Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on September 12, 2021, 12:33:PM
-
Also on the Sky documentaries slate, part of a wider unveiling of 125 original series, films and docs, is the first project from Louis Theroux’s Mindhouse Productions that won’t feature the cult documentarian in front of the camera.
The Bambers: Murder at the Farm (working title) examines the tragic murder of a family at a secluded English farmhouse in 1985. The three-part true-crime series uses first-hand testimony and unseen archive footage to reflect on the events and the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, who was brother to murdered mother Sheila Caffell.
Theroux, who executive produces alongside Arron Fellows, said: “A big part of wanting to start a production company a little over a year ago was to make programs that I don’t appear in… It’s a story that’s socially important, with a powerfully compelling narrative, and the intention is to tell it in a way that is both sensitive and creatively ambitious.”
-
I take it from this that Louis Theroux has abandoned gonzo journalism and now wishes to pursue a superannuated career as a producer. While savagely condemning Jimmy Savile, the comedian Jerry Sadowitz called Louis Theroux a "plastic Oxbridge wanker". While I don't share Sadowitz's view of the former, I have no reason to disagree with his assessment of the latter. I wish I could just associate the name Theroux with that rather mediocre but interesting writer whose inoffensive travelogues provide bland but enjoyable escapism.
Louis Theroux is plastic because his gonzo wasn't gonzo. It was a sort of mockery of gonzo. He was no George Plimpton or Hunter S. Thompson. The whole point of gonzo is amateur participation, giving a sense of universalism and accessibility to journalism. It wasn't meant to be mockery and it was only incidentally comedic.
The great George Plimpton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ZkDfVkQGo
However, I will defend Theroux on one important aspect of his oeuvre as a documentary-maker.
He did let his subjects speak. His documentary of Jimmy Savile wasn't necessarily very insightful, but at least he let Jimmy Savile have free reign and either hang himself or reveal himself, depending on the view you take.
His documentary about Eugene Terre'Blanche is superb because he just let his subject say his piece.
As for the proposed documentary about the Bamber case, we'll just have to wait and see, but I anticipate it will tell us little. I will watch it though.
-
I’m fascinated if it involves the red forums Daisy. I am sure if the documentary is going to be taken seriously ‘Daisy’ will reveal herself and use the same tactics as Carol Anne Lee to represent any correspondence with Jeremy
-
I’m fascinated if it involves the red forums Daisy. I am sure if the documentary is going to be taken seriously ‘Daisy’ will reveal herself and use the same tactics as Carol Anne Lee to represent any correspondence with Jeremy
Is Daisy also the user known as Aunt Agatha, or is that somebody else?
-
Is Daisy also the user known as Aunt Agatha, or is that somebody else?
Somebody else. Both of them were at one time very close to JB.
-
Somebody else. Both of them were at one time very close to JB.
Thanks. It's a shame they don't post on here.
-
Thanks. It's a shame they don't post on here.
They have both posted on here in the past, but not for some time now.
-
The last time I spoke to AA she'd said at the time that she may approach Theroux about the up-coming drama, as he lives quite handy to where she is. I hope that she has been able to contact him as she holds some interesting information as well as items passed on to her for safe-keeping from JB.
I must contact her and see if the meeting materialised.
-
The last time I spoke to AA she'd said at the time that she may approach Theroux about the up-coming drama, as he lives quite handy to where she is. I hope that she has been able to contact him as she holds some interesting information as well as items passed on to her for safe-keeping from JB.
I must contact her and see if the meeting materialised.
AA is a pathological liar like Mugford. You cannot believe a word she says and she will NOT be living near Louis Theroux
-
AA is a pathological liar like Mugford. You cannot believe a word she says and she will NOT be living near Louis Theroux
Seems a bit harsh that assessment Jackie?
-
Seems a harsh that Jackie assessment that Jackie?
She’s disgusting Roch, QC says it’s a shame they don’t Post on here, I think they have got more sense and this is the answer.
-
Here is a previous post from AA about Daisy for anyone who hasn’t read it before and a link to the Daisy thread.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5009.0.html
I was aware of Daisy wanting to post this. Though I disagree with what she has done, I must add, in her defence, she meant no malice whatsoever.
Daisy is a dear lady....'old school', is the best way to describe her. She has an incredibly close family, including a most loving and supportive husband. The entire family where supportive of Daisy's desire to support a man with no family, who she felt was alone and in need of some genuine moral support, with no ties or complications. Her friendship with Jeremy was purely that. Unconditional.
She may have some wealth behind her and maybe Jeremy thought that Daisy's friendship may be of some serious use at a later date. Daisy was aware of this, however, she did not want to believe she was there solely for the money. She refused to think ill of Jeremy, even though her family had pointed out how he mentioned 'her' money to both her and the Campaign team on a few occasions.
What happened on 'that' particular visit was shocking to both Daisy and her husband....who was also with her. She was, as one can imagine, deeply hurt by this. Both she and her husband were upset by his actions that morning that a planned afternoon visit was cancelled by them.
Friendship, loyalty and family are at the core of the whole of Daisy's nearest and dearest. I suppose all she wanted to do was help a vulnerable young man who found himself fighting for his life....and justice.
In that, she has committed no crime, her actions and support were genuine.
The way some of you have attacked Daisy and her postings, is without justification and wholly unnecessary.
Daisy is old enough almost to be his mother.....you have spitefully attacked a harmless lady who meant no harm, other than to warn others who may be in the same position as she was, to be wary of him.
I have known Jeremy for over 20 years. Both his mental and emotional health have deteriorated (which is without judgement but a fact, due to his imprisonment and age).
Jeremy remains possibly one of the strongest men I have ever had the fortune to meet and I wish him no harm, ever. Not everybody who has had a relationship with Jeremy has spoken about it either.
Sadly, I do agree with Daisy on one point. Like her I believe he is innocent, always have....however, Jeremy has become a political prisoner upon which his release would bring the whole judicial system to its knees. It's not that he won't be released so much as he can't be released....and that is what Daisy meant also.
Having been through two Appeals with Jeremy, having had meetings with Euan Smith, having been fobbed off with him along with Jeremy whilst he was courted to the CCRC, as Commissioner leaves many unanswered questions.
Ask the right question and you may get the right answer.
Wishing you all a Happy New Year. :)
-
Here is a previous post from AA about Daisy for anyone who hasn’t read it before and a link to the Daisy thread.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5009.0.html
I was aware of Daisy wanting to post this. Though I disagree with what she has done, I must add, in her defence, she meant no malice whatsoever.
Daisy is a dear lady....'old school', is the best way to describe her. She has an incredibly close family, including a most loving and supportive husband. The entire family where supportive of Daisy's desire to support a man with no family, who she felt was alone and in need of some genuine moral support, with no ties or complications. Her friendship with Jeremy was purely that. Unconditional.
She may have some wealth behind her and maybe Jeremy thought that Daisy's friendship may be of some serious use at a later date. Daisy was aware of this, however, she did not want to believe she was there solely for the money. She refused to think ill of Jeremy, even though her family had pointed out how he mentioned 'her' money to both her and the Campaign team on a few occasions.
What happened on 'that' particular visit was shocking to both Daisy and her husband....who was also with her. She was, as one can imagine, deeply hurt by this. Both she and her husband were upset by his actions that morning that a planned afternoon visit was cancelled by them.
Friendship, loyalty and family are at the core of the whole of Daisy's nearest and dearest. I suppose all she wanted to do was help a vulnerable young man who found himself fighting for his life....and justice.
In that, she has committed no crime, her actions and support were genuine.
The way some of you have attacked Daisy and her postings, is without justification and wholly unnecessary.
Daisy is old enough almost to be his mother.....you have spitefully attacked a harmless lady who meant no harm, other than to warn others who may be in the same position as she was, to be wary of him.
I have known Jeremy for over 20 years. Both his mental and emotional health have deteriorated (which is without judgement but a fact, due to his imprisonment and age).
Jeremy remains possibly one of the strongest men I have ever had the fortune to meet and I wish him no harm, ever. Not everybody who has had a relationship with Jeremy has spoken about it either.
Sadly, I do agree with Daisy on one point. Like her I believe he is innocent, always have....however, Jeremy has become a political prisoner upon which his release would bring the whole judicial system to its knees. It's not that he won't be released so much as he can't be released....and that is what Daisy meant also.
Having been through two Appeals with Jeremy, having had meetings with Euan Smith, having been fobbed off with him along with Jeremy whilst he was courted to the CCRC, as Commissioner leaves many unanswered questions.
Ask the right question and you may get the right answer.
Wishing you all a Happy New Year. :)
AA backs up what I’m saying why Daisy in particular doesn’t post on here,
Her posting has been brought to the Blue Forum......and look at how she has been attacked.
Why do you think she went to the Red Forum? Because this is what they had been saying about Jeremy all along.
Daisy is real and she tried to help Bamber with love and belief and funding.
-
She’s disgusting Roch, QC says it’s a shame they don’t Post on here, I think they have got more sense and this is the answer.
I've altered my post RJ. It had some typos!
-
Seems a harsh that Jackie assessment that Jackie?
You know full well that when I first got involved in this campaign I was contacted by members from the campaign team and also Aunt Agatha. I did not even know who this person was. I very quickly found out the contact from the campaign team and Aunt Agatha did not come from a good place and they all clearly seemed to want to know what my friendship/relationship was with Jeremy. I have always made it clear in this forum that the reason I had contact with Jeremy was because of the case.
I was very uncomfortable with the contact with Aunt Agatha and did not believe most of what she told me. After I cut contact with her she would post lied about me and made out I had contacted her not the other way around.
See email below
I also have numerous messages from Maggie who was fully aware of her lies. I have all of them but I feel it inappropriate to post them
I will make my own mind up about the authenticity of Daisy unless I have prove otherwise
-
She’s disgusting Roch, QC says it’s a shame they don’t Post on here, I think they have got more sense and this is the answer.
Your disgusting for your support of the family that lied to put an innocent man in prison. You should be ashamed of yourself
Course AA is truthful. She had sex with Jeremy in a Cat A prison. You couldn’t make it up
-
She’s disgusting Roch, QC says it’s a shame they don’t Post on here, I think they have got more sense and this is the answer.
And just remember when you play on your ‘friendship’ with Ngb that has done work and advised Jeremy, believes the conviction is unsafe because of numerous reasons but including the relatives part in Jeremys stitch up.
So laughable you trust what AA says just like you believe the relatives
-
And just remember when you play on your ‘friendship’ with Ngb that has done work and advised Jeremy, believes the conviction is unsafe because of numerous reasons but including the relatives part in Jeremys stitch up.
So laughable you trust what AA says just like you believe the relatives
No, it’s about respecting other posters point of view irrespective of what they believe without such vile attacks from you.
-
Jackie, please, I urge you to moderate your recent posts, remove name and remove a certain remark. It's up to you whether you do.
-
I have edited a post here to remove confidential information. Save in very exceptional circumstances it is not acceptable to post PMs on the open forum.
-
Ah well, at least I know AA is a " real " person, having spoken to her a few times. :)
-
Jackie, please, I urge you to moderate your recent posts, remove name and remove a certain remark. It's up to you whether you do.
To be quite honest I am sick to death of people going on here telling lies, not authentic or making out they are not friends with the relatives or Mugford.
How long did it take everyone to realise that Matt was a troll ???
Unbelievable
David I have sent you some of the information by pm you asked for but not all. As you can imagine it’s highly confidential and involves a documentary maker.
It’s a shame I can’t post it here but as everything goes back to the relatives. You know
-
Where was the moderation when I was getting sent threatening messages from Matt ?
Silent
Where was the moderation when Matt was making up false posts I was meant to have made
Silent
-
To be quite honest I am sick to death of people going on here telling lies, not authentic or making out they are not friends with the relatives or Mugford.
How long did it take everyone to realise that Matt was a troll ???
Unbelievable
David I have sent you some of the information by pm you asked for but not all. As you can imagine it’s highly confidential and involves a documentary maker.
It’s a shame I can’t post it here but as everything goes back to the relatives. You know
Ok Thank you
-
Where was the moderation when I was getting sent threatening messages from Matt ?
Silent
Where was the moderation when Matt was making up false posts I was meant to have made
Silent
That was a truly despicable poster !
-
That was a truly despicable poster !
The truth hurts
-
That was a truly despicable poster !
He was allowed on this forum years two long with the sole aim of closing down this forum
-
https://instagram.com/stories/mindhousetv/2661878912130666241?utm_source=ig_story_item_share&utm_medium=copy_link
-
Also on the Sky documentaries slate, part of a wider unveiling of 125 original series, films and docs, is the first project from Louis Theroux’s Mindhouse Productions that won’t feature the cult documentarian in front of the camera.
The Bambers: Murder at the Farm (working title) examines the tragic murder of a family at a secluded English farmhouse in 1985. The three-part true-crime series uses first-hand testimony and unseen archive footage to reflect on the events and the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, who was brother to murdered mother Sheila Caffell.
Theroux, who executive produces alongside Arron Fellows, said: “A big part of wanting to start a production company a little over a year ago was to make programs that I don’t appear in… It’s a story that’s socially important, with a powerfully compelling narrative, and the intention is to tell it in a way that is both sensitive and creatively ambitious.”
It will be the usual hatchet job, Jackie. From the Bamber blog spot on 30th April earlier this year- copy pasted below;
When Mindhouse contacted us with a view to making a documentary on the evidence of Jeremy's innocence, we were obviously interested.
Having done some brief preliminary work with them on a potential project, we were then advised by industry contacts that Mindhouse had somehow obtained crime scene photographs of the bodies of the deceased at the scene, which we understood were to be used unethically on screen in their series. Information we received also made clear that the programme would not be about the case evidence proving Jeremy’s innocence, and that it would have a very different nature to that presented to us by Mindhouse.
Police officers have disseminated distressing photographs of the deceased Bamber family to third parties, when they had no authority to do so, and the unauthorised distribution of these photographs was and still is, the subject of a criminal investigation. This placed us in a very difficult position in pursuing a criminal complaint, while at the same time, potentially working with those who had received illegally distributed images.
Mindhouse never gave us a satisfactory response to this, or to other serious concerns we had, and as a result, we terminated our involvement with them on the 20th of November 2020.
Mindhouse were not privy to the 10th of March 2021 submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and any attempt by the programme makers to suggest they are working with the campaign, Jeremy Bamber, his legal team, or the CCRC is wholly inaccurate.
Posted 30th April by Jeremy Bamber
-
Thank you Gringo. You have made everything very clear. It’s seems these type of documentary/drama series are now coming on a regular basis. There is still obviously a lot of interest in the case however much the guilty camp deny this.
Let’s keep the Jeremy Bamber case in the news because there will be a documentary maker that will approach the case from another angle
I believe in the saying no news is bad news
After the Carol Ann Lee hatchet job I spoke to numerous people who were mystified at how Jeremy Bamber was ever found guilty looking at the content in the drama.
The truth about the relatives, Julie Mugford and Essex Police will come out.
There will be documentary makers chomping at the bit to show the truth if the latest documentary is rubbish.
It is after all the greatest miscarriage of justice in British Justice
-
Thank you Gringo. You have made everything very clear. It’s seems these type of documentary/drama series are now coming on a regular basis. There is still obviously a lot of interest in the case however much the guilty camp deny this.
Let’s keep the Jeremy Bamber case in the news because there will be a documentary maker that will approach the case from another angle
I believe in the saying no news is bad news
After the Carol Ann Lee hatchet job I spoke to numerous people who were mystified at how Jeremy Bamber was ever found guilty looking at the content in the drama.
The truth about the relatives, Julie Mugford and Essex Police will come out.
There will be documentary makers chomping at the bit to show the truth if the latest documentary is rubbish.
It is after all the greatest miscarriage of justice in British Justice
The problem for any documentary maker is that JBs official campaign team are putting out crazy ideas that no reasonable documentary maker will entertain. The CT then cut ties with anyone not singing to their tune.
Thus any documentary maker is only going to be left with only pro guilt outlets to go by.
-
Not sure of this has been posted yet
https://news.sky.com/story/louis-theroux-examines-jeremy-bamber-murders-and-reveals-why-legit-people-believe-five-time-killer-is-innocent-12406985?fbclid=IwAR3lj4Gz1dZthWco8l5Dmf-rtGLKzHmvYS_WcmYi_2uox1SI_Ib58M50Ry0 (https://news.sky.com/story/louis-theroux-examines-jeremy-bamber-murders-and-reveals-why-legit-people-believe-five-time-killer-is-innocent-12406985?fbclid=IwAR3lj4Gz1dZthWco8l5Dmf-rtGLKzHmvYS_WcmYi_2uox1SI_Ib58M50Ry0)
-
Not sure of this has been posted yet
https://news.sky.com/story/louis-theroux-examines-jeremy-bamber-murders-and-reveals-why-legit-people-believe-five-time-killer-is-innocent-12406985?fbclid=IwAR3lj4Gz1dZthWco8l5Dmf-rtGLKzHmvYS_WcmYi_2uox1SI_Ib58M50Ry0 (https://news.sky.com/story/louis-theroux-examines-jeremy-bamber-murders-and-reveals-why-legit-people-believe-five-time-killer-is-innocent-12406985?fbclid=IwAR3lj4Gz1dZthWco8l5Dmf-rtGLKzHmvYS_WcmYi_2uox1SI_Ib58M50Ry0)
It was because of the way Mark Williams Thomas was treated by the campaign he decided not to do a series of documentary’s on the case
-
It was because of the way Mark Williams Thomas was treated by the campaign he decided not to do a series of documentary’s on the case
Why cant he do one without them? He can get plenty of information from this forum
-
Why cant he do one without them? He can get plenty of information from this forum
There has been major problems in the past with professional people give free help and advice. Unless these professional people can work without interference I cannot see Jeremy getting free help in the future
One of the criticism of the MWT documentary was it didn’t show a bias to Jeremy. MWT has you know wanted to do further documentaries but will not be dictated to by the campaign team
That is why I would love to see Piers Morgan work on the case as I can’t see him taking instructions from anyone
-
It's a thousand pities that the programme " Rough Justice " fizzled out. That would have sorted the wheat from the chaff and shown everyone up for the sort of people they all were.
-
Piers Morgan won't get involved in the Bamber case. He's much too big a star & has lots of better options than latching onto a man who has been in prison for 36 years.
-
It's a thousand pities that the programme " Rough Justice " fizzled out. That would have sorted the wheat from the chaff and shown everyone up for the sort of people they all were.
Why was that scrapped ?
-
Why was that scrapped ?
No idea Jackie.
-
Maybe it proved that there were too many cock-ups in the justice system ?
-
Why was that scrapped ?
This might explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI)
-
Just watching the Rough Justice video now and saw a well known saying which had been posted by someone------" Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely " How very true that is.
-
This might explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI)
In addition to the above I would say that Trial and Error, which was really the successor to Rough Justice examined a couple of dubious cases after Simon Hall, notably Eddie Gilfoyle and Sheila Bowler, which finished the series off.
-
In addition to the above I would say that Trial and Error, which was really the successor to Rough Justice examined a couple of dubious cases after Simon Hall, notably Eddie Gilfoyle and Sheila Bowler, which finished the series off.
Simon Hall done a lot of damage to genuine claims of miscarriages of justice.
-
Simon Hall done a lot of damage to genuine claims of miscarriages of justice.
Yes I agree, there was posters on here totally gone with him even though he confessed they wouldn’t accept it.
-
Simon Hall done a lot of damage to genuine claims of miscarriages of justice.
Having said that, I think the CCRC will have its referral figures boosted this year by the fact they’re referring a lot of the Postal Scandal cases.
-
Yes I agree, there was posters on here totally gone with him even though he confessed they wouldn’t accept it.
Was his confession confirmed? Was it a signed and dated statement of truth?
-
Was his confession confirmed? Was it a signed and dated statement of truth?
The CCRC asked him if he wanted to recant his confession. The case was then closed. So I guess so.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/ (https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/)
-
Was his confession confirmed? Was it a signed and dated statement of truth?
It was a genuine confession.
-
It was a genuine confession.
Ive seen letters confirming his confession NGB, I’m not going to put them up out of respect of Steph and the victims family. Surprisingly I didn’t say it was a letter confession in my post, a confession could be orally if it was to the authorities.
-
Ive seen letters confirming his confession NGB, I’m not going to put them up out of respect of Steph and the victims family. Surprisingly I didn’t say it was a letter confession in my post, a confession could be orally if it was to the authorities.
I don't believe it is disrespectful to print such letters. They are in the public domain, by consent of the person who received them, and that person is directly involved. I don't like this idea of applying emotional pressure not to discuss things or look at things. Sometimes it's valid, but mostly it's not. The case is interesting and it is public, so we'll discuss it if we want and put the letters up, if we want to.
This probably deserves its own thread in 'Other cases', but just quickly, I'll summarise why I'm sceptical about this confession.
(i). First, I have looked through the extracts of the letters and I cannot find a confession in them. The nearest he comes to it is when he refers to his 'confession'. That is not a confession. You may find this a pedantic observation, and it could be pedantic if he really did confess, but the plain fact is that referring to a confession is not a confession. Of course, it may be that I have missed the part in his letters where he does confess. If I have, then by all means tell me where it is and I may change my opinion.
(ii). Still on the letters, are we sure they are from him? Do they match his handwriting taken from elsewhere? For the purposes of these discussions, and to avoid awkwardness, I am happy to assume they are his letters, just as long as we acknowledge that this is an assumption and that it relies on the honesty of the person claiming to have received the letters.
(iii). There was a phone call with his spouse in which it is said he confessed. But we can't rely on that alone, as it's a reported conversation, which can be open to misinterpretation and other issues.
