood vessels to contract and then the blood comes out through the aperture".
This is what you said about Mrs Bamber's shots. (As an aside, since you object to my use of 'pal' and 'matey' why are you referring to Mr and Mrs Bamber by their first names?)
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself?
Mrs Bamber was not first shot on the stairs. Lookout is hardly a reliable source. If I had my way I would ban the pair of you permanently! Mrs Bamber was first shot in bed evidenced by her wounds which correspond with two bullets embedded in her pillow.
How do you account for all the upstairs cartridge cases in the main bedroom, except the one on the landing, if Mr and Mrs Bamber were shot anywhere other than the main bedroom?
The pathological evidence shows Mr Bamber snr was incapable of purposeful speech after the upstairs gunshot wounds so how did he make the call to Bamber? Three cartridge cases were found in the kitchen and the pathologist said he would be incapable of voluntary movement after the gunshot wounds to the head. Surely you can see from this alone Bamber is guilty?
* Mr Bamber must have received the 4 not immediately life threatening gunshot wounds upstairs in the bedroom and the 4 immediately fatal gunshot wounds in the kitchen downstairs.
* Mr Bamber was incapable of purposeful speech after the upstairs gunshot wounds.
-
I disagree. It depends on when he sustained the relevant injuries and in what order. I only moot it as a possibility anyway. It is not essential to the scenario.
Disagree all you like but it doesn't change the known facts which you seem oblivious to.
Mr Bamber received four gunshot wounds upstairs in the main bedroom. The pathologist confirmed the gunshot wounds to his lip and jaw meant he was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter so how could he have made the call to Bamber?
The four gunshot wounds downstairs in the kitchen were immediately fatal. And in any event common sense would tell you that if Mr Bamber or anyone else for that matter had been shot he would call 999 not Bamber.
-
June shouting on the landing. At what? She was shot 5 times in bed. Once in the neck. So barely able to crawl a few feet.
-
I think you will find Mr Bamber's first name is without the 'e'. Just sayin like since you seem rather pedantic and take great delight in pulling others up about such matters.
I posted the other day about bloodstaining from gunshot wounds so please keep up otherwise I will make a case for a ban for wasting time! I will quote again from the defence pathologist at trial, Prof Bernard Knight, but there will not be a third time so please take note! It also begs the question as to whether or not you actually read case material and if you do whether you are able to absorb, store and retrieve.
[i]"Bleeding is not as immediate as some people suspect. There is often a momentary delay before bleeding starts. The shock causes blood vessels to contract and then the blood comes out through the aperture".[/i]
This is what you said about Mrs Bamber's shots. (As an aside, since you object to my use of 'pal' and 'matey' why are you referring to Mr and Mrs Bamber by their first names?)
9. Sheila returns upstairs without reloading and shoots June. She may have heard June shouting on the landing, etc. Lookout's theory that June was first shot on the stairs may well be correct, as there needs to be a reason for a confrontation between Sheila and June, otherwise why wouldn't Sheila just go straight to the twins, then kill herself?
Mrs Bamber was not first shot on the stairs. Lookout is hardly a reliable source. If I had my way I would ban the pair of you permanently! Mrs Bamber was first shot in bed evidenced by her wounds which correspond with two bullets embedded in her pillow.
How do you account for all the upstairs cartridge cases in the main bedroom, except the one on the landing, if Mr and Mrs Bamber were shot anywhere other than the main bedroom?
The pathological evidence shows Mr Bamber snr was incapable of purposeful speech after the upstairs gunshot wounds so how did he make the call to Bamber? Three cartridge cases were found in the kitchen and the pathologist said he would be incapable of voluntary movement after the gunshot wounds to the head. Surely you can see from this alone Bamber is guilty?
* Mr Bamber must have received the 4 not immediately life threatening gunshot wounds upstairs in the bedroom and the 4 immediately fatal gunshot wounds in the kitchen downstairs.
* Mr Bamber was incapable of purposeful speech after the upstairs gunshot wounds.
Nevill was not in the bedroom long enough to bleed. Either on the bed or on the carpet.
He was out of bed before Bamber could fire a third face shot. Then out of the door straight after his two torso shots.
Besides which June had crawled across the bedroom & back. Her blood would have negated any of Nevill's unlikely blood.
-
Disagree all you like but it doesn't change the known facts which you seem oblivious to.
Mr Bamber received four gunshot wounds upstairs in the main bedroom. The pathologist confirmed the gunshot wounds to his lip and jaw meant he was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter so how could he have made the call to Bamber?
The four gunshot wounds downstairs in the kitchen were immediately fatal. And in any event common sense would tell you that if Mr Bamber or anyone else for that matter had been shot he would call 999 not Bamber.
Not only that, Bamber never mentions his Dad had been shot for anyone who believes Bamber’s story about the phone call.
If we go by Roch and Lookout that Sheila shot Nevill because he tried to stop her joining her children, how do they account for June, did she try and stop her as well even though she had killed Nevill or vice versa? If Sheila was that determined to join her children, why didn’t she kill herself in the same room so she could be with them in death?
-
I think you will find Mr Bamber's first name is without the 'e'. Just sayin like since you seem rather pedantic and take great delight in pulling others up about such matters.
Autocorrect on a mobile device.
You'll find that I have spelt Nevill's name correctly literally hundreds of times on here, including on this thread in the posts above.
So your pedantry is in vain.
And it's saying, not 'sayin'.
And I don't take delight in pulling others up about such matters. I pulled you up about your inability to use the possessive apostrophe because you are rude to me and you carry yourself around as if you know everything about the case and about the law. Therefore, it was appropriate for me to step in and pull you down a peg, just as it was also appropriate for me to correct you on legal terminology.
People who think they know everything, rarely do, and it tends to be a sign of insecurity.
Your rudeness is despite my defence of you early on and was totally needless and unprovoked. You are an arrogant, ignorant, rude, obnoxious lout.
Mrs Bamber was not first shot on the stairs. Lookout is hardly a reliable source. If I had my way I would ban the pair of you permanently!
I was not using Lookout as a source. If you go back and read carefully what I said, I stated that Lookout may be correct that June was first shot on the stairs - though it could also be that I am misremembering what Lookout said. That in itself is not important, since Lookout is not my source, it just seemed that her view about it coincidences with a possibility I am considering for this scenario in order to explain why June confronted Sheila.
There is a bullet hole in a pillow and blood on the bed, but that does not mean June was shot first in the bed. She may have got out of bed, then approached the landing and shouted down, then Sheila began firing at her, then she returned to the area of the bed.
While you're here, could you be careful how to speak to myself and other members on here? You are now calling for myself and Lookout to be banned, simply because we hold different views to your own.
I think the moderator needs to have a quiet word with you. And with Adam.
-
Autocorrect on a mobile device.
You'll find that I have spelt Nevill's name correctly literally hundreds of times on here, including on this thread in the posts above.
So your pedantry is in vain.
And it's saying, not 'sayin'.
And I don't take delight in pulling others up about such matters. I pulled you up about your inability to use the possessive apostrophe because you are rude to me and you carry yourself around as if you know everything about the case and about the law. Therefore, it was appropriate for me to step in and pull you down a peg, just as it was also appropriate for me to correct you on legal terminology.
People who think they know everything, rarely do, and it tends to be a sign of insecurity.
Your rudeness is despite my defence of you early on and was totally needless and unprovoked. You are an arrogant, ignorant, rude, obnoxious lout.
:o
-
:o
I think my response to you is dignified.
I have spelt Nevill's name correctly thousands of times on here. You identify one typo and make something of it, continuing your campaign of rudeness.
You are noxious. You, Adam and at times a certain other person, make posting here unpleasant and I honestly don't know why I come back here.
Of course, it must be that I am a cry baby. It can't be that the Forum has been allowed to get out of control and you're just immature.
-
Autocorrect on a mobile device.
You'll find that I have spelt Nevill's name correctly literally hundreds of times on here, including on this thread in the posts above.
So your pedantry is in vain.
And it's saying, not 'sayin'.
And I don't take delight in pulling others up about such matters. I pulled you up about your inability to use the possessive apostrophe because you are rude to me and you carry yourself around as if you know everything about the case and about the law. Therefore, it was appropriate for me to step in and pull you down a peg, just as it was also appropriate for me to correct you on legal terminology.
People who think they know everything, rarely do, and it tends to be a sign of insecurity.
Your rudeness is despite my defence of you early on and was totally needless and unprovoked. You are an arrogant, ignorant, rude, obnoxious lout.
I was not using Lookout as a source. If you go back and read carefully what I said, I stated that Lookout may be correct that June was first shot on the stairs - though it could also be that I am misremembering what Lookout said. That in itself is not important, since Lookout is not my source, it just seemed that her view about it coincidences with a possibility I am considering for this scenario in order to explain why June confronted Sheila.
There is a bullet hole in a pillow and blood on the bed, but that does not mean June was shot first in the bed. She may have got out of bed, then approached the landing and shouted down, then Sheila began firing at her, then she returned to the area of the bed.
While you're here, could you be careful how to speak to myself and other members on here? You are now calling for myself and Lookout to be banned, simply because we hold different views to your own.
I think the moderator needs to have a quiet word with you. And with Adam.
What was June shouting at?
If she was fully fit, awake & out of bed, wouldn't she go to help Nevill. Or check on the twins.
Following the evidence shows June was asleep when Bamber entered the main bedroom, next to Nevill. June was shot 5 times in bed. Nevill twice.
-
Not only that, Bamber never mentions his Dad had been shot for anyone who believes Bamber’s story about the phone call.
If we go by Roch and Lookout that Sheila shot Nevill because he tried to stop her joining her children, how do they account for June, did she try and stop her as well even though she had killed Nevill or vice versa? If Sheila was that determined to join her children, why didn’t she kill herself in the same room so she could be with them in death?
Colin and his partner (Heather ?) I think said Bamber thought his father had been shot but it wasn't possible from a pathological perspective and also the complete absence of any blood on the phone.
If Sheila wanted to murder her sons and take her own life using a firearm then she could no doubt engineer a situation when the three of them were alone in the farmhouse. Even during the night she could enter their room and carry out the deed before Mr and Mrs Bamber realised what was happening.
Putting aside the human tragedy its an interesting case to debate but I don't understand what amounts to a fringe element that believe Bamber is innocent.
-
I think my response to you is dignified.
I have spelt Nevill's name correctly thousands of times on here. You identify one typo and make something of it, continuing your campaign of rudeness.
You are noxious. You, Adam and at times a certain other person, make posting here unpleasant and I honestly don't know why I come back here.
Of course, it must be that I am a cry baby. It can't be that the Forum has been allowed to get out of control and you're just immature.
:P
-
Autocorrect on a mobile device.
You'll find that I have spelt Nevill's name correctly literally hundreds of times on here, including on this thread in the posts above.
So your pedantry is in vain.
And it's saying, not 'sayin'.
And I don't take delight in pulling others up about such matters. I pulled you up about your inability to use the possessive apostrophe because you are rude to me and you carry yourself around as if you know everything about the case and about the law. Therefore, it was appropriate for me to step in and pull you down a peg, just as it was also appropriate for me to correct you on legal terminology.
People who think they know everything, rarely do, and it tends to be a sign of insecurity.
Your rudeness is despite my defence of you early on and was totally needless and unprovoked. You are an arrogant, ignorant, rude, obnoxious lout.
I was not using Lookout as a source. If you go back and read carefully what I said, I stated that Lookout may be correct that June was first shot on the stairs - though it could also be that I am misremembering what Lookout said. That in itself is not important, since Lookout is not my source, it just seemed that her view about it coincidences with a possibility I am considering for this scenario in order to explain why June confronted Sheila.
There is a bullet hole in a pillow and blood on the bed, but that does not mean June was shot first in the bed. She may have got out of bed, then approached the landing and shouted down, then Sheila began firing at her, then she returned to the area of the bed.
While you're here, could you be careful how to speak to myself and other members on here? You are now calling for myself and Lookout to be banned, simply because we hold different views to your own.
I think the moderator needs to have a quiet word with you. And with Adam.
What evidence exists that Mrs Bamber confronted Sheila?
Two bullets were found embedded in the pillow not one.
If Mrs Bamber wasn't shot in bed and whilst getting out of how do you account for the bullets embedded in the pillow (DRH 35 x2), significant bloodstains on the bedding her side and drips on the carpet which lead away from the bed to the other side and back again? And more importantly how do you account for the cluster of casings her side of the bed DRH 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 43 and the exited bullets DRH 35, 35, 9?
Scenarios need to match the evidence and yours is woefully lacking.
-
Colin and his partner (Heather ?) I think said Bamber thought his father had been shot but it wasn't possible from a pathological perspective and also the complete absence of any blood on the phone.
If Sheila wanted to murder her sons and take her own life using a firearm then she could no doubt engineer a situation when the three of them were alone in the farmhouse. Even during the night she could enter their room and carry out the deed before Mr and Mrs Bamber realised what was happening.
Putting aside the human tragedy its an interesting case to debate but I don't understand what amounts to a fringe element that believe Bamber is innocent.
Yes here's the statement from Heather Amos
-
What evidence exists that Mrs Bamber confronted Sheila?
Two bullets were found embedded in the pillow not one.
If Mrs Bamber wasn't shot in bed and whilst getting out of how do you account for the bullets embedded in the pillow (DRH 35 x2), significant bloodstains on the bedding her side and drips on the carpet which lead away from the bed to the other side and back again? And more importantly how do you account for the cluster of casings her side of the bed DRH 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 43 and the exited bullets DRH 35, 35, 9?
Scenarios need to match the evidence and yours is woefully lacking.
Have you seen my Bamber scenario?
Recently updated to include the back burning.
It differs from CAL's. There is more than one Bamber scenario which matches the crime scene evidence.
-
Yes here's the statement from Heather Amos
Yes thanks, I can remember that. Bamber would change his story depending on the audience he had.
-
Yes thanks, I can remember that. Bamber would change his story depending on the audience he had.
Same as David Boutflour, Barbara Wilson Brett Collins and the list goes on
-
And even the police themselves :o
-
Same as David Boutflour, Barbara Wilson Brett Collins and the list goes on
I agree, Bamber is a typical Psychopath who would change his story to try and cover up his lies, he would rework his story to fit his lies or the situation. Brett probably realises now.
-
Bews ran as though his behind was on fire at the " trick of the light !" Big wuss.
-
What evidence exists that Mrs Bamber confronted Sheila?
Two bullets were found embedded in the pillow not one.
If Mrs Bamber wasn't shot in bed and whilst getting out of how do you account for the bullets embedded in the pillow (DRH 35 x2), significant bloodstains on the bedding her side and drips on the carpet which lead away from the bed to the other side and back again? And more importantly how do you account for the cluster of casings her side of the bed DRH 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 43 and the exited bullets DRH 35, 35, 9?
Scenarios need to match the evidence and yours is woefully lacking.
I quite like QC's scenario Cc, though I myself think the first shot was a accident Sheila waving the gun around not realising it was loaded hitting Nevil in the arm? and there is also room for Roch's theory as well.