(iv). I am not aware of him having given a signed statement of truth in which he confesses and provides details of his offending that only the perpetrator would know. Did he? Did the Ministry of Justice, or the prison, or the Prison Service, issue a statement of its own confirming this had occurred?
(v). I don't expect the police will have interviewed him again, and frankly I don't blame them, but as you will know, people who are disturbed or troubled do confess to things they haven't done. I think this is well-known in the police.
(vi). It's clear from reading the extracts of the letters that he was mentally-disturbed or very troubled. He may have been vulnerable to suggestion or influence, or he may have been 'institutionalised' by his experience of custody and seeking the attention he might lose if he became just another ex-lifer out of prison. This is only speculation of course.
(vii). There is the simple fact that he claims innocence right from the start and maintains this for 12 or so years, then suddenly confesses. There are no prior reports or rumours of him bragging to other prisoners about what he did and how he is conning miscarriage of justice campaigners, etc.
(viii). There is the additional fact that it seems he must have been a model prisoner. He has committed a murder, yet he is already in a low security establishment after maybe 10 years or so and is being prepared for release in quick order. This is not unusual in your fairy ordinary, humdrum murder cases, but this was, if I understand right, an habitual criminal with a prior violent criminal record who killed a vulnerable elderly lady. Would somebody with that background who has really done something like that be ready for a low security regime in 10 years? Maybe, in the best case. But in a very broad sense, it adds a tinge of doubt for me on the idea that he could have done something like that.
(ix). He hanged himself. That means he is no longer with us and so can't confirm that his confession was true. If he really did kill that elderly lady, then I have no sympathy for him, but he spent years protesting his innocence. For me, his behaviour doesn't follow the typical pattern. Normally if a violent offender graduates to murder, he will not be protesting his innocence and then suddenly confessing and hanging himself.
-
I don't believe it is disrespectful to print such letters. They are in the public domain, by consent of the person who received them, and that person is directly involved. I don't like this idea of applying emotional pressure not to discuss things or look at things. Sometimes it's valid, but mostly it's not. The case is interesting and it is public, so we'll discuss it if we want and put the letters up, if we want to.
This probably deserves its own thread in 'Other cases', but just quickly, I'll summarise why I'm sceptical about this confession.
(i). First, I have looked through the extracts of the letters and I cannot find a confession in them. The nearest he comes to it is when he refers to his 'confession'. That is not a confession. You may find this a pedantic observation, and it could be pedantic if he really did confess, but the plain fact is that referring to a confession is not a confession. Of course, it may be that I have missed the part in his letters where he does confess. If I have, then by all means tell me where it is and I may change my opinion.
(ii). Still on the letters, are we sure they are from him? Do they match his handwriting taken from elsewhere? For the purposes of these discussions, and to avoid awkwardness, I am happy to assume they are his letters, just as long as we acknowledge that this is an assumption and that it relies on the honesty of the person claiming to have received the letters.
(iii). There was a phone call with his spouse in which it is said he confessed. But we can't rely on that alone, as it's a reported conversation, which can be open to misinterpretation and other issues.
(iv). I am not aware of him having given a signed statement of truth in which he confesses and provides details of his offending that only the perpetrator would know. Did he? Did the Ministry of Justice, or the prison, or the Prison Service, issue a statement of its own confirming this had occurred?
(v). I don't expect the police will have interviewed him again, and frankly I don't blame them, but as you will know, people who are disturbed or troubled do confess to things they haven't done. I think this is well-known in the police.
(vi). It's clear from reading the extracts of the letters that he was mentally-disturbed or very troubled. He may have been vulnerable to suggestion or influence, or he may have been 'institutionalised' by his experience of custody and seeking the attention he might lose if he became just another ex-lifer out of prison. This is only speculation of course.
(vii). There is the simple fact that he claims innocence right from the start and maintains this for 12 or so years, then suddenly confesses. There are no prior reports or rumours of him bragging to other prisoners about what he did and how he is conning miscarriage of justice campaigners, etc.
(viii). There is the additional fact that it seems he must have been a model prisoner. He has committed a murder, yet he is already in a low security establishment after maybe 10 years or so and is being prepared for release in quick order. This is not unusual in your fairy ordinary, humdrum murder cases, but this was, if I understand right, an habitual criminal with a prior violent criminal record who killed a vulnerable elderly lady. Would somebody with that background who has really done something like that be ready for a low security regime in 10 years? Maybe, in the best case. But in a very broad sense, it adds a tinge of doubt for me on the idea that he could have done something like that.
Oh right 👍
-
Oh right 👍
I'm just sceptical about it. Not saying you're wrong. Just my thoughts.
-
I'm just sceptical about it. Not saying you're wrong. Just my thoughts.
Lost cause and a disgusting crime. There were pages and pages on here.
-
Lost cause and a disgusting crime. There were pages and pages on here.
I admit I don't know much about the nitty-gritty of the case itself. My comments above are just about the confession, which I regard as a controversy in its own right.
To my knowledge, Jeremy has not had any TV programmes that unequivocally question his guilt. The Channel Five documentary that included the Andrew Hunter interview also propounded the pro-guilt case. Simon Hall had at least two mainstream TV documentaries that favoured him, produced and presented by respected people; he was also backed up by a substantial campaign involving academic justice campaigners. That doesn't happen unless there is some basis to cast doubt on the conviction, though I accept it doesn't mean there really is doubt and the campaigners may have got it wrong.
-
I admit I don't know much about the nitty-gritty of the case itself. My comments above are just about the confession, which I regard as a controversy in its own right.
To my knowledge, Jeremy has not had any TV programmes that unequivocally question his guilt. The Channel Five documentary that included the Andrew Hunter interview also propounded the pro-guilt case. Simon Hall had at least two mainstream TV documentaries that favoured him, produced and presented by respected people; he was also backed up by a substantial campaign involving academic justice campaigners. That doesn't happen unless there is some basis to cast doubt on the conviction, though I accept it doesn't mean there really is doubt and the campaigners may have got it wrong.
'Crimes that shook Britain' questions his guilt.
Susan & Caroline took an interest in the case after watching it. Both being passionate supporters on here. Then becoming guilters.
-
The CCRC asked him if he wanted to recant his confession. The case was then closed. So I guess so.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/ (https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/)
My favourite scene from the Monty Python classic, no one believes him either, poor Brian 🙈
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7zqP9QNo
-
JaneJ was a supporter before CTSB. She did not like Julie's court outfit. JaneJ later became a guilter.
Lookout and JackieD are the lady supporters left. Lookout because Jeremy sends her Christmas cards. JackieD because Julie identified the twins.
-
Jeremy does have female supporters off the site. Although Trudie has jumped ship.
-
Jeremy does have female supporters off the site. Although Trudie has jumped ship.
Doesn’t Trudes get involved at all now? Has she gone into the Patisserie business?
-
The CCRC asked him if he wanted to recant his confession. The case was then closed. So I guess so.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/ (https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-02-23/murderer-found-dead-in-prison/)
Why would they need to ask him that if it was a properly-delivered, above-board confession?
Aside from that oddity, did he reply to the CCRC and say, "Yes, it was me. I confess. I am so sorry to have wasted time and resources and I regret the further distress caused to the family"? Or did his solicitors reply on a similar basis, confirming the veracity of the confession? Or was there no reply at all and the application was left to expire?
Now we're on the subject, just what did his solicitors say about this alleged confession?
On another note, why would he commit suicide? He was almost out of prison. His confession would not have affected this too much. Something was troubling him. A guilty conscience, perhaps? Embarrassment? But he was already caught and in prison, and he already had a guilty conscience, as a (supposedly) guilty man. What had changed?
I am not convinced it was a true confession or that it changes anything. But it seems it's enough for some people. Michael Stone was convicted on the basis of a say-so confession, and even Jeremy's case is similar in that his conviction rests partly on a report of an oral confession to his then-girlfriend that no-one else witnessed. The fact that people do lie about these confessions and the equally obvious fact that some people can and do give false confessions or jokily confess to things they haven't done seems not to figure in the minds of some.
For the police, his 'confession' was superfluous or redundant of course. He was already convicted.
-
Why would they need to ask him that if it was a properly-delivered, above-board confession?
Aside from that oddity, did he reply to the CCRC and say, "Yes, it was me. I confess. I am so sorry to have wasted time and resources and I regret the further distress caused to the family"? Or did his solicitors reply on a similar basis, confirming the veracity of the confession? Or was there no reply at all and the application was left to expire?
Now we're on the subject, just what did his solicitors say about this alleged confession?
On another note, why would he commit suicide? He was almost out of prison. His confession would not have affected this too much. Something was troubling him. A guilty conscience, perhaps? Embarrassment? But he was already caught and in prison, and he already had a guilty conscience, as a (supposedly) guilty man. What had changed?
I am not convinced it was a true confession or that it changes anything. But it seems it's enough for some people. Michael Stone was convicted on the basis of a say-so confession, and even Jeremy's case is similar in that his conviction rests partly on a report of an oral confession to his then-girlfriend that no-one else witnessed. The fact that people do lie about these confessions and the equally obvious fact that some people can and do give false confessions or jokily confess to things they haven't done seems not to figure in the minds of some.
For the police, his 'confession' was superfluous or redundant of course. He was already convicted.
Could parts of this thread be merged with the thread below? To paraphrase another member this issue has been discussed ad nauseum. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7533.0.html
-
Why would they need to ask him that if it was a properly-delivered, above-board confession?
Aside from that oddity, did he reply to the CCRC and say, "Yes, it was me. I confess. I am so sorry to have wasted time and resources and I regret the further distress caused to the family"? Or did his solicitors reply on a similar basis, confirming the veracity of the confession? Or was there no reply at all and the application was left to expire?
Now we're on the subject, just what did his solicitors say about this alleged confession?
On another note, why would he commit suicide? He was almost out of prison. His confession would not have affected this too much. Something was troubling him. A guilty conscience, perhaps? Embarrassment? But he was already caught and in prison, and he already had a guilty conscience, as a (supposedly) guilty man. What had changed?
I am not convinced it was a true confession or that it changes anything. But it seems it's enough for some people. Michael Stone was convicted on the basis of a say-so confession, and even Jeremy's case is similar in that his conviction rests partly on a report of an oral confession to his then-girlfriend that no-one else witnessed. The fact that people do lie about these confessions and the equally obvious fact that some people can and do give false confessions or jokily confess to things they haven't done seems not to figure in the minds of some.
For the police, his 'confession' was superfluous or redundant of course. He was already convicted.
He confirmed to the prison authorities, police and the CCRC that he was guilty and wanted to discontinue his appeal application. He provided details about the circumstances of the crime. He did have some serious mental health issues both before and after his confession. Ultimately these problems led to his suicide. He tried more than once.
There is no doubt that the confession was genuine. I believe the years of lies weighed heavily on his mind.
-
He confirmed to the prison authorities, police and the CCRC that he was guilty and wanted to discontinue his appeal application. He provided details about the circumstances of the crime. He did have some serious mental health issues both before and after his confession. Ultimately these problems led to his suicide. He tried more than once.
There is no doubt that the confession was genuine. I believe the years of lies weighed heavily on his mind.
Within a day or two of the confession, Hall also replied to the CCRC (who had faxed the prison a legal document addressed to Hall). Hall met with the prison Governor who witnessed Hall signing the document. The document stated Hall wished the CCRC to stop all investigations in relations to his application as he had confessed to the crime. The CCRC document also asked if Hall wished his representative (Dr Michael Naughton) and wife to be sent copies, he said no.
-
He confirmed to the prison authorities, police and the CCRC that he was guilty and wanted to discontinue his appeal application. He provided details about the circumstances of the crime. He did have some serious mental health issues both before and after his confession. Ultimately these problems led to his suicide. He tried more than once.
There is no doubt that the confession was genuine. I believe the years of lies weighed heavily on his mind.
For a number of reasons that I won't go into here any further, I disagree and remain sceptical. But it's for another thread.
-
JaneJ was a supporter before CTSB. She did not like Julie's court outfit. JaneJ later became a guilter.
Lookout and JackieD are the lady supporters left. Lookout because Jeremy sends her Christmas cards. JackieD because Julie identified the twins.
I think Adam is the trail-blazer of the Forum, putting the hours in, doing the research, setting the tone and controlling the pace, while other more mediocre posters look on in awe.
-
Doesn’t Trudes get involved at all now? Has she gone into the Patisserie business?
Her weekly vlogs stopped. Probably on the instruction of Bamber. They were doing more harm than good & the Red Forum always looked forward to them.
She stepped down from her role as a director.
I suspect she is now a guilter. As has gone from very pro active to nothing.
-
Her weekly vlogs stopped. Probably on the instruction of Bambet. They were doing more harm than good & the Red Forum always looked forward to them.
She stepped down from her role as CT secretary.
Oh thanks Adam, isn’t she still active though in the Campaign? I do think she made some odd decisions though with the baking of the cake and the Graveside visit?
-
Oh thanks Adam, isn’t she still active though in the Campaign? I do think she made some odd decisions though with the baking of the cake and the Graveside visit?
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/trudi-benjamin?fbclid=IwAR2eAXXi5F35m6hKkqUCVQ3neZmbNzkXDkMQO8nLIlYglM0QLyMGyMjt5ZU
Just says she stepped down 'for pastures new'.
Can't find anything from her since this, which was over a year ago.
-
Her reasons for believing Bamber is innocent all have simple explanations. She probably finally realised this.
I believe she has an account on here. Hopefully she can give an update.
-
Trudies 'Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent' article is no longer online.
-
Trudies 'Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is innocent' article is no longer online.
Wonder if she no longer supports him, strange to all of a sudden be the most active supporter to then disappear?
-
Wonder if she no longer supports him, strange to all of a sudden be the most active supporter to then disappear?
Didn't she study and obtain a law qual while in her role? I expect pastures new was probably that it was time to explore progression and give somebody else a crack at the JB challenge. From what I understand, the CT is a bit thinner in personnel than it was. Also to be considered, these people are volunteers.
-
Didn't she study and obtain a law qual while in her role? I expect pastures new was probably that it was time to explore progression and give somebody else a crack at the JB challenge. From what I understand, the CT is a bit thinner in personnel than it was. Also to be considered, these people are volunteers.
Cheers Roch, I just thought it was funny to be the spokesperson and to then do nothing? I did seem to recall she went studying, but if your so passionate about something like this, I would have thought she could still find time?
-
Trudie still supports JB.
-
Wonder if she no longer supports him, strange to all of a sudden be the most active supporter to then disappear?
For someone who is ‘convinced ‘of Jeremys guilt you keep yourself busy what’s going on with the campaign
Very telling
-
Trudie still supports JB.
Thanks Lookout maybe the abuse she received from the guilters was too much
-
Wonder if she no longer supports him, strange to all of a sudden be the most active supporter to then disappear?
That's dead suspicious, Real Justice. I'd get on that, if I were you. I still think Adam is right about the innocent camp not wanting to do Sheila scenarios. They need to get their collective finger out. I think Adam should start up a Twitter campaign demanding Sheila scenarios, with a deadline of, say, close of business on Friday 1st. October.
-
That's dead suspicious, Real Justice. I'd get on that, if I were you. I still think Adam is right about the innocent camp not wanting to do Sheila scenarios. They need to get their collective finger out. I think Adam should start up a Twitter campaign demanding Sheila scenarios, with a deadline of, say, close of business on Friday 1st. October.
I have provided my Sheila scenario numerous times.
The Bamber case has attracted too many conspiratards, collective cohesion among supporters is all but impossible.
-
I have provided my Sheila scenario numerous times.
The Bamber case has attracted too many conspiratards, collective cohesion among supporters is all but impossible.
You have given several scenarios after each one fell apart. Thank you David.
Mike gave a short scenario - 'by shooting them'.
I'm sure Rob is working on his scenario right now.
Luminous Wanderer had a tantrum & left the forum after I told him Nevill first 4 shots were upsrairs.
-
Wonder if she no longer supports him, strange to all of a sudden be the most active supporter to then disappear?
Disappeared despite allegedly having evidence of - Shelia having 28 combat wounds and calling an ambulance at 6:09am. Very odd. ???
Maybe its the forces of darkness -
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.
-
I have provided my Sheila scenario numerous times.
The Bamber case has attracted too many conspiratards, collective cohesion among supporters is all but impossible.
I can't really take this seriously David when you are pouring scorn on my status as an intergalactic sex god. I still think Adam should get on the case and issue an ultimatum to the innocent camp: we want more Sheila scenarios!
-
Louis Theroux is on Sky Crime ---Sunday at 9pm, also Now TV.
He and his team have gained access to " never-before-heard " tapes and first-hand testimony and evidential footage. Louis had also rightly mentioned that almost every version of the story was bizarre yet one of them must be true.
-
I can't really take this seriously David when you are pouring scorn on my status as an intergalactic sex god. I still think Adam should get on the case and issue an ultimatum to the innocent camp: we want more Sheila scenarios!
Adam enjoys picking the innocent camp Sheila scenarios apart, but could someone remind him that Nevil was on the side of the bed with no blood on it, I think that is a huge flaw in anyone's scenario having Nevil shot in bed.
-
Louis Theroux is on Sky Crime ---Sunday at 9pm, also Now TV.
He and his team have gained access to " never-before-heard " tapes and first-hand testimony and evidential footage. Louis had also rightly mentioned that almost every version of the story was bizarre yet one of them must be true.
Real Justice and his mates will be glued to the tv panicking in case anymore of the cover ups are exposed
-
Adam enjoys picking the innocent camp Sheila scenarios apart, but could someone remind him that Nevil was on the side of the bed with no blood on it, I think that is a huge flaw in anyone's scenario having Nevil shot in bed.
How are you getting on with your Sheila scenario?
There is a thread on Nevill's first 4 shots.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10722.msg494248.html#msg494248
-
Adam enjoys picking the innocent camp Sheila scenarios apart, but could someone remind him that Nevil was on the side of the bed with no blood on it, I think that is a huge flaw in anyone's scenario having Nevil shot in bed.
I agree with Adam that if you haven't produced that Sheila scenario by 5 p.m. today, then it's 6 a.m. reveille tomorrow, immediately followed by 50 press-ups and 100 squats on the drill square. Sometimes moral support involves being cruel to be kind.
-
I agree with Adam that if you haven't produced that Sheila scenario by 5 p.m. today, then it's 6 a.m. reveille tomorrow, immediately followed by 50 press-ups and 100 squats on the drill square. Sometimes moral support involves being cruel to be kind.
I agree, though I am thinking of Adam's health I don't want to put in a dodgy scenario that causes Adam to fall over laughing and break a leg or something!
I would be nearly there but I can't figure out how June got over that duvet on the floor beside the bed, I think Adam cheated and never considered this so perhaps 100 press ups and 200 squats for him!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10125.msg474635.html#msg474635
Here is my Bamber scenario. Matching the crime scene evidence.
I did not have to include 1/2 phone calls. Or provide a Bamber/Nevill argument escalation towards violence. Which Rob must include in his forthcoming scenario.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10125.msg474635.html#msg474635
Here is my Bamber scenario. Matching the crime scene evidence.
I did not have to include 1/2 phone calls. Or provide a Bamber/Nevill argument escalation towards violence. Which Rob must include in his forthcoming scenario.
I have just read your scenario Adam was it 10 bullets in the magazine and 1 in the breach? Also I am curious about the escape through the kitchen window, I can't remember where I got this info but I believe that banging the window shut did not fully drop the handle down.
Hence why no photos head on of this window unless I have missed them?, a photo taken at a angle appears to show the handle not fully closed due to the way the handle was made?
-
I have just read your scenario Adam was it 10 bullets in the magazine and 1 in the breach? Also I am curious about the escape through the kitchen window, I can't remember where I got this info but I believe that banging the window shut did not fully drop the handle down.
Hence why no photos head on of this window unless I have missed them?, a photo taken at a angle appears to show the handle not fully closed?
Eleven bullets. One in the breach I assume. Bamber would commence the massacre fully loaded.
The window latch dropped down sufficiently for the police to the class it as locked from inside. Which is possible to achieve by banging it from outside.
How are you getting on with your Sheila scenario?
-
So 11 bullets.
The window latch dropped down sufficiently for the police to the class it as locked from inside. Which is possible to achieve by banging it from outside.
How are you getting on with your Sheila scenario?
I am working on it Adam, several officers checked the windows and the kitchen window was fully closed. There is a source somewhere where they could not get the window to fully close (handle right down) even banging it shut hard many times?
-
I am working on it Adam, several officers checked the windows and the kitchen window was fully closed. There is a source somewhere where they could not get the window to fully close (handle right down) even banging it shut hard many times?
Think the term was 'shut from inside'. Not surprising there was a window that could be banged shut in such a large house.
Bamber never asked to see proof of this in his police interviews. Do not believe the defence disputed it either. The CT have produced one photo disputing this, over 30 years later. Although I do not believe it is part of the CCRC referral.
Thank you for spending time producing a Sheila scenario.
-
I think I have just read the Louis Theroux series is available already on sky and now
-
I am working on it Adam, several officers checked the windows and the kitchen window was fully closed. There is a source somewhere where they could not get the window to fully close (handle right down) even banging it shut hard many times?
AE's statement :
" Monday 26th of August 1985. I cannot recall what time it was but during daylight hours my father and I went to Whitehouse Farm. My father and I went into the house and checked the windows in the kitchen. I opened the fanlight window positioned above the kitchen unit which looks onto the back-yard.
I then went outside and closed the window after setting the catch first. The window on being closed, secured itself so that it couldn't be opened again from the outside. There would be sufficient room for a person to exit the farmhouse using this fanlight window space ".
This was all AE had said about the window, no mention of climbing through any window, only that it closed from the outside.
I doubt the handle would have dropped easily as the house/ windows had been painted days before leaving paint residue within the locking parts making it stiff and tacky.