The guilters have to be honest and explain why Nevil ran past the shooter in the bedroom and left his family to their fate? He would never do this the fight would have been upstairs. Also how does the shooter get Sheila to cooperate to take the shot knowing her children are next or already shot?
-
Bews ran as though his behind was on fire at the " trick of the light !" Big wuss.
It's not just that he ran Lookout he changes his version of events every time he give's a interview.
-
I quite like QC's scenario Cc, though I myself think the first shot was a accident Sheila waving the gun around not realising it was loaded hitting Nevil in the arm? and there is also room for Roch's theory as well.
The guilters have to be honest and explain why Nevil ran past the shooter in the bedroom and left his family to their fate? He would never do this the fight would have been upstairs. Also how does the shooter get Sheila to cooperate to take the shot knowing her children are next or already shot?
If the shooter was Sheila he would have tried and easily disarmed her, but because it was Bamber and he’d taken four shots his only option was to go downstairs probably to where the other guns were kept or to the phone?
You say you think the first shot was an accident, if he’d only took an accidental shot to the arm he would have took the rifle off Sheila, what about the other seven and the over kill?
-
It's not just that he ran Lookout he changes his version of events every time he give's a interview.
That video of him is so put-on it hurts. You can tell he's lying.
-
Have you seen my Bamber scenario?
Recently updated to include the back burning.
It differs from CAL's. There is more than one Bamber scenario which matches the crime scene evidence.
"Recently updated to include the back burning" Please can you update it so it's at least plausible, mine had some flaws as you kindly pointed out, yours has holes that would sink the Titanic!
-
I quite like QC's scenario Cc, though I myself think the first shot was a accident Sheila waving the gun around not realising it was loaded hitting Nevil in the arm? and there is also room for Roch's theory as well.
The guilters have to be honest and explain why Nevil ran past the shooter in the bedroom and left his family to their fate? He would never do this the fight would have been upstairs. Also how does the shooter get Sheila to cooperate to take the shot knowing her children are next or already shot?
Your not making sense, if someone shoots someone by accident, they don’t shoot them another seven times and batter them?
-
"Recently updated to include the back burning" Please can you update it so it's at least plausible, mine had some flaws as you kindly pointed out, yours has holes that would sink the Titanic!
Your scenario had 34 flaws.
You addressed 4. When I say addressed, you responded but did not resolve the flaws.
You then said 'a Sheila scenario is not important'.
-
Rob's criticism of my Bamber scenario -
It was dark outside.
-
Your not making sense, if someone shoots someone by accident, they don’t shoot them another seven times and batter them?
Rob is struggling again.
-
If the shooter was Sheila he would have tried and easily disarmed her, but because it was Bamber and he’d taken four shots his only option was to go downstairs probably to where the other guns were kept or to the phone?
You say you think the first shot was an accident, if he’d only took an accidental shot to the arm he would have took the rifle off Sheila, what about the other seven and the over kill?
That is all straight forward and plausible.
Unless you are a Bamber supporter.
-
If the shooter was Sheila he would have tried and easily disarmed her, but because it was Bamber and he’d taken four shots his only option was to go downstairs probably to where the other guns were kept or to the phone?
You say you think the first shot was an accident, if he’d only took an accidental shot to the arm he would have took the rifle off Sheila, what about the other seven and the over kill?
Something sent her into meltdown, the gun goes off and she runs upstairs so I can see room for Roch's theory here. But I don't know, to me the crime scene is the work of someone who has lost it?
-
That is all straight forward and plausible.
Unless you are a Bamber supporter.
I follow the evidence Adam, and it's not plausible Nevil ran past the shooter in the bedroom so please re-submit a better scenario.
-
Something sent her into meltdown, the gun goes off and she runs upstairs so I can see room for Roch's theory here. But I don't know, to me the crime scene is the work of someone who has lost it?
The gun goes off.
You can say that again. Nevill was shot twice in the face from inches away in the main bedroom.
-
I follow the evidence Adam, and it's not plausible Nevil ran past the shooter in the bedroom so please re-submit a better scenario.
In your view it is not plausible.
Nevill was being shot at. In the face and body. A natural reaction to run.
It is also possible Bamber went downstairs to re load & Nevill followed to try to stop him returning upstairs.
-
In your view it is not plausible.
Nevill was being shot at. In the face and body. A natural reaction to run.
It is also possible Bamber went downstairs to re load & Nevill followed to try to stop him returning upstairs.
Or he went down stairs knowing full well the shooter would follow him to stop him phoning or arming himself. It was his only way to try and save the rest of the family having took four shots himself.
-
Rob is struggling again.
There are many reason's she respected Nevil did not intend to hurt him, perhaps she thought shooting Nevil meant she would be denied access to her children who knows?
Who would run past the shooter? no one!
-
Or he went down stairs knowing full well the shooter would follow him to stop him phoning or arming himself. It was his only way to try and save the rest of the family having took four shots himself.
Bamber was on June's side of the bed during his 9 shots. So plenty of room for Nevill to get through the bedroom door.
Nevill just had an instant natural self preservation reaction after receiving 4 shots.
-
Bamber was on June's side of the bed during his 9 shots. So plenty of room for Nevill to get through the bedroom door.
Nevill just had an instant natural self preservation reaction after receiving 4 shots.
His only chance for himself and his family was not to run past, he would be only inches away as he passed your scenario does not work.
-
His only chance for himself and his family was not to run past, he would be only inches away as he passed your scenario does not work.
Bamber or the shooter has to reload at some stage, maybe this was the opportunity for Nevill after taking four shots, to either, go for help or arm himself.
-
His only chance for himself and his family was not to run past, he would be only inches away as he passed your scenario does not work.
That is your view. You are entitled to it. But it is refuted by the evidence.
The evidence shows Bamber shot Nevill twice in the face from inches away while Nevill was in bed. Then twice in the torso while Nevill was standing.
Nevill then ran downstairs.
-
Nevill certainly would not let Sheila put a rifle inches from his face. Then allow her to shoot him 4 times. Then run downstairs.
What was June doing?
-
That is your view. You are entitled to it. But it is refuted by the evidence.
The evidence shows Bamber shot Nevill twice in the face from inches away while Nevill was in bed. Then twice in the torso while Nevill was standing.
Nevill then ran downstairs.
So at least nine shots fired, maybe the magazine is empty and Nevil runs away allowing the shooter to reload umm don't think so.
-
So at least nine shots fired, maybe the magazine is empty and Nevil runs away allowing the shooter to reload umm don't think so.
Yes the evidence shows Bamber shot June 5 times in bed & Nevill twice in bed. Then Nevill twice as he was standing. Bamber was standing on June's side of the bed.
Nevill then went downstairs, Bamber a few feet behind him.
-
So at least nine shots fired, maybe the magazine is empty and Nevil runs away allowing the shooter to reload umm don't think so.
Im not quite following you Rob, the shooter has to reload at some stage, what is your scenario for Nevill being shot then?
-
So at least nine shots fired, maybe the magazine is empty and Nevil runs away allowing the shooter to reload umm don't think so.
They we’re all close contact shots, Nevill obviously doesn’t think he can disarm the shooter so what are his options. Does he try and get help, does he try and arm himself or does he just take more shots? It must have been quite scary for him and painful after four shots fired at him, I would say a natural reaction at this stage is, either to disarm your opponent or run, disarming the shooter didn’t seem like an option to him?
-
👍😊😊😊
👍👍
-
I agree, Bamber is a typical Psychopath who would change his story to try and cover up his lies, he would rework his story to fit his lies or the situation. Brett probably realises now.
Idiot pathetic post. Your mate David Boutflour is a liar and a cry baby. Nothing gave me more pleasure than seeing him on national tv grovelling and sobbing because the truth is slowly coming out but by bit. Two programmes on the case in such a short time. Public interest must be sky high. Your character shines through if you now believe Brett c
Collins version of events
I look forward to more documentaries and dramas with a focus on David Boutflour and his tears. The truth hurts
-
Idiot pathetic post. Your mate David Boutflour is a liar and a cry baby. Nothing gave me more pleasure than seeing him on national tv grovelling and sobbing because the truth is slowly coming out but by bit. Two programmes on the case in such a short time. Public interest must be sky high. Your character shines through if you now believe Brett c
Collins version of events
I look forward to more documentaries and dramas with a focus on David Boutflour and his tears. The truth hurts
😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
Im not quite following you Rob, the shooter has to reload at some stage, what is your scenario for Nevill being shot then?
I keep telling Rob what the evidence shows, but he refuses to accept it!
Currently saying Nevill would not retreat from a man shooting at him. Although the evidence shows he did.
-
They we’re all close contact shots, Nevill obviously doesn’t think he can disarm the shooter so what are his options. Does he try and get help, does he try and arm himself or does he just take more shots? It must have been quite scary for him and painful after four shots fired at him, I would say a natural reaction at this stage is, either to disarm your opponent or run, disarming the shooter didn’t seem like an option to him?
Nevill trying to disarm Bamber upstairs was not a good option.
Bamber may have more bullets he can fire as Nevill approaches. Nevill was also now badly injured so likely to lose a struggle.
Nevill had no choice but to fight Bamber in the kitchen. As Bamber had caught up with him.
Besides which it is a natural reaction to retreat.
-
Im not quite following you Rob, the shooter has to reload at some stage, what is your scenario for Nevill being shot then?
I did post a brief scenario RJ to keep Adam happy, I believe the situation started down in the kitchen.
Sheila runs upstairs and she is in the main bedroom shooting at Nevil as he approaches etc.
-
I did post a brief scenario RJ to keep Adam happy, I believe the situation started down in the kitchen.
Sheila runs upstairs and she is in the main bedroom shooting at Nevil as he approaches etc.
Oh right sorry Rob 👍
-
I did post a brief scenario RJ to keep Adam happy, I believe the situation started down in the kitchen.
Sheila runs upstairs and she is in the main bedroom shooting at Nevil as he approaches etc.
Bear-in mind they were close contact and he would be inches away, so it makes no difference if he runs past or runs away and both scenarios he still leaves June.
-
Oh right sorry Rob 👍
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10774.0.html
Rob is being modest.
It was a full summary.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10774.0.html
Rob is being modest.
It was a full summary.
I don’t think for one minute Nevill would bother phoning Bamber to tell him Sheila has got the gun and leave Sheila running about the house with a gun.
-
I don’t think for one minute Nevill would bother phoning Bamber to tell him Sheila has got the gun and leave Sheila running about the house with a gun.
That is where a Sheila scenario collapses.
And there hasn't been a bullet fired yet!
-
That is where a Sheila scenario collapses.
And there hasn't been a bullet fired yet!
Im still baffled, I thought the first shot was an accident?
-
I did post a brief scenario RJ to keep Adam happy, I believe the situation started down in the kitchen.
Sheila runs upstairs and she is in the main bedroom shooting at Nevil as he approaches etc.
Rob, you say the shot to Nevill was an accident and Sheila didn’t realise it was loaded, yet in your scenario you have her running upstairs shooting the boys and then June, surely she knows the guns loaded when she shoots Nevill?
If your agreeing with Roch’s theory about shooting Nevill because he tried to stop her killing herself to be with the boys, why has she gone in and shot June?
-
Bews ran as though his behind was on fire at the " trick of the light !" Big wuss.
So you keep telling us despite the fact you were not there! However Bamber was there and he makes no reference to this in his witness statement, police interviews or at trial. Not a scintilla, nowt, nothing.
Why do you think Bamber did not mention this in his witness statement, police interviews or at trial?
Here's Bamber's statement that refers to the time outside the farmhouse. Why do you think he didn't mention the 'trick of the light' or Bews running as though his behind was on fire?
It is obvious something was amiss given some of the lights were on and the only sound emanated from the dogs. You just don't think it through do you?
-
Bews' colleague notes that they ran back to control car. What Bamber has claimed is that Bews was off like a shot, leaving him and the officer looking at each other, before they followed suit.
-
So you keep telling us despite the fact you were not there! However Bamber was there and he makes no reference to this in his witness statement, police interviews or at trial. Not a scintilla, nowt, nothing.
Why do you think Bamber did not mention this in his witness statement, police interviews or at trial?
Here's Bamber's statement that refers to the time outside the farmhouse. Why do you think he didn't mention the 'trick of the light' or Bews running as though his behind was on fire?
It is obvious something was amiss given some of the lights were on and the only sound emanated from the dogs. You just don't think it through do you?
Either Bamber pretended to see it. As part of the insinuation.
Or an officer saw it & then realised it was a trick of the light.
Either way Bamber knew there was no one at the window. So he didn't follow it up.
-
Either Bamber pretended to see it. As part of the insinuation.
Or an officer saw it & then realised it was a trick of the light.
Either way Bamber knew there was no one at the window. So he didn't follow it up.
Why would Bews run from a trick of light?
-
Bews' colleague notes that they ran back to control car. What Bamber has claimed is that Bews was off like a shot, leaving him and the officer looking at each other, before they followed suit.
Source please.
-
Source please.
I think it originally came from Mike, Bamber had told him, I could be wrong though?
-
Source please.
You'll have to read through all the info provided by whoever was with the car. It was either Saxby or Myall. The source that JB and the other officer were left looking at each other when Bews fled, is Bamber.
-
You'll have to read through all the info provided by whoever was with the car. It was either Saxby or Myall. The source that JB and the other officer were left looking at each other when Bews fled, is Bamber.
Good grief you’ve aged Roch 🙈
-
Good grief you’ve aged Roch 🙈
Thought I'd take a leaf out of Adam's book re my profile pic. 😏
-
You'll have to read through all the info provided by whoever was with the car. It was either Saxby or Myall. The source that JB and the other officer were left looking at each other when Bews fled, is Bamber.
If Bamber thought it all so remarkable why didn't he mention it in his witness statement, interviews or at trial? Its all after the event and smacks of desperation.
-
I don’t think for one minute Nevill would bother phoning Bamber to tell him Sheila has got the gun and leave Sheila running about the house with a gun.
That’s the trouble with you because you don’t think.
-
Rob, you say the shot to Nevill was an accident and Sheila didn’t realise it was loaded, yet in your scenario you have her running upstairs shooting the boys and then June, surely she knows the guns loaded when she shoots Nevill?
If your agreeing with Roch’s theory about shooting Nevill because he tried to stop her killing herself to be with the boys, why has she gone in and shot June?
Rob's all over the place.
He has seen my scenario which matches the evidence. But refuses to accept it.
-
That’s the trouble with you because you don’t think.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🙈
-
If Bamber thought it all so remarkable why didn't he mention it in his witness statement, interviews or at trial? Its all after the event and smacks of desperation.
In frustration, he passed a note at trial to Rivlin, regarding the sighting. However, Rivlin didn't take it seriously and provided the 'trick of the light' expression. It is one of the officers who was present, who confirms that all three came running back to the car. It is JB who claims that Bews sped off without warning, and that he and the other officer followed suit.
-
Why would Bews run from a trick of light?
Bews actually wet himself
-
Why would Bews run from a trick of light?
Bews, run?
-
Bews actually wet himself
😂😂😂😂🙈
-
Bews, run?
How could he run he’d wet himself
-
Bews, run?
You know they did Adam we have spoke about this before remember?