-
AE's statement :
" Monday 26th of August 1985. I cannot recall what time it was but during daylight hours my father and I went to Whitehouse Farm. My father and I went into the house and checked the windows in the kitchen. I opened the fanlight window positioned above the kitchen unit which looks onto the back-yard.
I then went outside and closed the window after setting the catch first. The window on being closed, secured itself so that it couldn't be opened again from the outside. There would be sufficient room for a person to exit the farmhouse using this fanlight window space ".
This was all AE had said about the window, no mention of climbing through any window, only that it closed from the outside.
I doubt the handle would have dropped easily as the house/ windows had been painted days before leaving paint residue within the locking parts making it stiff and tacky.
''There would be sufficient room for a person to exit the farmhouse using this fanlight window space "
-
AE's statement :
" Monday 26th of August 1985. I cannot recall what time it was but during daylight hours my father and I went to Whitehouse Farm. My father and I went into the house and checked the windows in the kitchen. I opened the fanlight window positioned above the kitchen unit which looks onto the back-yard.
I then went outside and closed the window after setting the catch first. The window on being closed, secured itself so that it couldn't be opened again from the outside. There would be sufficient room for a person to exit the farmhouse using this fanlight window space ".
This was all AE had said about the window, no mention of climbing through any window, only that it closed from the outside.
I doubt the handle would have dropped easily as the house/ windows had been painted days before leaving paint residue within the locking parts making it stiff and tacky.
Thanks Lookout, I need to get better at searching for information!
-
Jones asked if he had entered the house via any windows recently. Jeremy nodded: "Kitchen windows, scullery windows, downstairs toilet window and sitting room window. In the last six months, I can't say how many times I've done it."
"Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife to move the catch, so you could slide a window open?"
"Yes."
"Which window in the White House have you done that to?"
"Downstairs toilet and the lounge window."
Jones pulled out a photograph of the shower room. "You've been into that room by using a knife, moving the catch and then getting in at some time or another?"
"Yes," Jeremy said.
-
Tuesday 10 September 1985
"Do you know of a way of getting in and out of the house other than by the door?"
"There are many ways to get into the house, ie., windows."
"What do you mean? Insecure windows?"
"Insecure windows, secure windows, it makes no difference."
-
Those remaining fence-sitters may come to realize the import of the above dialogues. It is Jeremy Bamber covering himself for the heinous crimes, the acts of diablerie which pertained on those premises, that charnel house of death those wee hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985, not exculpation by any means, but nevertheless a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in the incipient realization that a criminal trial was close at hand.
-
There was a complete weirdo in the documentary singing Mugfords praises
Defending the person who in her own words acted as badly as Maxine Carr
The other sick person in the documentary being Carol Ann Lee blaming Jeremy solely for the caravan robbery when Mugford had already committed several cheque frauds which made it pretty obvious the caravan robbery would have been Mugfords idea
-
There was a complete weirdo in the documentary singing Mugfords praises
Defending the person who in her own words acted as badly as Maxine Carr
The other sick person in the documentary being Carol Ann Lee blaming Jeremy solely for the caravan robbery when Mugford had already committed several cheque frauds which made it pretty obvious the caravan robbery would have been Mugfords idea
I skipped all the parts with Carol Ann Lee in.
-
Jones asked if he had entered the house via any windows recently. Jeremy nodded: "Kitchen windows, scullery windows, downstairs toilet window and sitting room window. In the last six months, I can't say how many times I've done it."
"Have you ever got in a window by putting something in between the window frames, like a knife to move the catch, so you could slide a window open?"
"Yes."
"Which window in the White House have you done that to?"
"Downstairs toilet and the lounge window."
Jones pulled out a photograph of the shower room. "You've been into that room by using a knife, moving the catch and then getting in at some time or another?"
"Yes," Jeremy said.
"I can't say how many times I've done it."
----------
Bit weird Bamber continually sneeking into WHF. June & Nevill (his parents) lived there & there was a constant stream of other people inside, BW, Jean Boutell.
He worked with Nevill or could have used a phone to arrange access.
I can only think he was rummaging around looking for cash. Exiting through the kitchen window & banging it shut.
-
"I can't say how many times I've done it."
----------
Bit weird Bamber continually sneeking into WHF. June & Nevill lived there & there was a constant stream of other people inside, BW, Jean Boutell.
He worked with Nevill or could have used a phone to arrange access.
I can only think he was rummaging around looking for cash. Exiting through the kitchen window & banging it shut.
" Rummaging around looking for cash ?". Then why didn't he take the wallet along with purses inside handbags plus the contents of the safe ? ( workers wages )
-
" Rummaging around looking for cash ?". Then why didn't he take the wallet along with purses inside handbags plus the contents of the safe ? ( workers wages )
He may have been hopeing Nevill left his safe open one day. Might be a tidy sum there. Didn't he read the wills after getting them from the WHF safe.
He must have had limited success with the WHF break ins. So robbed the caravan site.
-
" Rummaging around looking for cash ?". Then why didn't he take the wallet along with purses inside handbags plus the contents of the safe ? ( workers wages )
Why do you think Bamber kept breaking into WHF?
-
Why do you think Bamber kept breaking into WHF?
But he didn't " keep breaking in to WHF " ?
-
But he didn't " keep breaking in to WHF " ?
"I can't say how many times I've done it."
----------
He had lost count.
-
"I can't say how many times I've done it."
----------
He had lost count.
Like others, you're making things up as you go along. Why would he need to break-in to where he lived ?
-
Like others, you're making things up as you go along. Why would he need to break-in to where he lived ?
It's from the police interview transcripts.
All Bamber's stuff will be at his cottage. He had lived there long enough. So why continually break into WHF?
If he needed access to WHF, he could ask Nevill, June, BW or JB.
He secretly broke in through windows for obvious reasons. Nevill & June had wisely not given him a key.
-
It's from the police interview transcripts.
All Bamber's stuff will be at his cottage. He had lived there long enough. So why continually break into WHF?
If he needed access to WHF, he could ask Nevill, June, BW or JB.
He secretly broke in through windows for obvious reasons. Nevill & June had wisely not given him a key.
All well and good for those, like yourself who believe in EVERYTHING that the police say :o
You don't " break-in " to your own home. You enter, like others did, via a known entrance which was a window. AP used to do, as did his brother when he stayed/worked at WHF. They didn't have keys either !
-
Suspect there were slim pickings when Bamber kept breaking into WHF. Nevill & June are not going to leave lots of cash lying around.
However the caravan site.....
-
God you're so boring. If it's not about your " mountain of evidence " it's now something new but in the same boring repetitive way about " breaking into WHF ".
You haven't got a clue have you ?
-
God you're so boring. If it's not about your " mountain of evidence " it's now something new but in the same boring repetitive way about " breaking into WHF ".
You haven't got a clue have you ?
Bamber admitted he continually broke into WHF.
He then admitted he broke into the caravan site. For money.
He was getting slim pickings from WHF & risked being disinherited if he broke into the caravan site again.
He had to escalate.
-
Can somebody just explain to me why Jeremy Bamber needs to exit and enter White House Farm by means of windows so many times?
-
He didn't have a key and latterly when he did have keys he handed them over to AE.
How many times are we talking about ? That goes for others who'd used this same method too.
-
What's everyone's verdict as to how balanced the 'docu' was? Should I invest any time watching it or will I end up throwing the telly through the window?
-
What's everyone's verdict as to how balanced the 'docu' was? Should I invest any time watching it or will I end up throwing the telly through the window?
I would say watch it because once again there is nothing close to proving Jeremys guilt. It could have been good if researched
MWT needs to do a documentary on this documentary because he will make Louis programme look stupid
-
Can somebody just explain to me why Jeremy Bamber needs to exit and enter White House Farm by means of windows so many times?
Maybe he had started reading June's bible.
-
Maybe he had started reading June's bible.
JB's prints weren't on it. ::)
-
Matthew Steeple's video on Bambertweets is worth watching. It runs for 1hr 45 mins. It should be shown on TV !
-
JB's prints weren't on it. ::)
Surprising as Bamber covered himself by saying he had handled the bible.
To swat Crispy.
-
Surprising as Bamber covered himself by saying he had handled the bible.
To swat Crispy.
Not on the night of the murders he didn't. Which Bible would that have been as there were 5 ?
-
Matthew Steeple's video on Bambertweets is worth watching. It runs for 1hr 45 mins. It should be shown on TV !
What is the link please Lookout
-
What is the link please Lookout
Just google bambertweets then scroll down a bit on the site.
It mentions about the burns on Nevill's back which the support team hired a professional person in that field to work out the cause but the answer to that is part of the submission to the CCRC------among other answers.
-
What is the link please Lookout
If it is the same podcast as the one hosted by Shaun Attwood, then there is already a thread with the link.
-
If it is the same podcast as the one hosted by Shaun Attwood, then there is already a thread with the link.
Yes, of course. Silly me.
-
He didn't have a key and latterly when he did have keys he handed them over to AE.
How many times are we talking about ? That goes for others who'd used this same method too.
He had a key to the door PC Woodcock destroyed with a sledgehammer.
-
Thanks Lookout and QC
-
He had a key to the door PC Woodcock destroyed with a sledgehammer.
Then he should have used that then the door wouldn't have been bashed ?
-
Then he should have used that then the door wouldn't have been bashed ?
Of course if a) he wasn't touched and b) hoping his sister had died before police could attempt resuscitation.
-
Of course if a) he wasn't touched and b) hoping his sister had died before police could attempt resuscitation.
Only an idiot would have taken that chance. JB is neither an idiot nor a killer.
-
Assume this is the place to post about the Sky doc?
Thought PC West came over well and seems to have put paid to the absurd claim that Mr Bamber Snr called the police. Although I bet there are some that will persist with this nonsense.
-
Assume this is the place to post about the Sky doc?
Thought PC West came over well and seems to have put paid to the absurd claim that Mr Bamber Snr called the police. Although I bet there are some that will persist with this nonsense.
We'll wait and see shall we ?
-
Assume this is the place to post about the Sky doc?
Thought PC West came over well and seems to have put paid to the absurd claim that Mr Bamber Snr called the police. Although I bet there are some that will persist with this nonsense.
I am 60/40 against it haven taken place. Nevertheless, I find it curious how quickly officers were stood down from other duties for TFG duties. There is also no situation report available from Bews et al, to explore the justification for request for armed officers to attend. I also do not know if the new legal team have discovered anything else that they have kept restricted.
-
Assume this is the place to post about the Sky doc?
Thought PC West came over well and seems to have put paid to the absurd claim that Mr Bamber Snr called the police. Although I bet there are some that will persist with this nonsense.
Absurd ? Your an expert on the case then? Very much in the public eye at the moment, thank goodness
-
We'll wait and see shall we ?
We could speculate until the cows come home. Do you think this so-called phone call from Mr Bamber senior meets the criteria referred to by barrister Patrick O'Connor?
-
We could speculate until the cows come home. Do you think this so-called phone call from Mr Bamber senior meets the criteria referred to by barrister Patrick O'Connor?
Of course none of us are privy to confidential information but the solicitors and barristers look like they will leave no stone unturned with this unsafe conviction
-
I am 60/40 against it haven taken place. Nevertheless, I find it curious how quickly officers were stood down from other duties for TFG duties. There is also no situation report available from Bews et al, to explore the justification for request for armed officers to attend. I also do not know if the new legal team have discovered anything else that they have kept restricted.
Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough?
Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc.
What would you do? Play knock, knock, ginger?
-
Of course none of us are privy to confidential information but the solicitors and barristers look like they will leave no stone unturned with this unsafe conviction
I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now. No reason not to.
-
Quote " The log relating to Nevill's call states " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead ". This line allowed the prosecution to argue that this log was started because a call from Jeremy was passed from one office to another. In other words they argued that this log relates only to Jeremy's call.
In reality, the line " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " was added to the log later on after Jeremy had contacted PC West some 10 minutes after the initial call from Nevill. Therefore the statement " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " has nothing to do with the original telephone conversation between PC West and Nevill but refers to new information being passed to Bonnett after the second telephone call, this one made by Jeremy.
Audio's of both calls have failed to materialise " End Quote.
-
The above is part of the submission to the CCRC.
-
Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough?
Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc.
What would you do? Play knock, knock, ginger?
Possibly. But my understanding of that era is, a gun issue at a farmhouse in rural Essex would not normally result in TFG being requested. To stand officers down from elsewhere in preparation for firearms to be withdrawn was a very serious matter. Permission wouldn't be given lightly.
-
" The emergence of the second log in March 2004 ( the one referring to Jeremy's call, written by PC West ) confirms that two separate calls were made to the police along with a table that clearly outlines the differences between the two ".
-
Nobody knew who a handful of firearm officers were and no notes/ statements were ever taken.
-
I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now. No reason not to.
You must be concerned to come on this forum.
You seem sure Jeremy is guilty? Why waste your time here. It’s a lovely day here in Maldon. I have just had a lovely walk with my dog
-
There'll be a few who'll be getting the wind up at the thought of a possible appeal---over 300,000 pages of it including those which EP were holding back and which no longer applied after 30 years. There are apparently multiple grounds for appeal. How disgusting is this after 36 years ?
A jury who were repeatedly misled and the non-provision of evidence at the trial.
-
I rather think if it was a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence we would have heard about it by now. No reason not to.
Possibly, however.. the legal team may wish to take more of an in-house due-process approach. Criticism was received from the CCRC regarding the USA and UK ballistics and burns evidence being vaunted in the media.
BTW, the above mentioned findings still stand and have never been countered by any other medical / forensic scientists. But the state can rely on Carol Ann Lee and co, rather than science.
-
You must be concerned to come on this forum.
You seem sure Jeremy is guilty? Why waste your time here. It’s a lovely day here in Maldon. I have just had a lovely walk with my dog
We've had a grey day in Manchester with light drizzle. Maybe Cambridgecutie has been out walking with his or her cat in Ely. In any case he's entitled to his view.
-
Surely Bamber's claims of a 'mad woman' with an arsenal of weapons and ammunition at her disposal were enough?
Lights on, dogs barking, no movement, Bamber's phone call to the police regarding his father saying the daughter was going crazy with a gun, etc, etc.
What would you do? Play knock, knock, ginger?
Hey, I like knock-knock ginger. My big mistake was trying it at Adam's door at 3 a.m. one morning.
-
Is this the same game as knocky-door-neighbour?
-
Hey, I like knock-knock ginger. My big mistake was trying it at Adam's door at 3 a.m. one morning.
I wish
-
I wish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg
-
The above is part of the submission to the CCRC.
Bamber has previously made 2 submissions to the CCRC both of which were rejected. And I can assure you any such further submissions re the logs will go the same way.
PC West explained the logs in the recent Sky doc all of which stacks up with the paperwork: Bamber to PC West and PC West to Malcolm Bonnett. There's no evidence whatsoever of a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr.
-
You must be concerned to come on this forum.
You seem sure Jeremy is guilty?Why waste your time here. It’s a lovely day here in Maldon. I have just had a lovely walk with my dog
Interested yes; concerned no.
Do I? How have you arrived at this conclusion?
Anyway glad you had a lovely day in Maldon walking your dog. :)
-
Hey, I like knock-knock ginger. My big mistake was trying it at Adam's door at 3 a.m. one morning.
I had hoped I would grow out of it but it still gives me a buzz ;)
-
Is this the same game as knocky-door-neighbour?
Maybe. You knock on a door, run off and hide in a place where you can see the door and take delight in looking at the individual looking about to see who knocked the door ;D
-
Maybe. You knock on a door, run off and hide in a place where you can see the door and take delight in looking at the individual looking about to see who knocked the door ;D
Where does the ginger come from? :))
-
Nothing in the documentary about Mike Ainsleys illegal behaviour
From Jeremys barrister
Discussing transparency in the case, Mr Stone said: “It’s a fact that the blood-based exhibits from Sheila Caffell’s DNA were destroyed by Essex Police in 1996.
“And one can say that was arguably the most important exhibit in the case. It isn’t simply a situation of one item being destroyed
The claimant was informed that… Michael Ainsley had taken back to his home address in 2010 more documents from the investigation and destroyed them.
"It’s significant given his position in the investigation and it’s significant bearing in mind he knew there were ongoing appeal proceedings.”
Myself I have read that Ainsley met the producers of the previous documentary and handed over further documents in a pub
I have also read that Ainsley went to work for the relatives after the conviction
-
After QC and Lookouts recommendation I watched the podcast where it reminded me of Mugfords numerous cheque frauds
In 1986 the limit on writing cheques was £50. Julie committed fraud for a total of £900
Mugford committed fraud on 13 different occasions
-
I did not realise that the relatives went to such extreme lengths to convince the police JB was responsible for the killings. I knew about the window and silencer but never knew they suggested the wet suit theory and the reason the tampons were downstairs was because JB used them to clean the gun etc.
I must admit this worries me a bit??
-
This was a very interesting part of the show I think -
https://streamable.com/0yv5im (https://streamable.com/0yv5im)
-
This was a very interesting part of the show I think -
https://streamable.com/0yv5im (https://streamable.com/0yv5im)
What's interesting about that for me is that he has got hold of a full transcript of the judge's summing-up. Between that interview and the Carol Ann Lee book, it is becoming clear we have not been told the truth about the availability of transcripts from the trial. There is a lot more material in existence.
I think a pretty sensational documentary could be made from the pro-innocence point-of-view, if done professionally.
-
What's interesting about that for me is that he has got hold of a full transcript of the judge's summing-up. Between that interview and the Carol Ann Lee book, it is becoming clear we have not been told the truth about the availability of transcripts from the trial. There is a lot more material in existence.
I think a pretty sensational documentary could be made from the pro-innocence point-of-view, if done professionally.
He is a Barrister, I guess he would know how to get a copy?
All the bits we have of the summing up I have put together here - in no particular order.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059)
-
This was a very interesting part of the show I think -
https://streamable.com/0yv5im (https://streamable.com/0yv5im)
The most important and impartial part of the documentary
Ngb has always said this and that is why if you believe in a fair criminal justice system this cannot possible be overlooked
Piers Morgan has that clip
-
What's interesting about that for me is that he has got hold of a full transcript of the judge's summing-up. Between that interview and the Carol Ann Lee book, it is becoming clear we have not been told the truth about the availability of transcripts from the trial. There is a lot more material in existence.
I think a pretty sensational documentary could be made from the pro-innocence point-of-view, if done professionally.
Of course there has to be
-
He is a Barrister, I guess he would know how to get a copy?
All the bits we have of the summing up I have put together here - in no particular order.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059)
I don't believe simply being a barrister would entitle him to any special privileges over documents. I would assume in fact it's the documentary-makers who have obtained a copy as a result of their research.
-
The most important and impartial part of the documentary
If this is the case, then the documentary can't be very balanced at all! And if that's the case, its timing, like the drama, should be considered as anti-JB propaganda.
The defence cannot get any similar project off the ground because the convictions are still in place. The media would only be interested if the convictions were overturned. The propaganda is helping to ensure that a critical mass of guilters is reached among the viewing population. Such a position equates to those who believe in an MOJ becoming ever more marginalised and ridiculed. That in itself takes pressure off of the authorities.
Should the situation be reversed; and media companies were only interested in commissioning and airing an MOJ approach to the case, the balance of opinion among the viewing populace would shift in favour of JB. That in turn would place more pressure on the authorities.
At the moment, CAL and the state have all the resources they need, to ensure the balance is pro-guilt. Whereas the defence have an inferior level of resources to be able to compete.
-
If this is the case, then the documentary can't be very balanced at all! And if that's the case, its timing, like the drama, should be considered as anti-JB propaganda.
The defence cannot get any similar project off the ground because the convictions are still in place. The media would only be interested if the convictions were overturned. The propaganda is helping to ensure that a critical mass of guilters is reached among the viewing population. Such a position equates to those who believe in an MOJ becoming ever more marginalised and ridiculed. That in itself takes pressure off of the authorities.
Should the situation be reversed; and media companies were only interested in commissioning and airing an MOJ approach to the case, the balance of opinion among the viewing populace would shift in favour of JB. That in turn would place more pressure on the authorities.
At the moment, CAL and the state have all the resources they need, to ensure the balance is pro-guilt. Whereas the defence have an inferior level of resources to be able to compete.
And Aliens are involved also!
-
And Aliens are involved also!
It's common sense, not brain surgery. McKay tried to do the same. He could have pulled it off but there was interference. Those on the side of the interferers have learned a trick or to from McKay and have used it much to their advantage. The only difference being that McKay was trying to expose the truth, whereas CAL is selling an extremely narrow narrative parceled up as 'case evidence'.
-
And Aliens are involved also!
Keep quiet about that, David. I'm enjoying my inter-galactic extra-curricula activities in the flying saucers. I know you're jealous of me and Nugnug, but we can't help it if aliens find us sexy.
-
Keep quiet about that, David. I'm enjoying my inter-galactic extra-curricula activities in the flying saucers. I know you're jealous of me and Nugnug, but we can't help it if aliens find us sexy.
I thought the aliens were only interested in our sheep? :))
-
He is a Barrister, I guess he would know how to get a copy?
All the bits we have of the summing up I have put together here - in no particular order.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059)
Was Patrick O'Connor working off the complete summing up?
Bamber's first appeal hearing was based on the Judge's summing up.
-
Was Patrick O'Connor working off the complete summing up?
I guess so.
-
Was Patrick O'Connor working off the complete summing up?
Bamber's first appeal hearing was based on the Judge's summing up.
He (or more likely the documentary researchers) had managed to obtain a complete transcript of the judge's summing up.
-
He (or more likely the documentary researchers) had managed to obtain a complete transcript of the judge's summing up.
I assume this was available for the 1989 appeal and the defence argued the points raised by Patrick O'Connor?