-
You know they did Adam we have spoke about this before remember?
If you and others here are adamant that this happened then you can surely supply the sources to back up your claims?
-
If you and others here are adamant that this happened then you can surely supply the sources to back up your claims?
Its in Saxilby’s statement CC
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3136.0;attach=19893
-
Its in Saxilby’s statement CC
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3136.0;attach=19893
Thanks. But it doesn't make clear they were running for their lives and/or they had seen anything that made them fearful etc. Bamber told them he received a phone call from his father saying Sheila was going crazy with a gun. He then went on to tell them about Sheila's mental health and firearms and ammo in the farmhouse. They arrive and find the place with some lights on and deadly silent other than dogs barking. Any rational person would think there was a good chance of something amiss. It stands to reason Bews injected some urgency into the situation and they moved swiftly to the patrol car to request back up. Why would they stroll back?
-
Thanks. But it doesn't make clear they were running for their lives and/or they had seen anything that made them fearful etc. Bamber told them he received a phone call from his father saying Sheila was going crazy with a gun. He then went on to tell them about Sheila's mental health and firearms and ammo in the farmhouse. They arrive and find the place with some lights on and deadly silent other than dogs barking. Any rational person would think there was a good chance of something amiss. It stands to reason Bews injected some urgency into the situation and they moved swiftly to the patrol car to request back up. Why would they stroll back?
Rob is relying on very few things to show Bamber is innocent -
Bews 'ran'. (Probably for about 20 yards).
It was dark outside.
Nevill would not run away from a shooting gun man.
A Sheila scenario matching the evidence is not important.
-
Why bother using a specialised team ,which is normally only used as a last resort in policing, for a shadow at the window being cast by the moon ??
-
It's better with hindsight to forego ad hominem attacks, of which I myself have been prone in the past. I owe an apology to Yvonne Hartley, whom I don't know but I can see after reading some of her blogs holds a genuine belief that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Far better to indicate where one believes one's opponent's argument falls down and state one's own case and take it from there.
-
Thanks. But it doesn't make clear they were running for their lives and/or they had seen anything that made them fearful etc. Bamber told them he received a phone call from his father saying Sheila was going crazy with a gun. He then went on to tell them about Sheila's mental health and firearms and ammo in the farmhouse. They arrive and find the place with some lights on and deadly silent other than dogs barking. Any rational person would think there was a good chance of something amiss. It stands to reason Bews injected some urgency into the situation and they moved swiftly to the patrol car to request back up. Why would they stroll back?
Saxby says they came running back and Bews filled out a situation report etc. So an important moment in the events that day, and neither Bews or Myall mention this in their statements?
I would like to see the report that Bews created why hide it?
-
Rob is relying on very few things to show Bamber is innocent -
Bews 'ran'. (Probably for about 20 yards).
It was dark outside.
Nevill would not run away from a shooting gun man.
A Sheila scenario matching the evidence is not important.
I believe the car was parked something like 300yds away not 20yds, why do you have to twist everything?
-
It's better with hindsight to forego ad hominem attacks, of which I myself have been prone in the past. I owe an apology to Yvonne Hartley, whom I don't know but I can see after reading some of her blogs holds a genuine belief that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Far better to indicate where one believes one's opponent's argument falls down and state one's own case and take it from there.
I have looked carefully at the case and being as fair and as unbiased as I can I think it is a clear MOJ as well.
-
Saxby says they came running back and Bews filled out a situation report etc. So an important moment in the events that day, and neither Bews or Myall mention this in their statements?
I would like to see the report that Bews created why hide it?
What would you expect them to do given the situation:
* Bamber claims he recieved a phone call from his father that Sheila was going crazy with a gun
* He then expands on the above by telling them about Sheila's mental health along with firearms and ammuntion in the farmhouse none of which was under lock and key
* The trio recce the farmhouse. Some lights are on but the only sounds are from the dogs barking.
If the above doesn't tell you that hurrying back to the patrol car and getting the ball rolling in requesting back up was the right think to do then really there's no hope for you.
-
What would you expect them to do given the situation:
* Bamber claims he recieved a phone call from his father that Sheila was going crazy with a gun
* He then expands on the above by telling them about Sheila's mental health along with firearms and ammuntion in the farmhouse none of which was under lock and key
* The trio recce the farmhouse. Some lights are on but the only sounds are from the dogs barking.
If the above doesn't tell you that hurrying back to the patrol car and getting the ball rolling in requesting back up was the right think to do then really there's no hope for you.
I agree it’s not very nice once the threat of a rifle/gun is mentioned, let alone being caught up in a armed situation. If your unarmed and not trained in firearms, the clever instinct is to remove yourself away from the danger as quick as possible and let others deal with it, who wants to be a dead Hero. Police officers are only human and all this crap about Bewes shitting himself doesn’t wash with me, he made the right call.
-
I agree it’s not very nice once the threat of a rifle/gun is mentioned, let alone being caught up in a armed situation. If your unarmed and not trained in firearms, the clever instinct is to remove yourself away from the danger as quick as possible and let others deal with it, who wants to be a dead Hero. Police officers are only human and all this crap about Bewes shitting himself doesn’t wash with me, he made the right call.
And they will no doubt be trained in such a way that minimises any risks to themselves, colleagues and the public.
It must have been super eerie given the backdrop of the place, Bamber's claims, lights on and dogs barking.
-
And they will no doubt be trained in such a way that minimises any risks to themselves, colleagues and the public.
It must have been super eerie given the backdrop of the place, Bamber's claims, lights on and dogs barking.
The effect of JB's words, on police, has always been dismissed as inconsequential/not significant. However, before any of the met him, they'd have been aware of what he'd said. They'd have known they were heading into a potentially life threatening stand off. If that hadn't been enough, JB turns up and expands on the story he's already told. Not only had Sheila, according to the alleged call from his father, gone mad and got hold of a gun, she was a schizophrenic who'd only just been released from a psych hospital, and was gun competent. Given the "super eerie" backdrop, JB's warnings AND the fact that they were not just unarmed, but now responsible for the safety of a civilian, they did the only sensible thing they could. Sad that they've been mocked and labelled cowards.
-
The effect of JB's words, on police, has always been dismissed as inconsequential/not significant. However, before any of the met him, they'd have been aware of what he'd said. They'd have known they were heading into a potentially life threatening stand off. If that hadn't been enough, JB turns up and expands on the story he's already told. Not only had Sheila, according to the alleged call from his father, gone mad and got hold of a gun, she was a schizophrenic who'd only just been released from a psych hospital, and was gun competent. Given the "super eerie" backdrop, JB's warnings AND the fact that they were not just unarmed, but now responsible for the safety of a civilian, they did the only sensible thing they could. Sad that they've been mocked and labelled cowards.
You need to post ‘in your opinion’ in front of your ‘stories’. As we know you are not an impartial poster. You personally make up ‘stories’ about Jeremy being of bad character which you are fully aware is not true as shown by people closest to him
-
What would you expect them to do given the situation:
* Bamber claims he recieved a phone call from his father that Sheila was going crazy with a gun
* He then expands on the above by telling them about Sheila's mental health along with firearms and ammuntion in the farmhouse none of which was under lock and key
* The trio recce the farmhouse. Some lights are on but the only sounds are from the dogs barking.
If the above doesn't tell you that hurrying back to the patrol car and getting the ball rolling in requesting back up was the right think to do then really there's no hope for you.
So why does Bews change his story every time he gives an interview? In one it's Myall who saw the reflection, in another it's JB etc. Also in one interview he claims to call in armed police before returning to the car?
I expect the police to be honest, if they thought they saw someone then say so, not hide the fact to get a conviction. Why did Myall request a fingerprint search of the room if they were satisfied they saw nothing?