-
I assume this was available for the 1989 appeal and the defence argued the points raised by Patrick O'Connor?
In the first appeal the main ground of appeal was the bias in the judge's summing up, so to that extent it was in line with the points made by Patrick O'Connor. It is very difficult to win an appeal on those grounds alone.
-
I guess so.
David, this isn't Billings, Montana. You can swap guess for suppose.
-
I gave in and watched the series on the NowTV player after taking advantage of their free trial offer.
It's not a documentary series in the true sense. It's more like a compilation of interviews and montages with voiceovers. Some of the photographs and interviews are interesting because I haven't seen them before, but there's little substance to it in that it's fairly superficial and doesn't go into much detail, and I was pretty bored by the end of it. I think it was all a bit confused and disjointed. The four episodes overall lack a clear narrative or focus and there was no analytical element.
For me, the gold standard for this genre are the World in Action documentaries on the Birmingham Six: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyo50NHuRq4
Watch that example and be amazed, and then consider: Would such a documentary be made today? They know what they want to say. They say it. They don't get bogged down in issues that aren't strictly relevant, such as the feelings of relatives, etc., or the opinions of frivolous book authors, or the impressions of peripheral figures (James Richards? Barbara Wilson? Are they crucial witnesses?), or the life and times of TV reporters, or the fatuous tautologies of police officers ("I knew he was guilty. I don't know what his supporters are playing at", etc., etc., etc.).
Points that stood out (in no particular order):
(i). David Boutflour is a very emotional man. Nobody else in any documentary on this case I have seen was crying, just him. I have not seen Colin Caffell cry like that.
(ii). Mr Boutflour claims that Nevill and June were like second parents to him and he used to stay at The White House often during his teens.
(iii). Mr Boutflour again tells us that the silencer was 'sticky' and he saw the grey hair on it. It must be that Jeremy didn't notice this stickiness or the grey hair when he put that same silencer away in the gun cupboard.
(iv). Colin Caffell does not appear. Nor does Ann Eaton.
(v). Anthony Arlidge, prosecution counsel at the trial, criticises the judge's summing-up, as does a barrister unconnected with the case who was asked to give his 'objective' view on the transcript.
(vi). In the third episode, a former News of the World reporter clearly admits that Julie Mugford was promised payment before the end of the trial.
(vii). An admission from Julie Mugford that I had forgotten came up again, which is that she claimed to Essex Police that she did supply sedatives or sleeping pills to Jeremy for the purpose of an abortive murder plot.
(viii). Unflattering speculation is advanced about Julie's motives for coming forward.
(ix). James Richards, responsible for perhaps the most ridiculously irrelevant evidence ever given in an English murder trial, is described as a 'friend' of Julie Mugford and defends her zealously.
(x). Likewise Barbara Wilson, whose evidence at trial seemed pointless to me, makes another appearance. She now claims that Nevill knew Jeremy had robbed the caravan site office. Yet Nevill did not change his will. Why? I thought there was a murder plot and Nevill, June, Julie, Colin, Robert, David, Peter, Ann, Karen, Patricia, and every Phillip, Jack and Maureen between there and Chelmsford knew of it?
(xi). No mention is made of DCI Taff Jones or DS Stan Jones.
(xii). Dr Vanezis does not appear.
(xiii). Mike Ainsley is not asked why he retained evidence in his own home, if he did so. Isn't it a strange thing for a police officer to take evidence home with him, then destroy that evidence?
(xiv). For the first time, Malcolm Fletcher and Michael West appear. Their interviews are quite interesting, to be fair.
(xv). Geoffrey Rivlin does not appear, nor does Paul Terzeon.
(xvi). Mark Williams-Thomas is given a soap box and could have gone into some detail about the evidence he came up with, but in keeping with the documentary's lack of focus, he is fairly superficial but does come across well.
(xvii). Chris Bews now says he saw movement at the window, then realised it was moon light. I think that must be the third or fourth version of that part of the incident that he has given. At this rate, he'll be telling us in the next documentary that it was Saxby who saw something, as he's the only person present who it hasn't yet been blamed on.
(xviii). For the first time, we hear parts of Jeremy's prison interview with the journalist in 2010.
The whole thing came across to me as a damage limitation exercise, perhaps intended to blunt the impact of new revelations to come (which may be things that are not revelations to us on this Forum, but would be to the public).
It may also be that the lack of narrative rigour is an effort at confusing ordinary viewers of average intelligence, who will come away without a clear sense of what are the issues in the case and will be inclined to just forget about it all.
-
I gave in and watched the series on the NowTV player after taking advantage of their free trial offer.
It's not a documentary series in the true sense. It's more like a compilation of interviews and montages with voiceovers. Some of the photographs and interviews are interesting because I haven't seen them before, but there's little substance to it in that it's fairly superficial and doesn't go into much detail, and I was pretty bored by the end of it. I think it was all a bit confused and disjointed. The four episodes overall lack a clear narrative or focus and there was no analytical element.
For me, the gold standard for this genre are the World in Action documentaries on the Birmingham Six: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyo50NHuRq4
Watch that example and be amazed, and then consider: Would such a documentary be made today? They know what they want to say. They say it. They don't get bogged down in issues that aren't strictly relevant, such as the feelings of relatives, etc., or the opinions of frivolous book authors, or the impressions of peripheral figures (James Richards? Barbara Wilson? Are they crucial witnesses?), or the life and times of TV reporters, or the fatuous tautologies of police officers ("I knew he was guilty. I don't know what his supporters are playing at", etc., etc., etc.).
Points that stood out (in no particular order):
(i). David Boutflour is a very emotional man. Nobody else in any documentary on this case I have seen was crying, just him. I have not seen Colin Caffell cry like that.
(ii). Mr Boutflour claims that Nevill and June were like second parents to him and he used to stay at The White House often during his teens.
(iii). Mr Boutflour again tells us that the silencer was 'sticky' and he saw the grey hair on it. It must be that Jeremy didn't notice this stickiness or the grey hair when he put that same silencer away in the gun cupboard.
(iv). Colin Caffell does not appear. Nor does Ann Eaton.
(v). Anthony Arlidge, prosecution counsel at the trial, criticises the judge's summing-up, as does a barrister unconnected with the case who was asked to give his 'objective' view on the transcript.
(vi). In the third episode, a former News of the World reporter clearly admits that Julie Mugford was promised payment before the end of the trial.
(vii). An admission from Julie Mugford that I had forgotten came up again, which is that she claimed to Essex Police that she did supply sedatives or sleeping pills to Jeremy for the purpose of an abortive murder plot.
(viii). Unflattering speculation is advanced about Julie's motives for coming forward.
(ix). James Richards, responsible for perhaps the most ridiculously irrelevant evidence ever given in an English murder trial, is described as a 'friend' of Julie Mugford and defends her zealously.
(x). Likewise Barbara Wilson, whose evidence at trial seemed pointless to me, makes another appearance. She now claims that Nevill knew Jeremy had robbed the caravan site office. Yet Nevill did not change his will. Why? I thought there was a murder plot and Nevill, June, Julie, Colin, Robert, David, Peter, Ann, Karen, Patricia, and every Phillip, Jack and Maureen between there and Chelmsford knew of it?
(xi). No mention is made of DCI Taff Jones or DS Stan Jones.
(xii). Dr Vanezis does not appear.
(xiii). Mike Ainsley is not asked why he retained evidence in his own home, if he did so. Isn't it a strange thing for a police officer to take evidence home with him, then destroy that evidence?
(xiv). For the first time, Malcolm Fletcher and Michael West appear. Their interviews are quite interesting, to be fair.
(xv). Geoffrey Rivlin does not appear, nor does Paul Terzeon.
(xvi). Mark Williams-Thomas is given a soap box and could have gone into some detail about the evidence he came up with, but in keeping with the documentary's lack of focus, he is fairly superficial but does come across well.
(xvii). Chris Bews now says he saw movement at the window, then realised it was moon light. I think that must be the third or fourth version of that part of the incident that he has given. At this rate, he'll be telling us in the next documentary that it was Saxby who saw something, as he's the only person present who it hasn't yet been blamed on.
(xviii). For the first time, we hear parts of Jeremy's prison interview with the journalist in 2010.
The whole thing came across to me as a damage limitation exercise, perhaps intended to blunt the impact of new revelations to come (which may be things that are not revelations to us on this Forum, but would be to the public).
It may also be that the lack of narrative rigour is an effort at confusing ordinary viewers of average intelligence, who will come away without a clear sense of what are the issues in the case and will be inclined to just forget about it all.
Thought CC would have appeared. Maybe he thought the documentary sounded too trashy.
Didn't know DB was so close to Nevill & June.
Only seen AE in one documentary. Where she talks about how Sheila could not have overpowered Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.
What were the criticisms of the judges summing up?
It's well known the NOTW approached Julie & a verbal agreement made. And no surprise.
The sleeping pills are in Julie's WS. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.
It's been said for years that Nevill knew it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site. Maybe Nevill was planning to amend his will. June certainly was.
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial it was not mentioned in the police interviews or at trial. Not surprised Bews can't remember who didn't see what 36 years on.
Did Bamber say anything new?
Did the documentary not mention the caravan break in?
-
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12158.msg667215#msg667215
Here is some information on the caravan break in. Page 26.
Jeremy persuading Nevill to leave the cash at the caravan site. Then robbing it a few hours later? Talk about rubbing it into Nevill's face.
-
Thought CC would have appeared. Maybe he thought the documentary sounded too trashy.
Didn't know DB was so close to Nevill & June.
Only seen AE in one documentary. Where she talks about how Sheila could not have overpowered Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.
What were the criticisms of the judges summing up?
It's well known the NOTW approached Julie & a verbal agreement made. And no surprise.
The sleeping pills are in Julie's WS. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.
It's been said for years that Nevill knew it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site. Maybe Nevill was planning to amend his will. June certainly was.
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial it was not mentioned in the police interviews or at trial. Not surprised Bews can't remember who didn't see what 36 years on.
Did Bamber say anything new?
Did the documentary not mention the caravan break in?
Colin probably didn’t appear in the latest documentary because after the last documentary he was criticised for his behaviour towards Sheila which could have contributed to her mental health problems and he also stated in the Lorraine programme the Sheila would have had to be a marksman to shoot the family at point blank range
The documentary Ann appeared in made it clear that Ann had moved into White House farm not long afters the murders and her children had even helped her change the bedding. The documentary maker also seemed shocked there was also still blood on the lampshades when Ann showed her around
All very strange considering Ann was so close to the family
Adam please supply a source where it states Nevill planned to change his will
The documentary did not mention Julie Mugfords 13 multiple cheque frauds??
-
I gave in and watched the series on the NowTV player after taking advantage of their free trial offer.
It's not a documentary series in the true sense. It's more like a compilation of interviews and montages with voiceovers. Some of the photographs and interviews are interesting because I haven't seen them before, but there's little substance to it in that it's fairly superficial and doesn't go into much detail, and I was pretty bored by the end of it. I think it was all a bit confused and disjointed. The four episodes overall lack a clear narrative or focus and there was no analytical element.
For me, the gold standard for this genre are the World in Action documentaries on the Birmingham Six: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyo50NHuRq4
Watch that example and be amazed, and then consider: Would such a documentary be made today? They know what they want to say. They say it. They don't get bogged down in issues that aren't strictly relevant, such as the feelings of relatives, etc., or the opinions of frivolous book authors, or the impressions of peripheral figures (James Richards? Barbara Wilson? Are they crucial witnesses?), or the life and times of TV reporters, or the fatuous tautologies of police officers ("I knew he was guilty. I don't know what his supporters are playing at", etc., etc., etc.).
Points that stood out (in no particular order):
(i). David Boutflour is a very emotional man. Nobody else in any documentary on this case I have seen was crying, just him. I have not seen Colin Caffell cry like that.
(ii). Mr Boutflour claims that Nevill and June were like second parents to him and he used to stay at The White House often during his teens.
(iii). Mr Boutflour again tells us that the silencer was 'sticky' and he saw the grey hair on it. It must be that Jeremy didn't notice this stickiness or the grey hair when he put that same silencer away in the gun cupboard.
(iv). Colin Caffell does not appear. Nor does Ann Eaton.
(v). Anthony Arlidge, prosecution counsel at the trial, criticises the judge's summing-up, as does a barrister unconnected with the case who was asked to give his 'objective' view on the transcript.
(vi). In the third episode, a former News of the World reporter clearly admits that Julie Mugford was promised payment before the end of the trial.
(vii). An admission from Julie Mugford that I had forgotten came up again, which is that she claimed to Essex Police that she did supply sedatives or sleeping pills to Jeremy for the purpose of an abortive murder plot.
(viii). Unflattering speculation is advanced about Julie's motives for coming forward.
(ix). James Richards, responsible for perhaps the most ridiculously irrelevant evidence ever given in an English murder trial, is described as a 'friend' of Julie Mugford and defends her zealously.
(x). Likewise Barbara Wilson, whose evidence at trial seemed pointless to me, makes another appearance. She now claims that Nevill knew Jeremy had robbed the caravan site office. Yet Nevill did not change his will. Why? I thought there was a murder plot and Nevill, June, Julie, Colin, Robert, David, Peter, Ann, Karen, Patricia, and every Phillip, Jack and Maureen between there and Chelmsford knew of it?
(xi). No mention is made of DCI Taff Jones or DS Stan Jones.
(xii). Dr Vanezis does not appear.
(xiii). Mike Ainsley is not asked why he retained evidence in his own home, if he did so. Isn't it a strange thing for a police officer to take evidence home with him, then destroy that evidence?
(xiv). For the first time, Malcolm Fletcher and Michael West appear. Their interviews are quite interesting, to be fair.
(xv). Geoffrey Rivlin does not appear, nor does Paul Terzeon.
(xvi). Mark Williams-Thomas is given a soap box and could have gone into some detail about the evidence he came up with, but in keeping with the documentary's lack of focus, he is fairly superficial but does come across well.
(xvii). Chris Bews now says he saw movement at the window, then realised it was moon light. I think that must be the third or fourth version of that part of the incident that he has given. At this rate, he'll be telling us in the next documentary that it was Saxby who saw something, as he's the only person present who it hasn't yet been blamed on.
(xviii). For the first time, we hear parts of Jeremy's prison interview with the journalist in 2010.
The whole thing came across to me as a damage limitation exercise, perhaps intended to blunt the impact of new revelations to come (which may be things that are not revelations to us on this Forum, but would be to the public).
It may also be that the lack of narrative rigour is an effort at confusing ordinary viewers of average intelligence, who will come away without a clear sense of what are the issues in the case and will be inclined to just forget about it all.
I would say you have got it spot on about the documentary/series and we have said it for years. There has to be a lengthy series about these murders
A couple of things though maybe David Boutflour is worried about his part in the silencer fiasco. Could he still face charges over this?
No wonder he want this all to go away
The other thing is Mark Williams Thomas does always come across well but I image his clip was a tiny part of what he really had to say
We have to remember Mark wanted to do a series on the case but decided against it after criticism from the campaign team
-
David, this isn't Billings, Montana. You can swap guess for suppose.
I am in Roswell New Mexico
-
No source needed. I said 'maybe' -
'It's been said for years that Nevill knew it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site. Maybe Nevill was planning to amend his will. June certainly was.'
----------
I have created threads on the wills. Bamber was in a 'now or never' situation.
The 'Countdown to Murder' documentary does say Bamber was going to be disinherited.
-
CC generally does not appear much.
He was interviewed on the News after the conviction. Wrote a book. Then appeared on daytime ITV when the recent WHF drama started. Which he was involved in.
He could easily appear on every Bamber documentary. But probably believes most are trashy.
-
I would say you have got it spot on about the documentary/series and we have said it for years. There has to be a lengthy series about these murders
A couple of things though maybe David Boutflour is worried about his part in the silencer fiasco. Could he still face charges over this?
No wonder he want this all to go away
The other thing is Mark Williams Thomas does always come across well but I image his clip was a tiny part of what he really had to say
We have to remember Mark wanted to do a series on the case but decided against it after criticism from the campaign team
'Lenghty series'? There has just been a 4 part series. To go with the million documentaries.
Why did the CT not want MWT to make a documentary?
-
'The documentary did not mention Julie Mugfords 13 multiple cheque frauds??'
----------
One cheque book fraud, with Susan Battersby.
-
Seems the doc is a much longer winded version of 'Crimes which shook Britain'. In that it tries to be 50/50.
Theroux publicised it as such. That will attract more viewers.
Susan & Caroline took an interest in the case & became passionate supporters after CTSB. Then changing stance & becoming guilters after I joined. This documentary may get similar results.
-
Seems the doc is a much longer winded version of 'Crimes which shook Britain'. In that it tries to be 50/50.
Theroux publicised it as such. That will attract more viewers.
Susan & Caroline took an interest in the case & became passionate supporters after CTSB. Then changing stance & becoming guilters after I joined. This documentary may get similar results.
Susan no longer believes JB is guilty as far as I know.
-
Susan no longer believes JB is guilty as far as I know.
Caroline & JaneJ changed stance after I joined. Ditto Susan.
-
Caroline & JaneJ changed stance after I joined. Ditto Susan.
That's because you joined this forum shortly before Paul Harrison changed his agenda the following month. They all would have changed stance whether you joined or not.
-
I liked your summing up QC, Ann Eaton does not appear I thought she would have?
Looking at her first statement about half of it is referring to Sheila's mental state she did not appear to suspect JB at this time?
But what I find astounding is no mention on the silencer?
-
It's well known the NOTW approached Julie & a verbal agreement made. And no surprise.
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial it was not mentioned in the police interviews or at trial. Not surprised Bews can't remember who didn't see what 36 years on.
I have corrected you several times in relation to the NOW deal. The agreement was in writing.
The "trick of the light" was mentioned at trial.
-
What wasn't mentioned at the trial was that blood grouping on the silencer as well as Sheila's, also matched RWB's ! A separate case on its own I would have thought.
Why were the defence made to work with one arm behind their backs when any evidence was crucial for JB ? So obvious isn't it ?
-
I liked your summing up QC, Ann Eaton does not appear I thought she would have?
Looking at her first statement about half of it is referring to Sheila's mental state she did not appear to suspect JB at this time?
But what I find astounding is no mention on the silencer?
She had already contacted the police about the silencer and shown them the scratch marks under the mantle shelf before that statement was made.
-
I liked your summing up QC, Ann Eaton does not appear I thought she would have?
Looking at her first statement about half of it is referring to Sheila's mental state she did not appear to suspect JB at this time?
But what I find astounding is no mention on the silencer?
During the last decade at the very least DB seems to have fronted for the relatives. That could be for any number of reasons. David is a natural in front of camera. He also featured in the Sunday Times article and is famed for his reaction to a suggested silencer conspiracy.. describing it as 'absolute piffle'.
-
So I've noticed Roch. Many would have been and are taken in, but I never have been about any of them !
I have a picture in my mind of his smugness after the funerals-----" there are no winners,etc " Oh yes there were !!
-
I have corrected you several times in relation to the NOW deal. The agreement was in writing.
The "trick of the light" was mentioned at trial.
You need to provide documents to the CT. They have been searching for 36 years
Who testified about the 'trick of a light'? Have you got sources please? Either way, the jury were not impressed.
-
So I've noticed Roch. Many would have been and are taken in, but I never have been about any of them !
I have a picture in my mind of his smugness after the funerals-----" there are no winners,etc " Oh yes there were !!
'There are no winners' was after the trial.
-
I liked your summing up QC, Ann Eaton does not appear I thought she would have?
Looking at her first statement about half of it is referring to Sheila's mental state she did not appear to suspect JB at this time?
But what I find astounding is no mention on the silencer?
AE has only appeared in one documentary. Where she spoke about Sheila not being able to overpower Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.
You only responded to 4 of my 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario. Is not having a Sheila scenario not important?
-
'There are no winners' was after the trial.
Whenever it was, it was said with a supercilious attitude----all the way to the bank.
-
Whenever it was, it was said with a supercilious attitude----all the way to the bank.
Do you believe the relatives framed Bamber with the silencer?
-
You need to provide documents to the CT. They have been searching for 36 years
Who testified about the 'trick of a light'? Have you got sources please? Either way, the jury were not impressed.
Wasn't it Rivlin who'd suggested that it was " a trick of the light ", and Bews duly agreed ?
-
'There are no winners' was after the trial.
That comment by him is comical.
Julie got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
Ann got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
(https://i.ibb.co/dmvB6wZ/dbmoney.jpg)
-
Adam, not once throughout all your posts and amid evidence which has come to light, have you mentioned that the conviction seems or could be unsafe. Where's your intelligence ? Even many of those who believe JB to be guilty are saying this since drama's/ docu's have been shown.
-
Adam, not once throughout all your posts and amid evidence which has come to light, have you mentioned that the conviction seems or could be unsafe. Where's your intelligence ? Even many of those who believe JB to be guilty are saying this since drama's/ docu's have been shown.
It was a straight forward conviction. The police suspecting Bamber a few days after the massacre.
Throughout the 90's & early noughties, Mike was Bamber's only supporter.
The internet has resulted in minor things being magnified. Together with the old chestnut of withheld documents. Even QC has been duped.
-
It was a straight forward conviction. The police suspecting Bamber a few days after the massacre.
Throughout the 90's & early noughties, Mike was Bamber's only supporter.
The internet has resulted in minor things being magnified. Together with the old chestnut of withheld documents. Even QC has been duped.
If, as you say it was a " straightforward conviction " then why, after 36 years is it still rumbling on, or rather why are you still rumbling on ?
-
You need to provide documents to the CT. They have been searching for 36 years
Who testified about the 'trick of a light'? Have you got sources please? Either way, the jury were not impressed.