Where is the situation report?
-
So why does Bews change his story every time he gives an interview? In one it's Myall who saw the reflection, in another it's JB etc. Also in one interview he claims to call in armed police before returning to the car?
I expect the police to be honest, if they thought they saw someone then say so, not hide the fact to get a conviction. Why did Myall request a fingerprint search of the room if they were satisfied they saw nothing?
Where is the situation report?
What so you mean by situation report Rob? There could be one and it just doesn’t happen to be on here, we can only look at whatever Mike has or put up on this forum?
-
So why does Bews change his story every time he gives an interview? In one it's Myall who saw the reflection, in another it's JB etc. Also in one interview he claims to call in armed police before returning to the car?
I expect the police to be honest, if they thought they saw someone then say so, not hide the fact to get a conviction. Why did Myall request a fingerprint search of the room if they were satisfied they saw nothing?
Where is the situation report?
Because Bews loves making up ‘stories’ his ‘stories’ change all the time. Jeremy himself told me himself Bews wet himself.
Obviously this made no difference to my stance but an interesting point from someone who was there
-
So why does Bews change his story every time he gives an interview? In one it's Myall who saw the reflection, in another it's JB etc. Also in one interview he claims to call in armed police before returning to the car?
I expect the police to be honest, if they thought they saw someone then say so, not hide the fact to get a conviction. Why did Myall request a fingerprint search of the room if they were satisfied they saw nothing?
Where is the situation report?
If it was important why didn’t Bamber mention it when he was questioned.
-
If it was important why didn’t Bamber mention it when he was questioned.
Was he questioned about this?
As it was JB had to pass a note to his defense at trial, but Rivlin let Bews off lightly by suggesting it was a trick of the light.
-
What so you mean by situation report Rob? There could be one and it just doesn’t happen to be on here, we can only look at whatever Mike has or put up on this forum?
It's in Saxby's statement RJ
"About five minutes latter all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and Pc BEWS contacted Information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report"
I would like to know what was in this report?
-
It's in Saxby's statement RJ
"About five minutes latter all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and Pc BEWS contacted Information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report"
I would like to know what was in this report?
Oh right I’m with you 👍. You mean whether they said they’d seen someone or not at the window and how they addressed it.
-
Oh right I’m with you 👍. You mean whether they said they’d seen someone or not at the window and how they addressed it.
Original handwritten notes is what we need to see.
-
Oh right I’m with you 👍. You mean whether they said they’d seen someone or not at the window and how they addressed it.
If they saw someone at the window then why did Bamber leave out of his witness statements, police interviews and trial?
-
Original handwritten notes is what we need to see.
Common sesne tells you that if anything remarkable was seen at the window then Bamber would have said as much in his witness statement, police interviews and at trial.
Furthermore the firearms team would have been made aware of such before entering the farmhouse. When Bamber drew the layout of the farmhouse identifying the firearms etc he would have said we saw someone in x window.
-
Oh right I’m with you 👍. You mean whether they said they’d seen someone or not at the window and how they addressed it.
Yes I expect this report was quite colourful, as it's the reason armed police are requested.
-
If they saw someone at the window then why did Bamber leave out of his witness statements, police interviews and trial?
Gosh JB at trial passed a note to Rivlin to question Brews on this matter, but Rivlin himself suggested it was a reflection and let him off lightly!
-
Yes I expect this report was quite colourful, as it's the reason armed police are requested.
No it isn't. Firearms were called because Bamber claimed he received a phone call from his father saying Sheilas going crazy and shes got the gun. He then went on to elaborate about her mental health and all the firearms and ammunition within the farmhouse. When officers arrived lights were on and the only sounds were dogs barking. What would you do in such a situation?
-
No it isn't. Firearms were called because Bamber claimed he received a phone call from his father saying Sheilas going crazy and shes got the gun. He then went on to elaborate about her mental health and all the firearms and ammunition within the farmhouse. When officers arrived lights were on and the only sounds were dogs barking. What would you do in such a situation?
No armed assistance was called after Bews & co ran back to the car, read Saxby's statement you are getting like Adam twisting everything. :(
-
Gosh JB at trial passed a note to Rivlin to question Brews on this matter, but Rivlin himself suggested it was a reflection and let him off lightly!
Where's the evidence Bamber instigated this and it wasn't part of Rivlin's strategy?
Defence lawyers are there to sow seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds! He went as far as he could with the 'trick of the light' but the jury still found Bamber guilty! Bamber didn't even attempt to use this at his 2002 appeal.
-
No armed assistance was called after Bews & co ran back to the car, read Saxby's statement you are getting like Adam twisting everything. :(
When was it called then if not after Bews and co went back to the car?
-
Common sesne tells you that if anything remarkable was seen at the window then Bamber would have said as much in his witness statement, police interviews and at trial.
Furthermore the firearms team would have been made aware of such before entering the farmhouse. When Bamber drew the layout of the farmhouse identifying the firearms etc he would have said we saw someone in x window.
Not everyone has common sense though do they ? Though in this case it was more sinister.
Millbank of the firearms team was never asked to give evidence.
-
Not everyone has common sense though do they ? Though in this case it was more sinister.
Millbank of the firearms team was never asked to give evidence.
Hopefully they do when dealing with cases involving firearms.
Why would Millbank of the firearms team be asked to provide evidence?
-
Hopefully they do when dealing with cases involving firearms.
Why would Millbank of the firearms team be asked to provide evidence?
Why not, when he'd known about the figure in the window ?
-
Why not, when he'd known about the figure in the window ?
Who? Millbank? Source please?
-
No armed assistance was called after Bews & co ran back to the car, read Saxby's statement you are getting like Adam twisting everything. :(
You're the twister!
"About five minutes later all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted Information Room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report."
-
You're the twister!
"About five minutes later all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted Information Room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report."
Your post implied that armed police were called due to JB's call unless I misunderstood you?
So what have I twisted?
-
Rob's twisting things again.
Of course they would be shuffling back to the police vehicle. There was a crazy woman with a gun inside WHF & 4 other people in danger. According to Bamber.
-
Rob's twisting things again.
Of course they would be shuffling back to the police vehicle. There was a crazy woman with a gun inside WHF & 4 other people. According to Bamber.
Why was this event not mention in their statements?
In their statements they talk about overtaking JB driving slow around 30mph (I pull over and stop if I see blue lights behind) but they fail to mention calling in armed police?
-
Why was this event not mention in their statements?
In their statements they talk about overtaking JB driving slow around 30mph (I pull over and stop if I see blue lights behind) but they fail to mention calling in armed police?
Armed police entered WHF. So were certainly called by someone.
Not sure what the issue is.
-
You're the twister!
"About five minutes later all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and PS Bews contacted Information Room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report."
I like a good game of Twister.
-
Armed police entered WHF. So were certainly called by someone.
Not sure what the issue is.
Yes I know you don't understand why it's a issue.
-
I like a good game of Twister.
Shame it's not a chess board QC, I bet Adam would be the only person who could lose in one move!
-
Yes I know you don't understand why it's a issue.
It is obviously a big thing to you.
Why?
-
It is obviously a big thing to you.
Why?
It is important to me, but not because of what they saw or thought they saw.
-
It is important to me, but not because of what they saw or thought they saw.
Take no notice Rob, he's fast losing the plot.
-
It is important to me, but not because of what they saw or thought they saw.
Thank you for clarifying.
-
Shame it's not a chess board QC, I bet Adam would be the only person who could lose in one move!
Funnily enough it can be done, if the game is timed?
-
Funnily enough it can be done, if the game is timed?
Yes true RJ, Adam would be thinking about the industrial frame and run out of time!
-
If they saw someone at the window then why did Bamber leave out of his witness statements, police interviews and trial?
Yes it’s the same question I’ve asked, I’m also dubious about the claim Bamber passed Rivlin a note, he had chance to put this to the Police on numerous occasions during his interviews, something as important as this wouldn’t slip your mind. He’s had umpteen interviews with Rivlin and he passes him a note about seeing someone at the Window at trial? Rivlin would have followed this up if he had been told by Bamber about this at any stage. Not only that, Bamber himself had chance when he was on the stand to say he or they saw someone in the Window etc.
-
Unfortunately I think JB was waiting for one of the officers to say something about the sighting but seeing Bews had been so sure " it was a trick of the light " who do you think would be believed ?
-
Yes it’s the same question I’ve asked, I’m also dubious about the claim Bamber passed Rivlin a note, he had chance to put this to the Police on numerous occasions during his interviews, something as important as this wouldn’t slip your mind. He’s had umpteen interviews with Rivlin and he passes him a note about seeing someone at the Window at trial? Rivlin would have followed this up if he had been told by Bamber about this at any stage. Not only that, Bamber himself had chance when he was on the stand to say he or they saw someone in the Window etc.
The way it's been put across is that JB was frustrated that Rivlin didn't pursue these types of lines of defence. Hence at trial, the note was passed in frustration, on order to prompt Rivlin. Rivlin then goes on to handle the questioning in a way which simply lets Bews off the hook. Everyone has a bad day at work. Rivlin had a mare.
-
Yes it’s the same question I’ve asked, I’m also dubious about the claim Bamber passed Rivlin a note, he had chance to put this to the Police on numerous occasions during his interviews, something as important as this wouldn’t slip your mind. He’s had umpteen interviews with Rivlin and he passes him a note about seeing someone at the Window at trial? Rivlin would have followed this up if he had been told by Bamber about this at any stage. Not only that, Bamber himself had chance when he was on the stand to say he or they saw someone in the Window etc.
Bamber passed Rivlin a note.
The trial was a year after his arrest. Plenty of time for Bamber to discuss it with his lawyers.
-
The way it's been put across is that JB was frustrated that Rivlin didn't pursue these types of lines of defence. Hence at trial, the note was passed in frustration, on order to prompt Rivlin. Rivlin then goes on to handle the questioning in a way which simply lets Bews off the hook. Everyone has a bad day at work. Rivlin had a mare.
I had not heard about this note. Where does that information come from? I have to say I am uneasy about this, for several reasons.
-
The way it's been put across is that JB was frustrated that Rivlin didn't pursue these types of lines of defence. Hence at trial, the note was passed in frustration, on order to prompt Rivlin. Rivlin then goes on to handle the questioning in a way which simply lets Bews off the hook. Everyone has a bad day at work. Rivlin had a mare.
Ok, he’s had numerous chances to get this across before hand Roch, look if someone accused me of being the murderer and I’m outside with the Police and we see someone at the window that’s the biggest proof I’ve got, it’s a game changer, do I keep quite and never mention it in my defence, would I say this on Oath to defend myself, Sod Rivlin this is me on trial. Why would Rivlin let Bews off?
-
I had not heard about this note. Where does that information come from? I have to say I am uneasy about this, for several reasons.
Hi ngb, I'm not sure when I first heard it mentioned but it was a few years ago to be sure. It is something the CT claim now. So I don't know whether the source is JB himself or whether something was discovered regarding the trial transcript. Maybe Bill might know, if he's reading this.
-
I had not heard about this note. Where does that information come from? I have to say I am uneasy about this, for several reasons.
Its an inventory to an Hurdle and that’s what bugs me. The more things get invented the less I believe him.
-
Was he questioned about this?
As it was JB had to pass a note to his defense at trial, but Rivlin let Bews off lightly by suggesting it was a trick of the light.
Can I ask you Rob where you got this information from?
-
Can I ask you Rob where you got this information from?
Lookout told him.
-
Lookout told him.
Lookout didn't tell him----I knew nothing about this.
-
Hi ngb, I'm not sure when I first heard it mentioned but it was a few years ago to be sure. It is something the CT claim now. So I don't know whether the source is JB himself or whether something was discovered regarding the trial transcript. Maybe Bill might know, if he's reading this.
It certainly would not appear in the trial transcript. I would be very interested to know where this came from because it was certainly not something discussed when I was involved directly in the case. It has not featured in either of the appeals or in the 2012 submissions to the CCRC.
-
It certainly would not appear in the trial transcript. I would be very interested to know where this came from because it was certainly not something discussed when I was involved directly in the case. It has not featured in either of the appeals or in the 2012 submissions to the CCRC.
I was just checking the appeals going through them, thanks for that I won’t bother, that answers my next question NGB.
-
It certainly would not appear in the trial transcript. I would be very interested to know where this came from because it was certainly not something discussed when I was involved directly in the case. It has not featured in either of the appeals or in the 2012 submissions to the CCRC.
I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure how we could find out any further info on it.
-
I don't doubt what you say. I'm not sure how we could find out any further info on it.
Definitely Bill
-
Bamber passed Rivlin a note.
The trial was a year after his arrest. Plenty of time for Bamber to discuss it with his lawyers.
Why does Bamber change his story so Quickly, when he phoned West he specifically says that his father said, 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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6845.0;attach=41408
Myself I think that is significant wording and supposed to be not long after receiving the telephone call?
Yet every interview after he drops the “Please come over” part? He also never mentions this when Bews asks him to go through things. Could it be he realises he’s dropped a clanger by not dialling 999, dropping the please come over lowers the cry for help so it gives him riddle room?
-
Why does Bamber change his story so Quickly, when he phoned West he specifically says that his father said, 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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6845.0;attach=41408
Myself I think that is significant wording and supposed to be not long after receiving the telephone call?
Yet every interview after he drops the “Please come over” part? He also never mentions this when Bews asks him to go through things. Could it be he realises he’s dropped a clanger by not dialling 999, dropping the please come over lowers the cry for help so it gives him riddle room?
How can you be sure what he definitely said to PC West? The calls were not recorded so you're reliant upon PC West's recollections.
-
Lookout didn't tell him----I knew nothing about this.
I know Lookout and I can guess where it come from. To be honest that’s why I don’t listen to any of their Podcasts, I don’t believe anything that comes out of Fantasy World.
-
Bamber's witness statement dated 7th August 1985 : "Sheilas gone crazy she has got a gun"
Malcolm Bonnett's log dated 7th August 1985 : "Daughter gone beserk" "Daugher Sheila Bamber aged 26 years has got hold of one of my guns"
PC Myall's witness statement dated 15th August 1985 : "Your sister has gone beserk and she has got a gun"
Mrs Eaton's witness statement dated 8th September 1985 : "Sheila has got the gun she has gone crazy"
The 2002 appeal document : "You've got to help me. My father has rang me and said "Please come over. Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun." Then the line went dead."
Bamber's audio clip (Daily Mirror) dated 31st January 2011 : "Please come over your sister has gone crazy and has the gun"
Please bear in mind Bamber claims after the phone call from his father he called back to establish what his father wanted him to do.
-
How can you be sure what he definitely said to PC West? The calls were not recorded so you're reliant upon PC West's recollections.
We can’t be sure of anything I agree, to me it’s significant wording and I don’t think West would have invented it? I could be wrong like you say but he stands up in Court on Oath and repeats this! He also goes into detail what Bamber told him about Sheila.
I think your basically nit picking because you tried to pull QC up about this and he put you right!
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5592
-
We can’t be sure of anything I agree, to me it’s significant wording and I don’t think West would have invented it? I could be wrong like you say but he stands up in Court on Oath and repeats this! He also goes into detail what Bamber told him about Sheila.