It's not so much the trick of the light I find interesting Adam, but why they ducked down and ran back to the car?
Why no mention in Bews and Myall's statements??
-
That comment by him is comical.
Julie got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
Ann got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
(https://i.ibb.co/dmvB6wZ/dbmoney.jpg)
Nobody would have known about the cheque book frauds but for Julie coming clean. She arranged a deal to get the marauding Press pack off her back. Ann Eaton would have inherited Osea Road in time along with half her parents' estate, which would have included monies from Mabel Speakman. RWB inherited nothing directly from Bamber's conviction.
I do have a question about the 1989 Lord Lane appeal. There doesn't seem to be much material online about it, though Mr. QC Chevalier did speculate in a prior thread, which I quite enjoyed. Could anyone elaborate further in this area?
-
It was a straight forward conviction. The police suspecting Bamber a few days after the massacre.
Throughout the 90's & early noughties, Mike was Bamber's only supporter.
The internet has resulted in minor things being magnified. Together with the old chestnut of withheld documents. Even QC has been duped.
Those " minor things " were pieces of crucial evidence which were omitted at trial and would have had a huge and different outcome for JB. The jury were well and truly hoodwinked !
If that investigation and trial was held today, JB would have remained free.
-
Wasn't it Rivlin who'd suggested that it was " a trick of the light ", and Bews duly agreed ?
I bet Bews breathed a sigh of relief Lookout, I would have absolutely grilled him!!
I want to know why they ran!!
-
If, as you say it was a " straightforward conviction " then why, after 36 years is it still rumbling on, or rather why are you still rumbling on ?
Bamber has been behind bars for over 36 years. He has had 2 failed appeals and is on his third submission to the CCRC so yes the conviction is still rumbling on.
-
QC duped ?
-
Those " minor things " were pieces of crucial evidence which were omitted at trial and would have had a huge and different outcome for JB. The jury were well and truly hoodwinked !
If that investigation and trial was held today, JB would have remained free.
I doubt the case would get to trial today.
-
You need to provide documents to the CT. They have been searching for 36 years
Who testified about the 'trick of a light'? Have you got sources please? Either way, the jury were not impressed.
I suspect that the CT are aware of the existence of evidence about the NOW contract. It is up to them how they choose to use material in their possession. I am no longer in contact with them.
Bews was cross examined by Rivlin about the "trick of the light". I cannot be bothered to look but the relevant transcript is posted here somewhere.
-
I doubt the case would get to trial today.
I doubt it too.
-
Quote " The log relating to Nevill's call states " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber after the phone went dead ". This line allowed the prosecution to argue that this log was started because a call from Jeremy was passed from one office to another. In other words they argued that this log relates only to Jeremy's call.
In reality, the line " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " was added to the log later on after Jeremy had contacted PC West some 10 minutes after the initial call from Nevill. Therefore the statement " message passed to CD by son of Mr Bamber " has nothing to do with the original telephone conversation between PC West and Nevill but refers to new information being passed to Bonnett after the second telephone call, this one made by Jeremy.
Audio's of both calls have failed to materialise " End Quote.
PC West explained the logs succinctly in the doc. The logs clearly show the call Bamber made to the police (PC West) and PC West's call to Malcolm Bonnett. No evidence exists of a call to the police from Mr Bamber Snr.
-
AE has only appeared in one documentary. Where she spoke about Sheila not being able to overpower Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.
You only responded to 4 of my 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario. Is not having a Sheila scenario not important?
Adam I am not going to right a book on what is basically a guess, as I have said before a Sheila scenario is not important to me anyway.
The police were convinced there was nothing suspicious with the crime scene.
-
PC West explained the logs succinctly in the doc. The logs clearly show the call Bamber made to the police (PC West) and PC West's call to Malcolm Bonnett. No evidence exists of a call to the police from Mr Bamber Snr.
Well at least someone's got it.
-
Adam I am not going to right a book on what is basically a guess, as I have said before a Sheila scenario is not important to me anyway.
The police were convinced there was nothing suspicious with the crime scene.
No because they had been primed for hours by a conman who had perfected his art.
-
AE has only appeared in one documentary. Where she spoke about Sheila not being able to overpower Nevill. Sadly not on Youtube.
You only responded to 4 of my 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario. Is not having a Sheila scenario not important?
The appeal judge, Justice Henriques (I think), said in the doc he thought Sheila would be unable to overpower her father and this was the most compelling piece of evidence as far as he was concerned.
-
No because they had been primed for hours by a conman who had perfected his art.
They got conned I agree but not sure it was JB?
-
The appeal judge, Justice Henriques (I think), said in the doc he thought Sheila would be unable to overpower her father and this was the most compelling piece of evidence as far as he was concerned.
I don't understand this? she had a rifle.
-
I suspect that the CT are aware of the existence of evidence about the NOW contract. It is up to them how they choose to use material in their possession. I am no longer in contact with them.
Bews was cross examined by Rivlin about the "trick of the light". I cannot be bothered to look but the relevant transcript is posted here somewhere.
It's too late now. The CCRC submission has been made.
If Bews was cross examined, the defence would have asked Bamber for his version. Not really an issue now as it was an issue at trial.
-
Those " minor things " were pieces of crucial evidence which were omitted at trial and would have had a huge and different outcome for JB. The jury were well and truly hoodwinked !
If that investigation and trial was held today, JB would have remained free.
So why are you & JackieD the only hardcore supporters on here? Both supporting for non evidence reasons.
-
It's too late now. The CCRC submission has been made.
If Bews was cross examined, the defence would have asked Bamber for his version. Not really an issue now as it was an issue at trial.
I tend to agree. Unless further evidence on this is discovered I do not think this is a valid ground of appeal.
-
No because they had been primed for hours by a conman who had perfected his art.
Sorry Steve but how could one man " fool " everyone in his path, including the top brass in a police force ?
-
So why are you & JackieD the only hardcore guilters on here? Both supporting for non evidence reasons.
Hardcore guilters ?
-
I gave in and watched the series on the NowTV player after taking advantage of their free trial offer.
It's not a documentary series in the true sense. It's more like a compilation of interviews and montages with voiceovers. Some of the photographs and interviews are interesting because I haven't seen them before, but there's little substance to it in that it's fairly superficial and doesn't go into much detail, and I was pretty bored by the end of it. I think it was all a bit confused and disjointed. The four episodes overall lack a clear narrative or focus and there was no analytical element.
For me, the gold standard for this genre are the World in Action documentaries on the Birmingham Six: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyo50NHuRq4
Watch that example and be amazed, and then consider: Would such a documentary be made today? They know what they want to say. They say it. They don't get bogged down in issues that aren't strictly relevant, such as the feelings of relatives, etc., or the opinions of frivolous book authors, or the impressions of peripheral figures (James Richards? Barbara Wilson? Are they crucial witnesses?), or the life and times of TV reporters, or the fatuous tautologies of police officers ("I knew he was guilty. I don't know what his supporters are playing at", etc., etc., etc.).
Points that stood out (in no particular order):
(i). David Boutflour is a very emotional man. Nobody else in any documentary on this case I have seen was crying, just him. I have not seen Colin Caffell cry like that.
(ii). Mr Boutflour claims that Nevill and June were like second parents to him and he used to stay at The White House often during his teens.
(iii). Mr Boutflour again tells us that the silencer was 'sticky' and he saw the grey hair on it. It must be that Jeremy didn't notice this stickiness or the grey hair when he put that same silencer away in the gun cupboard.
(iv). Colin Caffell does not appear. Nor does Ann Eaton.
(v). Anthony Arlidge, prosecution counsel at the trial, criticises the judge's summing-up, as does a barrister unconnected with the case who was asked to give his 'objective' view on the transcript.
(vi). In the third episode, a former News of the World reporter clearly admits that Julie Mugford was promised payment before the end of the trial.
(vii). An admission from Julie Mugford that I had forgotten came up again, which is that she claimed to Essex Police that she did supply sedatives or sleeping pills to Jeremy for the purpose of an abortive murder plot.
(viii). Unflattering speculation is advanced about Julie's motives for coming forward.
(ix). James Richards, responsible for perhaps the most ridiculously irrelevant evidence ever given in an English murder trial, is described as a 'friend' of Julie Mugford and defends her zealously.
(x). Likewise Barbara Wilson, whose evidence at trial seemed pointless to me, makes another appearance. She now claims that Nevill knew Jeremy had robbed the caravan site office. Yet Nevill did not change his will. Why? I thought there was a murder plot and Nevill, June, Julie, Colin, Robert, David, Peter, Ann, Karen, Patricia, and every Phillip, Jack and Maureen between there and Chelmsford knew of it?
(xi). No mention is made of DCI Taff Jones or DS Stan Jones.
(xii). Dr Vanezis does not appear.
(xiii). Mike Ainsley is not asked why he retained evidence in his own home, if he did so. Isn't it a strange thing for a police officer to take evidence home with him, then destroy that evidence?
(xiv). For the first time, Malcolm Fletcher and Michael West appear. Their interviews are quite interesting, to be fair.
(xv). Geoffrey Rivlin does not appear, nor does Paul Terzeon.
(xvi). Mark Williams-Thomas is given a soap box and could have gone into some detail about the evidence he came up with, but in keeping with the documentary's lack of focus, he is fairly superficial but does come across well.
(xvii). Chris Bews now says he saw movement at the window, then realised it was moon light. I think that must be the third or fourth version of that part of the incident that he has given. At this rate, he'll be telling us in the next documentary that it was Saxby who saw something, as he's the only person present who it hasn't yet been blamed on.
(xviii). For the first time, we hear parts of Jeremy's prison interview with the journalist in 2010.
The whole thing came across to me as a damage limitation exercise, perhaps intended to blunt the impact of new revelations to come (which may be things that are not revelations to us on this Forum, but would be to the public).
It may also be that the lack of narrative rigour is an effort at confusing ordinary viewers of average intelligence, who will come away without a clear sense of what are the issues in the case and will be inclined to just forget about it all.
Long post, beautifully laid out and written. :)
After the ITV doc earlier in the year I listened to some of the other docs (if you can call them that). I thought the NOWTV doc was interesting in that it contained some new characters eg James Richard, Anthony Arlidge and Justice Henriques to name but a few.
I believe James Richard house shared with Julie and therefore I assume met with Bamber on occasions. I thought he came over well and no doubt impressed the jury and trial judge with his claim that Bamber told him he hated his parents. Apparently upon cross examination he said he recalled the comment as it was said with such vehemence.
I think PC Saxby remained in the patrol car.
Yes the sticky silencer and hair are interesting. I will have to have another look at the statements and see what was said at the time. The accounts seem to vary somewhat.
As you said the pathologist was notable by his absense as was Sheila's psychiatrist.
-
PC West explained the logs succinctly in the doc. The logs clearly show the call Bamber made to the police (PC West) and PC West's call to Malcolm Bonnett. No evidence exists of a call to the police from Mr Bamber Snr.
Unfortunately for my overall perspective on the case I reluctantly have to agree with you. I have never thought the case for a call from Nevill to the police having made was strong, and having seen PC West in the documentary I feel that this argument is now clearly insufficient as a ground of appeal. Of course there may be new material of which I am not aware but in the absence of such this point will be rejected by the CCRC.
There are some excellent defence points which can be presented, some of which require further work and research, but I think the efforts to overturn the convictions are hampered by advancing weak grounds or simply rehashing grounds already rejected in the past, unless of course further material has come to light which assists those grounds.
-
Sorry Steve but how could one man " fool " everyone in his path, including the top brass in a police force ?
I suppose because of the way he spoke, the milieu they found themselves in, the rifle next to Sheila's body. It was an easy mistake to make.
-
Unfortunately for my overall perspective on the case I reluctantly have to agree with you. I have never thought the case for a call from Nevill to the police having made was strong, and having seen PC West in the documentary I feel that this argument is now clearly insufficient as a ground of appeal. Of course there may be new material of which I am not aware but in the absence of such this point will be rejected by the CCRC.
There are some excellent defence points which can be presented, some of which require further work and research, but I think the efforts to overturn the convictions are hampered by advancing weak grounds or simply rehashing grounds already rejected in the past, unless of course further material has come to light which assists those grounds.
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath, even if only for the skimpiest outlines.
-
I bet Bews breathed a sigh of relief Lookout, I would have absolutely grilled him!!
I want to know why they ran!!
Bews ran the fastest ! It was he who saw it first, not JB as most think.
-
PC West explained the logs succinctly in the doc. The logs clearly show the call Bamber made to the police (PC West) and PC West's call to Malcolm Bonnett. No evidence exists of a call to the police from Mr Bamber Snr.
For me the logs are not a biggie. Jeremy said he made the call and I have no reason not to believe him.
He made that statement to the police not knowing if calls could be tracked
Hardly a master plan that would fallen down at the first hurdle
-
Unfortunately for my overall perspective on the case I reluctantly have to agree with you. I have never thought the case for a call from Nevill to the police having made was strong, and having seen PC West in the documentary I feel that this argument is now clearly insufficient as a ground of appeal. Of course there may be new material of which I am not aware but in the absence of such this point will be rejected by the CCRC.
There are some excellent defence points which can be presented, some of which require further work and research, but I think the efforts to overturn the convictions are hampered by advancing weak grounds or simply rehashing grounds already rejected in the past, unless of course further material has come to light which assists those grounds.
I thought Patrick O'Connor hit the nail on the head when he said, in not so many words, that the case might be a miscarriage of justice and that sometimes a case appears strong and then something comes to light leading to a dramatic turn of events! But he also said it will require a slam dunk or a blockbuster piece of evidence to overturn such a conviction.
After the doc I listened to a podcast produced by those who represent him who seem to be claiming the police shot Sheila :o Hopefully I misunderstood. I will try to find for discussion. Heavy rain here so seems like a good way to spend a wet early autumnal Saturday :)
-
For me the logs are not a biggie. Jeremy said he made the call and I have no reason not to believe him.
He made that statement to the police not knowing if calls could be tracked
Hardly a master plan that would fallen down at the first hurdle
I have no strong views either way on guilt or innocence but for those who believe strongly Bamber is innocent, ie those he refers to as his Campaign Team, I believe they do him a disservice by advocating aspects of the case that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Of course he has to take some responsibility too for managing his case.
-
I thought Patrick O'Connor hit the nail on the head when he said, in not so many words, that the case might be a miscarriage of justice and that sometimes a case appears strong and then something comes to light leading to a dramatic turn of events! But he also said it will require a slam dunk or a blockbuster piece of evidence to overturn such a conviction.
After the doc I listened to a podcast produced by those who represent him who seem to be claiming the police shot Sheila :o Hopefully I misunderstood. I will try to find for discussion. Heavy rain here so seems like a good way to spend a wet early autumnal Saturday :)
It seems the CT do not believe Sheila could have shot herself twice.
-
It seems the CT do not believe Sheila could have shot herself twice.
I thought perhaps I had misunderstood. I will have to listen again as I was sort of multi-tasking at the time. Here's the podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=114s Has it been the subject of discussion here?
-
I thought Patrick O'Connor hit the nail on the head when he said, in not so many words, that the case might be a miscarriage of justice and that sometimes a case appears strong and then something comes to light leading to a dramatic turn of events! But he also said it will require a slam dunk or a blockbuster piece of evidence to overturn such a conviction.
After the doc I listened to a podcast produced by those who represent him who seem to be claiming the police shot Sheila :o Hopefully I misunderstood. I will try to find for discussion. Heavy rain here so seems like a good way to spend a wet early autumnal Saturday :)
Batten down the hatches Cambridge; it looks like it's set in for the duration.
-
Batten down the hatches Cambridge; it looks like it's set in for the duration.
Oh well at least we have plenty to keep ourselves occupied here :)
-
Oh well at least we have plenty to keep ourselves occupied here :)
I used to quite like the evenings drawing in as a youth, which gave me more of an excuse to practise piano, but those days have dwindled of late, sadly.
-
Nobody would have known about the cheque book frauds but for Julie coming clean. She arranged a deal to get the marauding Press pack off her back. Ann Eaton would have inherited Osea Road in time along with half her parents' estate, which would have included monies from Mabel Speakman. RWB inherited nothing directly from Bamber's conviction.
I do have a question about the 1989 Lord Lane appeal. There doesn't seem to be much material online about it, though Mr. QC Chevalier did speculate in a prior thread, which I quite enjoyed. Could anyone elaborate further in this area?
I speculated without the benefit of the full transcript, so unfortunately I was not aware of a flaw in the summing-up, identified by a barrister in the documentary, who does have it. He pointed out that the judge had failed to summarise Jeremy's evidence while waxing on about Julie. It seems that Anthony Arlidge was also less-than-impressed with the summing-up, which is quite telling given that he was prosecution counsel.
Of course, we must also remember that none of us were at the trial (or I assume none of us were there), so we can't know things like tone of voice, body language, and other mannerisms, that can give life to a dry text and afford it a meaning that is quite different to the impression given on reading it decades later. Related to this, I had omitted to mention in my earlier post the inclusion in the documentary of part of the interview given by Judge Drake. I think that happened in the 1990s. I had always wanted to see that. I wish we could see more of it.
I would also like to see more of Colin's interviews from the 1990s - including (if I'm not mistaken) an appearance on the Moral Maze and an interesting BBC2 programme that used to run, the name of which has slipped my mind.
-
I thought perhaps I had misunderstood. I will have to listen again as I was sort of multi-tasking at the time. Here's the podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=114s Has it been the subject of discussion here?
Very much so.
Sheila's first shot was very damaging & would have knocked her out instantly & killed her over time. The second shot was only around an inch from the first shot & killed her instantly.
So the CT say the police shot Sheila.
-
I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath, even if only for the skimpiest outlines.
Your sarcasm is so impressive.
-
Long post, beautifully laid out and written. :)
After the ITV doc earlier in the year I listened to some of the other docs (if you can call them that). I thought the NOWTV doc was interesting in that it contained some new characters eg James Richard, Anthony Arlidge and Justice Henriques to name but a few.
I believe James Richard house shared with Julie and therefore I assume met with Bamber on occasions. I thought he came over well and no doubt impressed the jury and trial judge with his claim that Bamber told him he hated his parents. Apparently upon cross examination he said he recalled the comment as it was said with such vehemence.
I think PC Saxby remained in the patrol car.
Yes the sticky silencer and hair are interesting. I will have to have another look at the statements and see what was said at the time. The accounts seem to vary somewhat.
As you said the pathologist was notable by his absense as was Sheila's psychiatrist.
My issue with James Richards is that he was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution, and maybe I am being old-fashioned, but I think at least in public he should be careful to ensure he is presented in that way, not as a 'friend of Julie Mugford'. I appreciate he shared digs with her, or something like that, but if he is a friend of Julie Mugford, then that makes him look partisan, and implies he is her spokesman and that his involvement in the documentary is to stick up for her. To me, there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
I forgot to mention the appearance of the appeal judge, but hasn't he retired? I think that should have been made clear. A lot of viewers will have come away with the mistaken impression that he was giving the view of the judiciary. The 2002 appeal judgment was flawed and that view should have been covered, but the scope of the documentary was too wide and they were trying to hit too many topics.
'PC Saxby remained in the patrol car' - that may well be, but you underestimate the verbal agility of Christopher Bews. He is unmatched.
My pet theory about the silencer is, briefly, that at least two of them were examined by the FSS, and one was returned to the Eatons after undergoing chemical treatment for fingerprinting purposes. David Boutflour has then handled this, or seen it, and confused one with the other in his own mind. On the other hand, I accept that it is possible a guilty Jeremy would miss the 'stickiness', etc., of the silencer if he was wearing gloves, and he could also miss a hair.
Yet then you have to ask yourself this: How and in what way and to what extent did he clean the silencer, if at all? If we're saying he didn't clean it because all he was doing was moving it out of the way so that it would not be found, you then have to ask:
(i). Would Jeremy be that stupid in assuming that the police would not search the place in the house dedicated to the storage of firearms and paraphernalia? He is supposed to have planned this.
(ii). Why wouldn't Jeremy just take the silencer away with him? Even if it's absence would be noticed and seen as suspicious, he would never have been convicted on that basis.
(iii). Why didn't Jeremy return to clean the silencer properly? Why did he allow the relatives keys to the house instead?
(iv). If Jeremy took himself and the silencer to the gun cupboard, why wasn't blood found on the floor of the back corridor, Nevill's den and in the gun cupboard itself?
I could go on with the problems. Really, Jeremy's actions don't make a lot of sense if we accept the official narrative. It's a bit of paradox to say that Jeremy is cold and calculating enough to stage a phone call and put on an act with the police, relatives and at the funeral and in other respects, but at the same time, he would not take care of incriminating evidence. Maybe he was just reckless and arrogant and thought he had got away with it? But this is looking at things backwards. At the point he could have disposed of the silencer, he did not know that he had got away with it. I also have issues with the blood patterning found within the silencer. There's also the problem with the drawback theory that the silencer evidence depends on. And there's the questions about the chain-of-custody of the silencer.
I was a bit harsh in my post in regard to Barbara Wilson. I expressed it clumsily. I said her evidence seemed pointless, but that's not correct because she did report her telephone conversation with Nevill. I suppose I have a prejudice about her because she seems like a typical gossipy village woman with some sort of grudge against Jeremy, but she is allowed to give her impressions of the people involved, etc; and, to be fair, it may well be that she had more to say that was edited out but if included would make her seem more balanced in her views about Jeremy.
-
I speculated without the benefit of the full transcript, so unfortunately I was not aware of a flaw in the summing-up, identified by a barrister in the documentary, who does have it. He pointed out that the judge had failed to summarise Jeremy's evidence while waxing on about Julie. It seems that Anthony Arlidge was also less-than-impressed with the summing-up, which is quite telling given that he was prosecution counsel.