I think your basically nit picking because you tried to pull QC up about this and he put you right!
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5592
Its not a case of being deliberately misleading for whatever reasons more a case of why would he remember the exact words of a random call at approx 3 am in the morning? By his own admission on the recent prog he said he was a young constable on a night shift and made a mistake with regard to the time. No reason whatsoever why he should recall the exact words. Why do you think calls are recorded now?
I've no idea what you're talking about with regard to QC.
-
Unfortunately I think JB was waiting for one of the officers to say something about the sighting but seeing Bews had been so sure " it was a trick of the light " who do you think would be believed ?
I know who you would believe ::)
Bamber had plenty of opportunity to raise this in his witness statements or during his police interviews.
If it was anything more than a 'trick of the light' then why wasn't it mentioned by anyone anywhere on 7th August?
-
Its not a case of being deliberately misleading for whatever reasons more a case of why would he remember the exact words of a random call at approx 3 am in the morning? By his own admission on the recent prog he said he was a young constable on a night shift and made a mistake with regard to the time. No reason whatsoever why he should recall the exact words. Why do you think calls are recorded now?
I've no idea what you're talking about with regard to QC.
Who says West is misleading?
-
Its not a case of being deliberately misleading for whatever reasons more a case of why would he remember the exact words of a random call at approx 3 am in the morning? By his own admission on the recent prog he said he was a young constable on a night shift and made a mistake with regard to the time. No reason whatsoever why he should recall the exact words. Why do you think calls are recorded now?
I've no idea what you're talking about with regard to QC.
Why do you think interviews are recorded, times have moved on like anything else.
-
Can I ask you Rob where you got this information from?
I am struggling to remember to be honest where I read this RJ? I do know Rivlin was very poor in his questioning of Bews as it was unbelievably Rivlin who suggested it was a trick of the light.
If I had been JB I would have been furious with Rivlin, he was badly let down in this matter. It was Myall who first spotted possible movement though.
I will try and locate where I read it,
-
Your post implied that armed police were called due to JB's call unless I misunderstood you?
So what have I twisted?
Yes there was a misunderstanding because you didn't put a comma between 'No armed'. It needs to read
'No, armed assistance was called after Bews & co..... Without the comma it reads 'No armed assistance was called after Bews & co....
You need to be more careful with your posts otherwise I will make a case for a ban.
-
I know who you would believe ::)
Bamber had plenty of opportunity to raise this in his witness statements or during his police interviews.
If it was anything more than a 'trick of the light' then why wasn't it mentioned by anyone anywhere on 7th August?
Of course I'd believe JB before the rogues gallery of officers----who couldn't even count, either .
-
Its not a case of being deliberately misleading for whatever reasons more a case of why would he remember the exact words of a random call at approx 3 am in the morning? By his own admission on the recent prog he said he was a young constable on a night shift and made a mistake with regard to the time. No reason whatsoever why he should recall the exact words. Why do you think calls are recorded now?
I've no idea what you're talking about with regard to QC.
Ive looked at it again, it’s not that’s he’s remembering the words, he’s recording them as Bamber phones him, he states the telephone call- conversation is filled out on a C1 form as the conversation is taken place.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5591
-
Yes there was a misunderstanding because you didn't put a comma between 'No armed'. It needs to read
'No, armed assistance was called after Bews & co..... Without the comma it reads 'No armed assistance was called after Bews & co....
You need to be more careful with your posts otherwise I will make a case for a ban.
FFS
-
Of course I'd believe JB before the rogues gallery of officers----who couldn't even count, either .
But this is where you do your cause a disservice because you're incapable of discerning.
-
FFS
That's definitely a case for a ban - foul language.
-
Ive looked at it again, it’s not that’s he’s remembering the words, he’s recording them as Bamber phones him, he states the telephone call- conversation is filled out on a C1 form as the conversation is taken place.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1103.0;attach=5591
I guarantee you 100% if you relayed the same message to a dozen people you would get a dozen different versions. This can be evidenced by PC West relaying his version of the message to Malcolm Bonnett and ending up with a somewhat different version unless you believe they are two different calls.
-
I guarantee you 100% if you relayed the same message to a dozen people you would get a dozen different versions. This can be evidenced by PC West relaying his version of the message to Malcolm Bonnett and ending up with a somewhat different version unless you believe they are two different calls.
I agree, but the first in line is nearer the truer version especially if they write it down as it’s said.
-
I agree, but the first in line is nearer the truer version especially if they write it down as it’s said.
Yes I agree first hand is likely to be more accurate and reliable than second hand etc.
In the recent Sky prog PC West said he was a young officer on a late shift and he made a mistake with regard to the time so possible he was half asleep when he took the call. The chances are 99.9% of the time the nightshifts were uneventful. Rural Essex 1985 on a Tuesday night unlikely to be much going down. He could never have imagined the call would come under so much scrutiny.
-
Yes I agree first hand is likely to be more accurate and reliable than second hand etc.
In the recent Sky prog PC West said he was a young officer on a late shift and he made a mistake with regard to the time so possible he was half asleep when he took the call. The chances are 99.9% of the time the nightshifts were uneventful. Rural Essex 1985 on a Tuesday night unlikely to be much going down. He could never have imagined the call would come under so much scrutiny.
Life’s to short for your boring shite posts. Come back when you have proof of anything on this thread. Till then bore off
-
Mention of stargazing in this one. I'd forgotten that Nevill had an interest in astronomy (not surprising, I suppose, as he was a pilot in the RAF):
45. Jeremy Bamber: A Life of Less Liberty part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULbRgnljtlA&t=112s
-
Another insightful podcast which I can relate to as my pa-in-law, although in the Navy, had a great interest in the night sky as somewhere among my paperwork I have a certificate from many years ago which was presented to him from the Astrological / Astronomical Society of which he'd been a keen member of.
I have his wonderful German made heavy binoculars that he used during the war on his ships.
Psychologically, having the background/ life that Jeremy had has stood him in good stead for all the years he's tolerated being locked up. His education and intelligence have kept him and his brain on an even keel, whereas if he hadn't been the type of person he is he'd have crumbled a long time ago. His interest in wanting to learn new things, such as Braille has been an asset as well as being able to teach those who weren't as fortunate in having the education that he had has been another way of passing the time. Also his mind has been clear to enable him to do these things !!
I'm sure that when he is released, and after a huge culture shock, it won't take him long to get back into his stride because of his ultra patient persona. Well done to him, he'll be alright.
-
Another insightful podcast which I can relate to as my pa-in-law, although in the Navy, had a great interest in the night sky as somewhere among my paperwork I have a certificate from many years ago which was presented to him from the Astrological / Astronomical Society of which he'd been a keen member of.
I have his wonderful German made heavy binoculars that he used during the war on his ships.
Psychologically, having the background/ life that Jeremy had has stood him in good stead for all the years he's tolerated being locked up. His education and intelligence have kept him and his brain on an even keel, whereas if he hadn't been the type of person he is he'd have crumbled a long time ago. His interest in wanting to learn new things, such as Braille has been an asset as well as being able to teach those who weren't as fortunate in having the education that he had has been another way of passing the time. Also his mind has been clear to enable him to do these things !!
I'm sure that when he is released, and after a huge culture shock, it won't take him long to get back into his stride because of his ultra patient persona. Well done to him, he'll be alright.
Of course Lookout
-
I guarantee you 100% if you relayed the same message to a dozen people you would get a dozen different versions. This can be evidenced by PC West relaying his version of the message to Malcolm Bonnett and ending up with a somewhat different version unless you believe they are two different calls.
I believe they were two different calls Cc.