Of course, we must also remember that none of us were at the trial (or I assume none of us were there), so we can't know things like tone of voice, body language, and other mannerisms, that can give life to a dry text and afford it a meaning that is quite different to the impression given on reading it decades later. Related to this, I had omitted to mention in my earlier post the inclusion in the documentary of part of the interview given by Judge Drake. I think that happened in the 1990s. I had always wanted to see that. I wish we could see more of it.
I would also like to see more of Colin's interviews from the 1990s - including (if I'm not mistaken) an appearance on the Moral Maze and an interesting BBC2 programme that used to run, the name of which has slipped my mind.
I would have thought that the inadequate summing up argument might fall due to Jeremy's reticence during the trial. To be sure he doesn't fall into that category of men akin to Denis Thatcher, who opined that "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and confirm the suspicion" (it's not a direct quote but I paraphrase so one gets the gist), but remember he had said to Julie pre-trial it's important to tell the truth wherever possible, and you can convince anyone of anything if you try hard enough ( remember he held sway with two female jurors).
To my mind the summing up did include Jeremy's evidence, because we were told (in no particular order, though it is in Roger Wilkes' book), that the culprit was either Sheila or Jeremy, that the jury had to consider the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy, Julie's evidence and the silencer evidence, the latter able to convict the defendant on that evidence alone. I can't really see what was omitted apart from a manager of a snooker club and a couple of other character referees whose names slip my mind.
-
I used to quite like the evenings drawing in as a youth, which gave me more of an excuse to practise piano, but those days have dwindled of late, sadly.
An ocean has gone under the bridge since then Steve, sadly :(
-
My issue with James Richards is that he was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution, and maybe I am being old-fashioned, but I think at least in public he should be careful to ensure he is presented in that way, not as a 'friend of Julie Mugford'. I appreciate he shared digs with her, or something like that, but if he is a friend of Julie Mugford, then that makes him look partisan, and implies he is her spokesman and that his involvement in the documentary is to stick up for her. To me, there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
I forgot to mention the appearance of the appeal judge, but hasn't he retired? I think that should have been made clear. A lot of viewers will have come away with the mistaken impression that he was giving the view of the judiciary. The 2002 appeal judgment was flawed and that view should have been covered, but the scope of the documentary was too wide and they were trying to hit too many topics.
'PC Saxby remained in the patrol car' - that may well be, but you underestimate the verbal agility of Christopher Bews. He is unmatched.
My pet theory about the silencer is, briefly, that at least two of them were examined by the FSS, and one was returned to the Eatons after undergoing chemical treatment for fingerprinting purposes. David Boutflour has then handled this, or seen it, and confused one with the other in his own mind. On the other hand, I accept that it is possible a guilty Jeremy would miss the 'stickiness', etc., of the silencer if he was wearing gloves, and he could also miss a hair.
Yet then you have to ask yourself this: How and in what way and to what extent did he clean the silencer, if at all? If we're saying he didn't clean it because all he was doing was moving it out of the way so that it would not be found, you then have to ask:
(i). Would Jeremy be that stupid in assuming that the police would not search the place in the house dedicated to the storage of firearms and paraphernalia? He is supposed to have planned this.
(ii). Why wouldn't Jeremy just take the silencer away with him? Even if it's absence would be noticed and seen as suspicious, he would never have been convicted on that basis.
(iii). Why didn't Jeremy return to clean the silencer properly? Why did he allow the relatives keys to the house instead?
(iv). If Jeremy took himself and the silencer to the gun cupboard, why wasn't blood found on the floor of the back corridor, Nevill's den and in the gun cupboard itself?
I could go on with the problems. Really, Jeremy's actions don't make a lot of sense if we accept the official narrative. It's a bit of paradox to say that Jeremy is cold and calculating enough to stage a phone call and put on an act with the police, relatives and at the funeral and in other respects, but at the same time, he would not take care of incriminating evidence. Maybe he was just reckless and arrogant and thought he had got away with it? But this is looking at things backwards. At the point he could have disposed of the silencer, he did not know that he had got away with it. I also have issues with the blood patterning found within the silencer. There's also the problem with the drawback theory that the silencer evidence depends on. And there's the questions about the chain-of-custody of the silencer.
I was a bit harsh in my post in regard to Barbara Wilson. I expressed it clumsily. I said her evidence seemed pointless, but that's not correct because she did report her telephone conversation with Nevill. I suppose I have a prejudice about her because she seems like a typical gossipy village woman with some sort of grudge against Jeremy, but she is allowed to give her impressions of the people involved, etc; and, to be fair, it may well be that she had more to say that was edited out but if included would make her seem more balanced in her views about Jeremy.
Barbara feels guilty because she didn't prevent the crime. She doesn't seem to me to fit the category to which you ascribe her. James Richards was entitled to give evidence, which corroborated to some extent Robert Boutflour's. Jeremy thought the silencer would be missed. He knew he was going to have a problem with cousin Ann post-murders, which is why he tried several means of currying favour with her in the run-up to them.
-
I would have thought that the inadequate summing up argument might fall due to Jeremy's reticence during the trial. To be sure he doesn't fall into that category of men akin to Denis Thatcher, who opined that "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and confirm the suspicion" (it's not a direct quote but I paraphrase so one gets the gist), but remember he had said to Julie pre-trial it's important to tell the truth wherever possible, and you can convince anyone of anything if you try hard enough ( remember he held sway with two female jurors).
To my mind the summing up did include Jeremy's evidence, because we were told (in no particular order, though it is in Roger Wilkes' book), that the culprit was either Sheila or Jeremy, that the jury had to consider the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy, Julie's evidence and the silencer evidence, the latter able to convict the defendant on that evidence alone. I can't really see what was omitted apart from a manager of a snooker club and a couple of other character referees whose names slip my mind.
You may be right. I am going on what the barrister says, but we need our own copy of the transcript. I think I know how to get hold of one, but it may involve bringing or threatening court proceedings.
I forgot to mention that there is a copy of the 1989 appeal judgment on this Forum. I downloaded it from here some time ago. I will see if I can find it again.
To be clear, whatever the merits of the summing-up argument, it's doubtful Jeremy's lawyers would try to raise it again given that it was dealt with in 1989. I believe old appeal points can be re-hashed (there is a statutory provision that specifically allows this in the interests of justice), but is it the sort of point that would typically hold sway in an English appeal court? You don't overturn a mass murder conviction on procedural defects and technicalities. You'd have to show that the judge was jumping-up-and-down biased, and I believe the view of Lord Lane in 1989 was that a summing-up can certainly be slanted and biased to the comparable strengths of the evidence. To my mind, that disposes of the point adequately. I think it's also that the English judicial tradition seems to be to 'defer down' as much as 'defer up', especially with regard to jury verdicts, which are treated as sacrosanct; whereas courts that follow the Continental tradition seem more willing to upturn verdicts and trial defects.
-
As a suspect, the last thing you'd do is hand over the keys to a property in which you've supposedly slaughtered a family in quick succession and departed it as was without a backward glance
-
As a suspect, the last thing you'd do is hand over the keys to a property in which you've supposedly slaughtered a family in quick succession and departed it as was without a backward glance
But we know from his own evidence that he could bypass the need for keys to White House Farm when necessary.
-
As a suspect, the last thing you'd do is hand over the keys to a property in which you've supposedly slaughtered a family in quick succession and departed it as was without a backward glance
Yes, but it's also that he left the silencer in situ after shooting his family. I suppose the official theory is that he did this because he had not expected to have to remove the silencer from the rifle, so he had to think quickly and decided it would be better to return the silencer to the gun cupboard rather than take it with him, so that it would not be missed.
I accept that this is plausible, but I personally would have thought the more natural thing to do would be to simply leave the silencer by Sheila's body. That way, the police find it immediately and the explanation is obvious, and then it's much harder to incriminate Jeremy.
Why didn't he do that (assuming he is guilty)? If I were a convinced guilter, I would need to satisfy myself on that point. There must be a reason. Maybe he just panicked?
The alternatives are you either clean the silencer there and then and return it to the gun cupboard, or you take the silencer with you.
The last of those three options is adequate but risks suspicion being cast on him due to somebody noticing the silencer is missing. But then you have to ask: How would the police know the silencer is missing? Does the firearms certificate held by Nevill record it? I'll have to check, but would the police be that thorough or make the connection? Really? It would be a bit of a stretch. All Jeremy would need to do in this situation is ensure he took custody of the farmhouse after the police left.
Instead, he leaves the family to take custody of the farmhouse and the crucial evidence he has left there - part of the murder weapon.
-
I would have thought that the inadequate summing up argument might fall due to Jeremy's reticence during the trial. To be sure he doesn't fall into that category of men akin to Denis Thatcher, who opined that "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and confirm the suspicion" (it's not a direct quote but I paraphrase so one gets the gist), but remember he had said to Julie pre-trial it's important to tell the truth wherever possible, and you can convince anyone of anything if you try hard enough ( remember he held sway with two female jurors).
To my mind the summing up did include Jeremy's evidence, because we were told (in no particular order, though it is in Roger Wilkes' book), that the culprit was either Sheila or Jeremy, that the jury had to consider the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy, Julie's evidence and the silencer evidence, the latter able to convict the defendant on that evidence alone. I can't really see what was omitted apart from a manager of a snooker club and a couple of other character referees whose names slip my mind.
Pathetic post as usual. You are questioning the information given by a highly experienced barrister re the summing up. I know who I believe. Tomorrow I will post the typed summary of the podcast re the silencer and the grey hair. It also relates to the summing up and is quite damming
I hope Julie Mugford is as worried as David Boutflour is about there future
-
Barbara feels guilty because she didn't prevent the crime. She doesn't seem to me to fit the category to which you ascribe her. James Richards was entitled to give evidence, which corroborated to some extent Robert Boutflour's. Jeremy thought the silencer would be missed. He knew he was going to have a problem with cousin Ann post-murders, which is why he tried several means of currying favour with her in the run-up to them.
Jokes ???
Did Julie feel guilty because she didn’t prevent the crime???
No course not she took her clothes off
Her kids must be proud
-
Very much so.
Sheila's first shot was very damaging & would have knocked her out instantly & killed her over time. The second shot was only around an inch from the first shot & killed her instantly.
So the CT say the police shot Sheila.
Apologies I meant has the podcast been the subject of discussion here?
I though the pathologist was unable to determine murder or suicide? In any event claims of the police shooting Sheila seem somewhat far fetched :o Is police issued ammunition the same as the ammunition used in the shootings? If not how what explanation do these people put forward to explain this?
-
But we know from his own evidence that he could bypass the need for keys to White House Farm when necessary.
If only it had been proven that he entered/exited in this way ???
-
Pathetic post as usual. You are questioning the information given by a highly experienced barrister re the summing up. I know who I believe. Tomorrow I will post the typed summary of the podcast re the silencer and the grey hair. It also relates to the summing up and is quite damming
I hope Julie Mugford is as worried as David Boutflour is about there future
He didn't give any information because there wasn't any.
If my post is pathetic it's about as pathetic as your grammar.
-
Apologies I meant has the podcast been the subject of discussion here?
I though the pathologist was unable to determine murder or suicide? In any event claims of the police shooting Sheila seem somewhat far fetched :o Is police issued ammunition the same as the ammunition used in the shootings? If not how what explanation do these people put forward to explain this?
Cambridge it's Mike's theory. I doubt the theory has many adherents, even on this site.
-
I hope Julie Mugford is as worried as David Boutflour is about there future
None of the ones on telly look that worried at all. It's not possible to know how worried people might be behind the scenes. But if I was one of them (somebody who had turned a blind eye to testimony being changed, or even worse perhaps), I would have in mind that there's safety in numbers. They can't arrest all of us. And if I get arrested, I've already got a plan on who to blame for whatever I'm questioned about. Unless the authorities want a really messy never-ending, headline-grabbing saga about who did what and who turned a blind eye to what, then they are going to be tempted to side with the majority of people involved in some way or form in the convictions. Police, relatives, judiciary, etc etc. Like I said, safety in numbers.
-
Apologies I meant has the podcast been the subject of discussion here?
I though the pathologist was unable to determine murder or suicide? In any event claims of the police shooting Sheila seem somewhat far fetched :o Is police issued ammunition the same as the ammunition used in the shootings? If not how what explanation do these people put forward to explain this?
The thing which has bugged me from the start was why no temperatures were ever taken of the deceased. I'm 100% certain that had this simple procedure been carried out----as it should have been, that the murderer would have been within and not sitting outside in a police car.
This should have been the very first thing that should have taken place before anything else. Any police doctor knows this.
-
Doctor Craig would almost certainly have had a rectal thermometer in his bag when told of the circumstances of his vist.
-
Yes, but it's also that he left the silencer in situ after shooting his family. I suppose the official theory is that he did this because he had not expected to have to remove the silencer from the rifle, so he had to think quickly and decided it would be better to return the silencer to the gun cupboard rather than take it with him, so that it would not be missed.
I accept that this is plausible, but I personally would have thought the more natural thing to do would be to simply leave the silencer by Sheila's body. That way, the police find it immediately and the explanation is obvious, and then it's much harder to incriminate Jeremy.
Why didn't he do that (assuming he is guilty)? If I were a convinced guilter, I would need to satisfy myself on that point. There must be a reason. Maybe he just panicked?
The alternatives are you either clean the silencer there and then and return it to the gun cupboard, or you take the silencer with you.
The last of those three options is adequate but risks suspicion being cast on him due to somebody noticing the silencer is missing. But then you have to ask: How would the police know the silencer is missing? Does the firearms certificate held by Nevill record it? I'll have to check, but would the police be that thorough or make the connection? Really? It would be a bit of a stretch. All Jeremy would need to do in this situation is ensure he took custody of the farmhouse after the police left.
Instead, he leaves the family to take custody of the farmhouse and the crucial evidence he has left there - part of the murder weapon.
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
-
None of the ones on telly look that worried at all. It's not possible to know how worried people might be behind the scenes. But if I was one of them (somebody who had turned a blind eye to testimony being changed, or even worse perhaps), I would have in mind that there's safety in numbers. They can't arrest all of us. And if I get arrested, I've already got a plan on who to blame for whatever I'm questioned about. Unless the authorities want a really messy never-ending, headline-grabbing saga about who did what and who turned a blind eye to what, then they are going to be tempted to side with the majority of people involved in some way or form in the convictions. Police, relatives, judiciary, etc etc. Like I said, safety in numbers.
Which reminds me of the old saying " There's no honesty among thieves ".
-
None of the ones on telly look that worried at all. It's not possible to know how worried people might be behind the scenes. But if I was one of them (somebody who had turned a blind eye to testimony being changed, or even worse perhaps), I would have in mind that there's safety in numbers. They can't arrest all of us. And if I get arrested, I've already got a plan on who to blame for whatever I'm questioned about. Unless the authorities want a really messy never-ending, headline-grabbing saga about who did what and who turned a blind eye to what, then they are going to be tempted to side with the majority of people involved in some way or form in the convictions. Police, relatives, judiciary, etc etc. Like I said, safety in numbers.
David Boutflour was worried, seriously in a state worried. This series was worse than the last series for the relatives and like QC said it needs a serious documentary maker to question the facts in this case. This is right up Piers Morgan’s street. Can you imagine David Boutflour handling Piers.
If you lie, if you are greedy, if you mislead juries you run the risk of the truth coming out
30 plus years on and you are still looking over your shoulder
Those lies have broken David Boutflour
-
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
One thing laughs at another here Rob. If Sheila was compliant with a request to lie down, then surely she understood when someone was shooting her children that her immediate reaction would have been to dial 999 ?
-
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
She was exhausted by the activity of the preceding days (parties, caring for the children, accompanying June on her social errands), had Haloperidol in her system and was taken by surprise. You just need to see how calm she looked and the state of the nightdress to realize she was woken up and led to her death in seconds like a lamb to the slaughter and did not engage in any nocturnal activities the Bamberettes accuse her of.
-
I thought perhaps I had misunderstood. I will have to listen again as I was sort of multi-tasking at the time. Here's the podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=114s Has it been the subject of discussion here?
What are the objectives of this podcast and who is it aimed at?
-
David Boutflour was worried, seriously in a state worried. This series was worse than the last series for the relatives and like QC said it needs a serious documentary maker to question the facts in this case. This is right up Piers Morgan’s street. Can you imagine David Boutflour handling Piers.
If you lie, if you are greedy, if you mislead juries you run the risk of the truth coming out
30 plus years on and you are still looking over your shoulder
Those lies have broken David Boutflour
I hope one day that DB does laugh on the other side of his face----he deserves to.
-
What are the objectives of this podcast and who is it aimed at?
To trawl over old ground, targeting the gullible.
-
To trawl over old ground, targeting the gullible.
Gullible I'm not Steve, never have been and never will be.
-
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
I too find it hard to believe. The gun cupboard is in Nevill's den. If you look at photographs of the den, you'll see the carpet is a cream or cork colour and immaculate. How did Jeremy manage to negotiate that carpet without leaving blood? And there was no blood in the gun cupboard except on the silencer itself.
-
I too find it hard to believe. The gun cupboard is in Nevill's den. If you look at photographs of the den, you'll see the carpet is a cream or cork colour and immaculate. How did Jeremy manage to negotiate that carpet without leaving blood? And there was no blood in the gun cupboard except on the silencer itself.
Please post the picture.
-
Even if it had been inadvertently placed there by either June or Nevill during a fracas in the kitchen between the three of them I'm sure there'd have been blood elsewhere while this task was carried out. It's not impossible that either parent could have put it out of harms way of Sheila doing more damage.
We just don't know. Nobody does.
-
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
Why?
The silencer was not part of the crime scene. It was in a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
-
I don't understand this? she had a rifle.
Nevill would have negated the situation straight away. While fully fit. He had an early start on the farm.
Phoning Bamber & the 6th furthest away police station 😀
-
My issue with James Richards is that he was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution, and maybe I am being old-fashioned, but I think at least in public he should be careful to ensure he is presented in that way, not as a 'friend of Julie Mugford'. I appreciate he shared digs with her, or something like that, but if he is a friend of Julie Mugford, then that makes him look partisan, and implies he is her spokesman and that his involvement in the documentary is to stick up for her. To me, there is just something about it that doesn't sit right.
I forgot to mention the appearance of the appeal judge, but hasn't he retired? I think that should have been made clear. A lot of viewers will have come away with the mistaken impression that he was giving the view of the judiciary. The 2002 appeal judgment was flawed and that view should have been covered, but the scope of the documentary was too wide and they were trying to hit too many topics.
'PC Saxby remained in the patrol car' - that may well be, but you underestimate the verbal agility of Christopher Bews. He is unmatched.
My pet theory about the silencer is, briefly, that at least two of them were examined by the FSS, and one was returned to the Eatons after undergoing chemical treatment for fingerprinting purposes. David Boutflour has then handled this, or seen it, and confused one with the other in his own mind. On the other hand, I accept that it is possible a guilty Jeremy would miss the 'stickiness', etc., of the silencer if he was wearing gloves, and he could also miss a hair.
Yet then you have to ask yourself this: How and in what way and to what extent did he clean the silencer, if at all? If we're saying he didn't clean it because all he was doing was moving it out of the way so that it would not be found, you then have to ask:
(i). Would Jeremy be that stupid in assuming that the police would not search the place in the house dedicated to the storage of firearms and paraphernalia? He is supposed to have planned this.
(ii). Why wouldn't Jeremy just take the silencer away with him? Even if it's absence would be noticed and seen as suspicious, he would never have been convicted on that basis.
(iii). Why didn't Jeremy return to clean the silencer properly? Why did he allow the relatives keys to the house instead?
(iv). If Jeremy took himself and the silencer to the gun cupboard, why wasn't blood found on the floor of the back corridor, Nevill's den and in the gun cupboard itself?
I could go on with the problems. Really, Jeremy's actions don't make a lot of sense if we accept the official narrative. It's a bit of paradox to say that Jeremy is cold and calculating enough to stage a phone call and put on an act with the police, relatives and at the funeral and in other respects, but at the same time, he would not take care of incriminating evidence. Maybe he was just reckless and arrogant and thought he had got away with it? But this is looking at things backwards. At the point he could have disposed of the silencer, he did not know that he had got away with it. I also have issues with the blood patterning found within the silencer. There's also the problem with the drawback theory that the silencer evidence depends on. And there's the questions about the chain-of-custody of the silencer.
I was a bit harsh in my post in regard to Barbara Wilson. I expressed it clumsily. I said her evidence seemed pointless, but that's not correct because she did report her telephone conversation with Nevill. I suppose I have a prejudice about her because she seems like a typical gossipy village woman with some sort of grudge against Jeremy, but she is allowed to give her impressions of the people involved, etc; and, to be fair, it may well be that she had more to say that was edited out but if included would make her seem more balanced in her views about Jeremy.
Bamber committed the crime with silencer attached. Which makes sense.
He took it off & put it away afterwards.
All straight forward.
-
As a suspect, the last thing you'd do is hand over the keys to a property in which you've supposedly slaughtered a family in quick succession and departed it as was without a backward glance
Stan Jones gave AE the keys. He asked her to do a tidy up.
Bamber was on one of his jolly ups.
-
If only it had been proven that he entered/exited in this way ???
CCTV was not at WHF.
However the housekeeper said the sink tidy underneath the kitchen window had been moved that night.
-
The thing which has bugged me from the start was why no temperatures were ever taken of the deceased. I'm 100% certain that had this simple procedure been carried out----as it should have been, that the murderer would have been within and not sitting outside in a police car.
This should have been the very first thing that should have taken place before anything else. Any police doctor knows this.
Obviously not police protocol in 1985. Not sure if it is now.
-
I find it very hard to believe JB would have left the silencer in the gun cupboard, and if he did he had every opportunity to cover his tracks. He must have assumed the police would do a thorough search and find it?
Simply leaving it by the body or as you say just taking it away would be the obvious thing to do?
But what also troubles me is how did he get Sheila to just lie down and take the shot?
Because Sheila was sedated, half asleep & not as strong as Bamber.
She would have also recognised & trusted Bamber. If not too sedated.
-
Even if it had been inadvertently placed there by either June or Nevill during a fracas in the kitchen between the three of them I'm sure there'd have been blood elsewhere while this task was carried out. It's not impossible that either parent could have put it out of harms way of Sheila doing more damage.
We just don't know. Nobody does.
I think it's the other way round. First, if Sheila had already started shooting and/or wounded somebody and Nevill had managed to seize the rifle from her, the police would have been called and the incident would have ended there and then, so the issue of blood traces would have been moot. If Sheila was the killer, then she must have caught Nevill off-guard somehow or escaped from him.
Second, Nevill (and/or June) would not have just moved the silencer. They would have moved the rifle. Furthermore, if we imagine a scenario in which, after Jeremy leaves, Nevill has returned the rifle to the gun cupboard, then a factor to consider is that the gun cupboard was supposed to be locked and secured per the conditions of Nevill's firearms certificate but wasn't. It wasn't even lockable, despite Nevill's arangements having been inspected by an Essex police officer a few months before. This can clearly be seen in the photographs. This means there was no way for Nevill (or Jeremy himself) to secure the firearms against Sheila or a third party intruder.
I believe it follows from all this that:
(i). in an alternate scenario in which Sheila is the killer, there cannot have been any immediate prior incident in which Sheila used or threatened to use the rifle, which means that Sheila did not enter the den that night, and Sheila must have gone downstairs and into the back corridor alone. Sheila would not then detach the silencer prior to shooting the family. She would simply pick up and use the rifle with it left on. This, I believe, explains Rivlin's defence strategy; and,
(ii). logically, only two people could have detached the silencer and replaced it in the gun cupboard prior to the incident: Jeremy or Sheila. If the killer was Sheila, that means either there was a long pause before her suicide, or an innocent Jeremy had detached the silencer at some prior point. Conversely, if the killer was Jeremy, then he has somehow managed to leave the silencer in the cupboard without leaving any transferred blood traces anywhere.
With the luxury of hindsight we can see that a different conclusion is possible to that of Rivlin, which is that the silencer was taken off the rifle by Jeremy before he even returned to the farmhouse and witnessed the family meeting in the kitchen. He did not take the silencer off the rifle only at that point, but some time before then, maybe days before, maybe earlier that day, who knows? He probably can't remember himself. The significance of the point is that it allows the possibility of the silencer being found by somebody after the shootings and maliciously or mistakenly entering it into evidence against Jeremy.
To my mind, Jeremy's story of him shooting [at] rabbits just prior to leaving for home supports his claim that the rifle did not already have the silencer on it, implying that the silencer has been removed at some undetermined point prior to that. He would not have gone out and started shooting [at] rabbits with the silencer on, as this would not have scared off the rabbits. I do think he was shooting at the rabbits more than shooting the rabbits - if you see the distinction. You don't use a rifle like that just to shoot one rabbit after another. It's not possible. Anybody familiar with these firearms will, I hope, concur with me on that point.
-
Everyone agrees Bamber would use a silencer to commit the massacre.
He then had three choices -
Take it off & leave it next to Sheila.
Take it off & take it with him.
Take it off & put it away out of sight.
---------
He chose the last option.
-
Because Sheila was sedated, half asleep & not as strong as Bamber.
She would have also recognised & trusted Bamber. If not too sedated.
Do you have a source she was sedated? I thought this was the only way JB could have shot Sheila when I watched the WHF series but the toxicological tests came back negative?
-
Bamber committed the crime with silencer attached. Which makes sense.
He took it off & put it away afterwards.
All straight forward.
Thanks Adam. I honestly don't know why we bother with this Forum as you've done all the spade work already and worked everything out. Even Rob has given up the ghost. I think when the history books come to be written, you will be remembered as a dynamic influence on the case and the man who slayed the dragon of the Jeremy Bamber Innocence Campaign.
Mind you, I'm still sulking that you didn't recommend me for the CT. It's bad enough that Myster won't let me participate in his Cluedo Club (even Steve backs me on this).
-
Do you have a source she was sedated? I thought this was the only way JB could have shot Sheila when I watched the WHF series but the toxicological tests came back negative?
Adam and other pro-guilt people rely on the supposed sedative effects of Haliperidol. Adam frequently misquotes, or misattributes, the 2002 appeal judgment in this regard.
-
Bamber committed the crime with silencer attached. Which makes sense.
He took it off & put it away afterwards.
All straight forward.
Just like that ::)
-
Everyone agrees Bamber would use a silencer to commit the massacre.
He then had three choices -
Take it off & leave it next to Sheila.
Take it off & take it with him.
Take it off & put it away out of sight.
---------
He chose the last option.
I don't agree, at close quarters the silencer would be a liability, the rifle used was pretty quiet anyway. He would only chose the last option if he wanted to get caught and spend the rest of his life in jail.
-
Do you have a source she was sedated? I thought this was the only way JB could have shot Sheila when I watched the WHF series but the toxicological tests came back negative?
She was on Haloperidol.
The COA says she was sedated.
I see you are focusing on the most popular supposed flaw in my Bamber scenario. Rather than the 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario.
There is also the slim chance Sheila woke & went into the main bedroom while Bamber was downstairs. He then just had to lay her down & shoot her.
-
Just like that ::)
It is a simple case.
The internet & Bamber's 36 year old 'campaign for freedom' has magnified minor issues. Which the courts have dismissed.
-
I don't agree, at close quarters the silencer would be a liability, the rifle used was pretty quiet anyway. He would only chose the last option if he wanted to get caught and spend the rest of his life in jail.
It makes sense to use the silencer. When attempting a silent massacre.
The evidence shows it was used.
-
She was on Haloperidol.
The COA says she was sedated.
I see you are focusing on the most popular supposed flaw in my Bamber scenario. Rather than the 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario.
There is also the slim chance Sheila woke & went into the main bedroom while Bamber was downstairs. He then just had to lay her down & shoot her.
I did not know I had highlighted a flaw in your scenario? The flaw in your scenario to me is that someone can be shot in the head four times and not bleed! unless you have submitted a more recent scenario? Also you had June being shot first ... oh well never mind!
-
I don't know why Bamber would take the silencer with him.
Easier to leave it at WHF.
-
She was on Haloperidol.
The COA says she was sedated.
I see you are focusing on the most popular supposed flaw in my Bamber scenario. Rather than the 34 flaws in your Sheila scenario.
There is also the slim chance Sheila woke & went into the main bedroom while Bamber was downstairs. He then just had to lay her down & shoot her.
They don't.
-
I did not know I had highlighted a flaw in your scenario? The flaw in your scenario to me is that someone can be shot in the head four times and not bleed! unless you have submitted a more recent scenario? Also you had June being shot first ... oh well never mind!
My scenario has the twins being shot first. Once each.
Nevill was shot 6 times in the head and face. There was blood in the kitchen, where he died.
-
Obviously not police protocol in 1985. Not sure if it is now.
Of course it is, otherwise how does anyone know the time of death/s as is usually the first question that's asked when a body/ bodies are discovered. ? It's very important, as in this case it could have meant that there was no case to answer---murder/suicide it was.
-
They don't.
148.
Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom
-
It makes sense to use the silencer. When attempting a silent massacre.
The evidence shows it was used.
I have not seen proof the silencer was on the rifle? JB knew about guns if it was obvious a silencer was used then why hide it??
-
They don't.
87.
Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed
-
I have not seen proof the silencer was on the rifle? JB knew about guns if it was obvious a silencer was used then why hide it??
Are you not aware of Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in the silencer?
-
Are you not aware of Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in the silencer?
Planted.
-
My scenario has the twins being shot first. Once each.
Nevill was shot 6 times in the head and face. There was blood in the kitchen, where he died.
You had June being shot first then Nevil in the main bedroom, that would not happen, your scenario is a non starter I am afraid. ::)
-
Leaving a silencer next to Sheila negates the crazy massacre theory.
After killing everyone in a crazed rage, Sheila would have had to calmly remove the silencer prior to shooting herself.
People may also ask if Sheila knew how to remove the silencer.
Bamber was going back downstairs. Why not take the silencer with him?
-
87.
Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed
That does not say Sheila was sedated and it does not mean that.
It's like saying that if a cough medicine has side effects of headaches, that means if I take the cough medicine I am going to suffer headaches. It doesn't follow.
-
You had June being shot first then Nevil in the main bedroom, that would not happen, your scenario is a non starter I am afraid. ::)
Take no notice Rob.
-
I think it's the other way round. First, if Sheila had already started shooting and/or wounded somebody and Nevill had managed to seize the rifle from her, the police would have been called and the incident would have ended there and then, so the issue of blood traces would have been moot. If Sheila was the killer, then she must have caught Nevill off-guard somehow or escaped from him.
Second, Nevill (and/or June) would not have just moved the silencer. They would have moved the rifle. Furthermore, if we imagine a scenario in which, after Jeremy leaves, Nevill has returned the rifle to the gun cupboard, then a factor to consider is that the gun cupboard was supposed to be locked and secured per the conditions of Nevill's firearms certificate but wasn't. It wasn't even lockable, despite Nevill's arangements having been inspected by an Essex police officer a few months before. This can clearly be seen in the photographs. This means there was no way for Nevill (or Jeremy himself) to secure the firearms against Sheila or a third party intruder.
I believe it follows from all this that:
(i). in an alternate scenario in which Sheila is the killer, there cannot have been any immediate prior incident in which Sheila used or threatened to use the rifle, which means that Sheila did not enter the den that night, and Sheila must have gone downstairs and into the back corridor alone. Sheila would not then detach the silencer prior to shooting the family. She would simply pick up and use the rifle with it left on. This, I believe, explains Rivlin's defence strategy; and,
(ii). logically, only two people could have detached the silencer and replaced it in the gun cupboard prior to the incident: Jeremy or Sheila. If the killer was Sheila, that means either there was a long pause before her suicide, or an innocent Jeremy had detached the silencer at some prior point. Conversely, if the killer was Jeremy, then he has somehow managed to leave the silencer in the cupboard without leaving any transferred blood traces anywhere.
With the luxury of hindsight we can see that a different conclusion is possible to that of Rivlin, which is that the silencer was taken off the rifle by Jeremy before he even returned to the farmhouse and witnessed the family meeting in the kitchen. He did not take the silencer off the rifle only at that point, but some time before then, maybe days before, maybe earlier that day, who knows? He probably can't remember himself. The significance of the point is that it allows the possibility of the silencer being found by somebody after the shootings and maliciously or mistakenly entering it into evidence against Jeremy.
To my mind, Jeremy's story of him shooting [at] rabbits just prior to leaving for home supports his claim that the rifle did not already have the silencer on it, implying that the silencer has been removed at some undetermined point prior to that. He would not have gone out and started shooting [at] rabbits with the silencer on, as this would not have scared off the rabbits. I do think he was shooting at the rabbits more than shooting the rabbits - if you see the distinction. You don't use a rifle like that just to shoot one rabbit after another. It's not possible. Anybody familiar with these firearms will, I hope, concur with me on that point.
..and any rational studier of the White House Farm murders knows a rabbit cock and bull story when they see it.
-
You had June being shot first then Nevil in the main bedroom, that would not happen, your scenario is a non starter I am afraid. ::)
The shots were from June's side of the bed.
Five shots into a sleeping June. Four shots into Nevill.
As the evidence states.
How are getting on with your 34 flaws. Or are you not bothered?
-
..and any rational studier of the White House Farm murders knows a rabbit cock and bull story when they see it.
Aesop?
-
Adam and other pro-guilt people rely on the supposed sedative effects of Haliperidol. Adam frequently misquotes, or misattributes, the 2002 appeal judgment in this regard.
..and serious studiers of the White House Farm murders are cognizant of Sheila's physical as well as mental state.
-
That does not say Sheila was sedated and it does not mean that.
It's like saying that if a cough medicine has side effects of headaches, that means if I take the cough medicine I am going to suffer headaches. It doesn't follow.
Do you believe Bamber would not be able to move Sheila a few feet?
He had just shot & brutally beaten a 6.4, 15 stone man.
Sheila was Haloperidol. So almost certainly sedated. Bamber had checked on her at supper.
-
You had June being shot first then Nevil in the main bedroom, that would not happen, your scenario is a non starter I am afraid. ::)
Surely you can't mean this, Rob. Adam is the leading scenario writer on the Forum, perhaps in the entire Pantheon of true crime writers. The way Adam crafts his scenarios leaves most of us in awe. His work is superlative. Even Jeremy himself shivers at the mention of Adam's name, and the appeal judges hang on his every word.
-
Do you have a source she was sedated? I thought this was the only way JB could have shot Sheila when I watched the WHF series but the toxicological tests came back negative?
She was exhausted with activity of the previous days, not necessarily with the Haloperidol, of which trace amounts were found in her system.
-
Do you believe Bamber would not be able to move Sheila a few feet?
He had just shot & brutally beaten a 6.4 15 stone man.
Sheila was Haloperidol. So almost certainly sedated. Bamber had checked on her at supper.
You've changed your tune from:
Sheila was sedated
to:
Sheila was almost certainly sedated.
It's progress, I suppose, but the point is we don't know that Sheila was sedated.
Also - and maybe more importantly - sedation is a term of art, whereas most use the term non-technically. Being sedated does not mean Sheila can be eliminated as a suspect.
-
She was exhausted with activity of the previous days, not necessarily with the Haloperidol, of which trace amounts were found in her system.
Jeremy was exhausted with working on the farm, was he not? Yet I would not suggest that this means Jeremy is innocent. It's a weak argument.
-
Surely you can't mean this, Rob. Adam is the leading scenario writer on the Forum, perhaps in the entire Pantheon of true crime writers. The way Adam crafts his scenarios leaves most of us in awe. His work is superlative. Even Jeremy himself shivers at the mention of Adam's name, and the appeal judges hang on his every word.
A pity your two Sheila alledged scenarios I can't find.
Rob at least tried. But failed to defend 34 flaws. So his scenario is dismissed.
He needs to re submit but says not being able to explain how Sheila committed the massacre is not important.
-
A pity your two Sheila alledged scenarios I can't find.
Rob at least tried. But failed to defend 34 flaws. So his scenario is dismissed.
He needs to re submit but says not being able to explain how Sheila committed the massacre is not important.
Sorry you can't find them.
-
Did the rifle fit in the cupboard with the silencer on? or did it have to be removed first?
"So almost certainly sedated" good Adam you are starting to see the light!
-
You've changed your tune from:
Sheila was sedated
to:
Sheila was almost certainly sedated.
It's progress, I suppose, but the point is we don't know that Sheila was sedated.
Also - and maybe more importantly - sedation is a term of art, whereas most use the term non-technically. Being sedated does not mean Sheila can be eliminated as a suspect.
Do you believe Bamber could not have moved Sheila into his chosen position?
Bamber thought he could after checking on her at supper.
Sheila was also very vacant when on the phone that evening. Giving one word answers.
Sheila was easy prey for Bamber.
-
Did the rifle fit in the cupboard with the silencer on? or did it have to be removed first?
"So almost certainly sedated" good Adam you are starting to see the light!
It did not. I have demonstrated this on here in a thread I started previously. The police tried to demonstrate it could with a photograph of the rifle in the cupboard with the silencer on, but what people don't take into account is that the position of the rifle in the photograph is contrived. An ordinary, casual user would not spend time trying to construe to fit the moderated rifle in the cupboard like a contestant on the Krypton Factor, you would just take the silencer off. Jeremy was right on this point.
-
Sorry you can't find them.
Maybe you can help.
Not just for me. I am sure the forum would like to discuss them.
Maybe create a thread for each one.
Thank you.
-
Honestly. Is nobody allowed to make suggestions of how certain things unfolded without being criticised ?
I have stated this same thing in the past about the rabbits and my own personal take is that the discussion around the dinner table that night had got so heated that Jeremy waltzed off with the rifle on the pretext of going to shoot rabbits because he probably couldn't get a word in to say he was leaving. When things quietened down he went back into the kitchen and made his announcement that he was going. He wouldn't have heard all that had gone on but managed to hear talk of fostering----which was initially denied when he did mention it to police and RWB.
-
Surely you can't mean this, Rob. Adam is the leading scenario writer on the Forum, perhaps in the entire Pantheon of true crime writers. The way Adam crafts his scenarios leaves most of us in awe. His work is superlative. Even Jeremy himself shivers at the mention of Adam's name, and the appeal judges hang on his every word.
You are making me feel bad now QC!
When Adam submits his better version perhaps he can include why Bews ran back to the car?
-
Do you believe Bamber could not have moved Sheila into his chosen position?
Bamber thought he could after checking on her at supper.
Sheila was also very vacant when on the phone that evening. Giving one word answers.
Sheila was easy prey for Bamber.
That's a complex question in its own right. Clearly, he literally could have done because he could have just asked Sheila and she might have agreed, if she was in a mental state that disposed her to agree - especially if Jeremy was pointing a gun at her.
But can't you see the problems with that scenario? You rely on the claim that Sheila was found immaculate. How can this be? Wouldn't Sheila have resisted at some point? You will say she was sedated, but do you understand what the expression 'sedated' means in the medical and physio-pharmacological senses, or in reality? It does not necessarily mean that she would be unable to defend herself. You may say she would be confused and tired, but wouldn't that make it more difficult for Jeremy, not less? How is it that Sheila had no blood on her feet when she was walking through a bloodied crime scene?
I could put dozens of questions to you. We could go into a discussion about the Ismail and Vanezis evidence. I think Ismail's evidence is wrong but Vanezis' evidence was correct. The angles at which Sheila was shot seemed to indicate to me that the killer must be Jeremy, but on further reflection I realised that I had not taken into account the position Jeremy would need to be in to make the shots. It's not just where Sheila was but also where Jeremy was, and his posture and so on.
This isn't simple!
-
You are making me feel bad now QC!
When Adam submits his better version perhaps he can include why Bews ran back to the car?
What has Bews got to do with a Bamber scenario?
-
That's a complex question in its own right. Clearly, he literally could have done because he could have just asked Sheila and she might have agreed, if she was in a mental state that disposed her to agree - especially if Jeremy was pointing a gun at her.
But can't you see the problems with that scenario? You rely on the claim that Sheila was found immaculate. How can this be? Wouldn't Sheila have resisted at some point? You will say she was sedated, but do you understand what the expression 'sedated' means in the medical and physio-pharmacological senses, or in reality? It does not necessarily mean that she would be unable to defend herself. You may say she would be confused and tired, but wouldn't that make it more difficult for Jeremy, not less? How is it that Sheila had no blood on her feet when she was walking through a bloodied crime scene?
I could put dozens of questions to you. We could go into a discussion about the Ismail and Vanezis evidence. I think Ismail's evidence is wrong but Vanezis' evidence was correct. The angles at which Sheila was shot seemed to indicate to me that the killer must be Jeremy, but on further reflection I realised that I had not taken into account the position Jeremy would need to be in to make the shots. It's not just where Sheila was but also where Jeremy was, and his posture and so on.
This isn't simple!
You rely on the claim that Sheila was found immaculate. How can this be?
----------
Agree with that. It must be Bamber.
-
What has Bews got to do with a Bamber scenario?
I am surprised you are asking Adam, Bews was in my scenario but you picked on trivial details instead.
-
I could put dozens of questions to you.
----------
You can indeed. At the end of the day, Bamber felt confident enough to get Sheila a few feet from her bed. Using force, persuasion. Or both.
-
You rely on the claim that Sheila was found immaculate. How can this be?
----------
Agree with that. It must be Bamber.
I'm glad I'm helping you out. It's important to improve these scenarios over time.
-
I am surprised you are asking Adam, Bews was in my scenario but you picked on trivial details instead.
Bews was miles away as Bamber was cycling back.
-
One is usually clean after a shower ! Her hair had been damp too. Most of the evidence was washed away.
-
It did not. I have demonstrated this on here in a thread I started previously. The police tried to demonstrate it could with a photograph of the rifle in the cupboard with the silencer on, but what people don't take into account is that the position of the rifle in the photograph is contrived. An ordinary, casual user would not spend time trying to construe to fit the moderated rifle in the cupboard like a contestant on the Krypton Factor, you would just take the silencer off. Jeremy was right on this point.
Thanks QC so if Sheila grabbed the gun from the cupboard it would not have had the silencer on it.
-
Bews was miles away as Bamber was cycling back.
Which route(s) did he take, there and back?
Roughly how long did it take him each way?
Did he use front and rear lights on the bike along this route that night?
What do you think he would have done had he come across somebody on the way back?
How did he slip out of Bourtree Cottage and Goldhanger unseen and return unseen?
Did he stage a call from Nevill or just make it up? If he staged the call, what was the process and timings for this?
Why did he leave the bike at Bourtree Cottage for the police to find?
-
Thanks QC so if Sheila grabbed the gun from the cupboard it would not have had the silencer on it.
Bamber testified he left the rifle and bullets in the kitchen.
-
Thanks QC so if Sheila grabbed the gun from the cupboard it would not have had the silencer on it.
Now you're inventing your own narrative.
-
Now you're inventing your own narrative.
Isn't that what everyone else is doing ?
-
Thanks QC so if Sheila grabbed the gun from the cupboard it would not have had the silencer on it.
Agreed.
Of course, Jeremy I believe assumes that she just found the rifle and ammunition on the settee in the back corridor/scullery area, which if true means the silencer was already in the gun cupboard anyway.
-
Now you're inventing your own narrative.
No, he isn't. He's basing that conclusion on the logical deductions in my posts, and I agree with him.
-
Which route(s) did he take, there and back?
Roughly how long did it take him each way?
Did he use front and rear lights on the bike along this route that night?
What do you think he would have done had he come across somebody on the way back?
How did he slip out of Bourtree Cottage and Goldhanger unseen and return unseen?
Did he stage a call from Nevill or just make it up? If he staged the call, what was the process and timings for this?
Why did he leave the bike at Bourtree Cottage for the police to find?
Lots of route options. He told Julie it would take around 15 minutes to cycle.
June's bike was brought to his cottage just before the massacre. He had no time to return it prior to the police & relatives arriving at his cottage.
-
Bamber testified he left the rifle and bullets in the kitchen.
He left the rifle leaning against a settee in the back corridor/scullery area, not the main kitchen. I think you are correct about the ammunition.
-
Lots of route options. He told Julie it would take around 15 minutes to cycle.
June's bike was brought to his cottage just before the massacre. He had no time to return it prior to the police & relatives arriving at his cottage.
Well, perhaps you could tell us which route he took and answer my other questions. The point of the exercise is to assess the plausibility of the plan. Again, this is something we've discussed before at length and I satisfied myself that if Jeremy is guilty, he must have gone by foot. He would have been crazy to use a bike, for all sorts of reasons I have enumerated exhaustively - though I suppose he must have been crazy to do such a thing anyway.
I recall the last time we discussed this, you stuck rigidly and robotically to the notion that he used the bike and you were immune to reason on the topic. I believe this is because you know that there are serious issues with the whole case, which again I have exhaustively covered, to do with the timings and the phone call - all these points are linked together.
-
Which route(s) did he take, there and back?
Roughly how long did it take him each way?
Did he use front and rear lights on the bike along this route that night?
What do you think he would have done had he come across somebody on the way back?
How did he slip out of Bourtree Cottage and Goldhanger unseen and return unseen?
Did he stage a call from Nevill or just make it up? If he staged the call, what was the process and timings for this?
Why did he leave the bike at Bourtree Cottage for the police to find?
The most likely route was right past a holiday camp site I believe, someone would have seen him?
When Adam submits his revised scenario I hope all these points are addressed, and Bews running
-
Which route(s) did he take, there and back?
Roughly how long did it take him each way?
Did he use front and rear lights on the bike along this route that night?
What do you think he would have done had he come across somebody on the way back?
How did he slip out of Bourtree Cottage and Goldhanger unseen and return unseen?
Did he stage a call from Nevill or just make it up? If he staged the call, what was the process and timings for this?
Why did he leave the bike at Bourtree Cottage for the police to find?
You can see the possible routes and timings here: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
He evidently used cover of darkness not to be seen.
He staged a call from Nevill by telephoning from White House Farm to his answerphone in Goldhanger, then rushed back to retrieve the tape.
It was Ann Eaton who discovered the bicycle on August 30. It was still caked in mud. What else could he do but leave it there..
-
Now I know the stupidity/ greed and over-zealousness of some people. Just been confirmed.
Just read that a motorist followed a tanker for miles only to find out it was carrying cement and not petrol !
Serves him right.
How can anyone mistake a cement wagon from a petrol tanker ? God help us !
-
The most likely route was right past a holiday camp site I believe, someone would have seen him?
When Adam submits his revised scenario I hope all these points are addressed, and Bews running
Have you got a source. Or is it another new narrative?
-
You can see the possible routes and timings here: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
He evidently used cover of darkness not to be seen.
He staged a call from Nevill by telephoning from White House Farm to his answerphone in Goldhanger, then rushed back to retrieve the tape.
It was Ann Eaton who discovered the bicycle on August 30. It was still caked in mud. What else could he do but leave it there..
I believe using a push bike would have been madness. I've been over it before with Adam, but Adam sticks to generalities and never goes into specifics, hence my questions. Whenever Adam is pinned down on the nitty-gritty of one of his scenarios, he flounders and denies he ever said the precise thing he said.
-
Now I know the stupidity/ greed and over-zealousness of some people. Just been confirmed.
Just read that a motorist followed a tanker for miles only to find out it was carrying cement and not petrol !
Serves him right.
How can anyone mistake a cement wagon from a petrol tanker ? God help us !
It comes to something when police didn't know if it was a male or female in the kitchen----so they opted for both.
-
I believe using a push bike would have been madness. I've been over it before with Adam, but Adam sticks to generalities and never goes into specifics, hence my questions. Whenever Adam is pinned down on the nitty-gritty of one of his scenarios, he flounders and denies he ever said the precise thing he said.
The proven prosecution case is he took June's bike just before the massacre.
The prosecution then say he cycled to WHF & back. Using one of the easy routes.
All straight forward.
-
Julie also says Bamber planned to cycle to/from WHF.
-
Complete with wet-suit and flippers and load-sa money stashed in the basket on the bike.
-
DI Wilkinson on the bike routes.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4983.msg211463.html#msg211463
-
The proven prosecution case is he took June's bike just before the massacre.
The prosecution then sat he cycled to WHF & back. Using one of the easy routes.
All straight forward.
I spent my early childhood in this very area, and it was at the time of the shootings. I know the ground well. Obviously I cannot rule out completely that he used a push bike, but what I can say is that the notion is at the margins of plausibility for lots of reasons: the prevailing weather that summer, the terrain, the nature of the routes at the time, the need to illuminate his way with bike lights making him vulnerable to being seen by anybody out at that time, the problem of running into some random person along the route. The list goes on. Even if we say Jeremy isn't the brightest spark, he would have realised these problems intuitively.
I think the only thing Essex Police did to test the bike theory was send one of their CID officers out on the route on a late summer day. He concluded that it could be done. There is a blogger who did similar and took photographs. What neither of them did was test the route in the dead of night and in the conditions that would have pertained at that time - which may have required the selection of an analogous route - and neither seems to have taken into account that it was a murder plot and how this may have affected Jeremy's decisions.
You mention that Jeremy had the bike at the cottage, but that may be for innocent reasons. I think the reason he gave was that Julie was borrowing it. Why not? Or it could be that Jeremy is guilty and was using the bike to scout the area after dark for routes to go on foot.
I'll say that you only have to think about it for five minutes to realise that, if he is guilty, he must have gone on foot, and this has broader implications for the case; but our discussion about this was very frustrating last time, so I'll leave it.
-
Have you got a source. Or is it another new narrative?
It's your scenario Adam not mine!
It was something I saw on YouTube I might be able to dig it out.
-
It's your scenario Adam not mine!
It was something I saw on YouTube I might be able to dig it out.
Look forward to seeing it.
Wilkinson's WS does not mention a camp site.
-
I spent my early childhood in this very area, and it was at the time of the shootings. I know the ground well. Obviously I cannot rule out completely that he used a push bike, but what I can say is that the notion is at the margins of plausibility for lots of reasons: the prevailing weather that summer, the terrain, the nature of the routes at the time, the need to illuminate his way with bike lights making him vulnerable to being seen by anybody out at that time, the problem of running into some random person along the route. The list goes on. Even if we say Jeremy isn't the brightest spark, he would have realised these problems intuitively.
I think the only thing Essex Police did to test the bike theory was send one of their CID officers out on the route on a late summer day. He concluded that it could be done. There is a blogger who did similar and took photographs. What neither of them did was test the route in the dead of night and in the conditions that would have pertained at that time - which may have required the selection of an analogous route - and neither seems to have taken into account that it was a murder plot and how this may have affected Jeremy's decisions.
You mention that Jeremy had the bike at the cottage, but that may be for innocent reasons. I think the reason he gave was that Julie was borrowing it. Why not? Or it could be that Jeremy is guilty and was using the bike to scout the area after dark for routes to go on foot.
I'll say that you only have to think about it for five minutes to realise that, if he is guilty, he must have gone on foot, and this has broader implications for the case; but our discussion about this was very frustrating last time, so I'll leave it.
You may as well go into it now as not all of us seem to have as much free time as yourself. Anyway it's not like you to spurn an opportunity to spout forth.
-
You may as well go into it now as not all of us seem to have as much free time as yourself. Anyway it's not like you to spurn an opportunity to spout forth.
I've already gone into it - at great length and in detail - on another thread, and the essential points are in my posts immediately above. I also don't have as much free time as you may think and don't have the time to rehash it all.
On a related note, among my collection of books on this case is one of those true crime magazine annuals that has a very simple, graphic version of the story in which Jeremy is shown driving from Goldhanger along the main roads and up to the farmhouse in the middle of the night, headlamps on! I laughed, but the serious point is that this is not too far removed from what Adam and Essex Police and most guilters would have us believe actually occurred.
Adam's style of simplifying this case is similar to the account in the graphic annual, in that it's intended for an average IQ readership who will take in what he is saying without questioning it and just assume Jeremy is guilty.
Jeremy may well be guilty, but I prefer to examine the nitty-gritty of things, which is where I think many (not all) guilters start to flounder.
-
I've got all the time in the world, but still reach the same conclusion. In a case such as this it's far harder to find a person innocent than it is to be led by the world and his wife, and media, to a guilty verdict.
I think you guilters have got an easy ride. You take nothing into account apart from the fact that " he's guilty ", as was Derek Bentley until after he was hanged !
-
I've got all the time in the world, but still reach the same conclusion. In a case such as this it's far harder to find a person innocent than it is to be led by the world and his wife, and media, to a guilty verdict.
I think you guilters have got an easy ride. You take nothing into account apart from the fact that " he's guilty ", as was Derek Bentley until after he was hanged !
How many innocent people did Spilsbury get hanged! if he gave evidence against you you were doomed!
-
How many innocent people did Spilsbury get hanged! if he gave evidence against you you were doomed!
Don't know him Rob.
-
I have now re-listened to the podcast which seems very recent. His supporters apparently worked with Bamber's legal team on the submission for the review people. I made the following notes and it seems some form part of the submission
1. Police surgeon didn't take temperatures. Had he done it would have showed Sheila died 4 or 5 hours earlier.
Is it possible to be so precise about when someone actually dies?
2. They [unsure exactly who "they" refers to] know Bamber is innocent.
What reason would the system have for framing an innocent man?
3. Claims Mr Bamber Snr called the police.
PC West seems to deal with this adequately in the doc.
4. Claims Julie smuggled drugs from Canada.
What evidence exists to support this?
5. Claims Sheila wrote a suicide note stating "I have just killed myself".
This certainly requires some explanation! The deceased writing suicide notes :o
6. Claim Jury was misled about who went on to inherit Mr and Mrs Bamber's estates.
Thought this was dealt with in a previous submission?
7. Claim to have found the grey hair and that it did not pertain to Mr Bamber snr.
Thought the biologist at trial said it held little forensic value so doubt jurors placed much weight on it. Although I believe judge mentioned in his summing up.
8. Claim 2 silencers were used to convict Bamber. Talk about Robert Boutflour's blood group in silencer. Also add 8% of population have same blood groups.
How would Robert Boutflour's blood get inside silencer.
9. Claim police disturbed scene.
10. Claim lights/curtains on/off/opening/closing.
11. Claim Sheila made a 999 call.
12. Claim crime scene photos showed windows secured.
13. Claim burns were not caused by a person but unable to say what they were caused by as do not want to give the police a headstart.
Yvonne claims she is very confident the review people will refer to the appeal courts. I think she might be disappointed. Since watching the ITV doc, and during lockdown, I spent some time reading up on the case and to the best of my knowledge these points have either all been raised previously or could potentially have been raised at trial and are therefore redundant.
-
Don't know him Rob.
He was a pathologist used by the Crown in many cases, much of his evidence is now thought to be well ??? resulting in many innocent people being hanged.
In one case a car had caught fire killing someone, a nut in the fuel line was loose and Spilsbury gave evidence that it had deliberately been undone. A expert from the fire bigrade for the defense said the nut had come loose because of the heat of the fire and he had seen this happen many times. The poor guy was found guilty anyway and hanged.
-
13. Claim burns were not caused by a person but unable to say what they were caused by as do not want to give the police a headstart
----------
🤫
-
13. Claim burns were not caused by a person but unable to say what they were caused by as do not want to give the police a headstart
----------
🤫
I take that to mean Adam, don't want someone nipping down into the basement and accidently destroying something that they thought was not needed anymore. Gosh this case is making me cynical!
-
I have now re-listened to the podcast which seems very recent. His supporters apparently worked with Bamber's legal team on the submission for the review people. I made the following notes and it seems some form part of the submission
1. Police surgeon didn't take temperatures. Had he done it would have showed Sheila died 4 or 5 hours earlier.
Is it possible to be so precise about when someone actually dies?
Not usually in circumstances such as this, but it can be roughly indicated and this may have been significant given that Jeremy was outside with the police for several hours.
2. They [unsure exactly who "they" refers to] know Bamber is innocent.
What reason would the system have for framing an innocent man?
I don't believe they had any reason, but do they need a reason?
3. Claims Mr Bamber Snr called the police.
PC West seems to deal with this adequately in the doc.
The CT claim they have proof. We'll have to wait to see what this is.
4. Claims Julie smuggled drugs from Canada.
What evidence exists to support this?
This is an allegation that came out of Stokenchurch. It's in one of the police reports from that re-investigation.
5. Claims Sheila wrote a suicide note stating "I have just killed myself".
This certainly requires some explanation! The deceased writing suicide notes :o
That's not what it is alleged.
6. Claim Jury was misled about who went on to inherit Mr and Mrs Bamber's estates.
Thought this was dealt with in a previous submission?
May have been.
7. Claim to have found the grey hair and that it did not pertain to Mr Bamber snr.
Thought the biologist at trial said it held little forensic value so doubt jurors placed much weight on it. Although I believe judge mentioned in his summing up.
The CT believe the grey hair still exists. If true, it could be subjected to further DNA analysis.
8. Claim 2 silencers were used to convict Bamber. Talk about Robert Boutflour's blood group in silencer. Also add 8% of population have same blood groups.
How would Robert Boutflour's blood get inside silencer.
It could accidentally if he cut himself, or it could be put there on purpose.
9. Claim police disturbed scene.
They did. Even the official narrative concedes this.
10. Claim lights/curtains on/off/opening/closing.
I don't know about this, but I have sometimes wondered whether lights were on or off. It seems nobody can quite remember.
11. Claim Sheila made a 999 call.
This is a reinterpretation of a part of the BT operator's log. The CT claim that they have additional proof of a 999 call from Sheila at a time when Jeremy was outside with the police. Don't look at me, I'm just telling you what they say.
12. Claim crime scene photos showed windows secured.
This one is definitely true, to be fair. I have seen the photograph and I am aware of the background evidence regarding attendance at the scene and the photographic chronology that supports the conclusion.
13. Claim burns were not caused by a person but unable to say what they were caused by as do not want to give the police a headstart.
No idea about this.
Yvonne claims she is very confident the review people will refer to the appeal courts. I think she might be disappointed. Since watching the ITV doc, and during lockdown, I spent some time reading up on the case and to the best of my knowledge these points have either all been raised previously or could potentially have been raised at trial and are therefore redundant.
I honestly think we must wait and see. Nobody knows the strength of the evidence except the Campaign Team and the lawyers, and Jeremy himself.
As a point of interest, I believe this is officially Jeremy's sixth go at an appeal:
His immediate appeal started in 1988 and was heard in 1989, and refused.
He then applied to the old Home Office C3 Division in 1991. This application was declined.
He then applied to the new CCRC in 1999/2000 and this was successfully referred in 2001, but the court refused the appeal in 2002.
He then, I believe, made a plea for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in around 2004 or 2005 on the advice of his representative at that time, Giovanni de Stefano.
He submitted a second application to the CCRC in 2010, which was declined in 2012, and a judicial review of that decision was rejected shortly thereafter.
We're now in 2021 and this is his sixth official try at it.
-
As far as I can recall the recent doc did not include any input from Bamber's legal teams past or present?
-
Not usually in circumstances such as this, but it can be roughly indicated and this may have been significant given that Jeremy was outside with the police for several hours.
I don't believe they had any reason, but do they need a reason?
The CT claim they have proof. We'll have to wait to see what this is.
This is an allegation that came out of Stokenchurch. It's in one of the police reports from that re-investigation.
That's not what it is alleged.
May have been.
The CT believe the grey hair still exists. If true, it could be subjected to further DNA analysis.
It could accidentally if he cut himself, or it could be put there on purpose.
They did. Even the official narrative concedes this.
I don't know about this, but I have sometimes wondered whether lights were on or off. It seems nobody can quite remember.
This is a reinterpretation of a part of the BT operator's log. The CT claim that they have additional proof of a 999 call from Sheila at a time when Jeremy was outside with the police. Don't look at me, I'm just telling you what they say.
This one is definitely true, to be fair. I have seen the photograph and I am aware of the background evidence regarding attendance at the scene and the photographic chronology that supports the conclusion.
No idea about this.
I honestly think we must wait and see. Nobody knows the strength of the evidence except the Campaign Team and the lawyers, and Jeremy himself.
As a point of interest, I believe this is officially Jeremy's sixth go at an appeal:
His immediate appeal started in 1988 and was heard in 1989, and refused.
He then applied to the old Home Office C3 Division in 1991. This application was declined.
He then applied to the new CCRC in 1999/2000 and this was successfully referred in 2001, but the court refused the appeal in 2002.
He then, I believe, made a plea for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in around 2004 or 2005 on the advice of his representative at that time, Giovanni de Stefano.
He submitted a second application to the CCRC in 2010, which was declined in 2012, and a judicial review of that decision was rejected shortly thereafter.
We're now in 2021 and this is his sixth official try at it.
Re 8 above why would Robert Boutflour put his blood inside the silencer? How would he, or anyone else for that matter, know he shared the same complex blood groups as Sheila? Based on 8% of the population sharing these groups it stands to reason others who handled the silencer will share the same groups. I can't see the review people being impressed with such fanciful notions.
Also as I understand it this could have been argued at trial. It wasn't thus its now redundant unless somehow it can be shown it was fabricated. Simply alleging Robert Boutflour might have contaminated the silencer I don't think is going to cut it.
-
Not usually in circumstances such as this, but it can be roughly indicated and this may have been significant given that Jeremy was outside with the police for several hours.
I don't believe they had any reason, but do they need a reason?
The CT claim they have proof. We'll have to wait to see what this is.
This is an allegation that came out of Stokenchurch. It's in one of the police reports from that re-investigation.
That's not what it is alleged.
May have been.
The CT believe the grey hair still exists. If true, it could be subjected to further DNA analysis.
It could accidentally if he cut himself, or it could be put there on purpose.
They did. Even the official narrative concedes this.
I don't know about this, but I have sometimes wondered whether lights were on or off. It seems nobody can quite remember.
This is a reinterpretation of a part of the BT operator's log. The CT claim that they have additional proof of a 999 call from Sheila at a time when Jeremy was outside with the police. Don't look at me, I'm just telling you what they say.
This one is definitely true, to be fair. I have seen the photograph and I am aware of the background evidence regarding attendance at the scene and the photographic chronology that supports the conclusion.
No idea about this.
I honestly think we must wait and see. Nobody knows the strength of the evidence except the Campaign Team and the lawyers, and Jeremy himself.
As a point of interest, I believe this is officially Jeremy's sixth go at an appeal:
His immediate appeal started in 1988 and was heard in 1989, and refused.
He then applied to the old Home Office C3 Division in 1991. This application was declined.
He then applied to the new CCRC in 1999/2000 and this was successfully referred in 2001, but the court refused the appeal in 2002.
He then, I believe, made a plea for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in around 2004 or 2005 on the advice of his representative at that time, Giovanni de Stefano.
He submitted a second application to the CCRC in 2010, which was declined in 2012, and a judicial review of that decision was rejected shortly thereafter.
We're now in 2021 and this is his sixth official try at it.
How these people perceive the strength of the evidence is immaterial. Its how the review people perceive it and ultimately the appeal court if it gets that far which I somehow doubt.
-
As far as I can recall the recent doc did not include any input from Bamber's legal teams past or present?
It did not. The Campaign Team cut off contact with the production team at an early stage.
-
How these people perceive the strength of the evidence is immaterial. Its how the review people perceive it and ultimately the appeal court if it gets that far which I somehow doubt.
Don't forget that oftentimes members here are treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed on manure.
-
It was never mentioned at trial that RWB shared the same blood grouping as Sheila.
-
I used to quite like the evenings drawing in as a youth, which gave me more of an excuse to practise piano, but those days have dwindled of late, sadly.
What level do you play at Steve? Do you listen to piano music and if so what?
-
Re 8 above why would Robert Boutflour put his blood inside the silencer? How would he, or anyone else for that matter, know he shared the same complex blood groups as Sheila? Based on 8% of the population sharing these groups it stands to reason others who handled the silencer will share the same groups. I can't see the review people being impressed with such fanciful notions.
Also as I understand it this could have been argued at trial. It wasn't thus its now redundant unless somehow it can be shown it was fabricated. Simply alleging Robert Boutflour might have contaminated the silencer I don't think is going to cut it.
If you were a member of the Jeremy-is-innocent brigade you would say that DCI Taff Jones wasn't taking the case against Bamber seriously, he had already requested that Ann Eaton not make notes in his office and ended up throwing them out. If Robert Boutflour as paterfamilias decided he needed to shore up the evidence it might have been a risk he felt was worth taking. Of course he would have to have known that his blood group matched Sheila's or risk prosecution himself for perverting the course of justice.
-
It did not. The Campaign Team cut off contact with the production team at an early stage.
Oh dear! That doesn't sound like a smart move. I would have thought and all hands to the deck would be the best approach :)
-
What level do you play at Steve? Do you listen to piano music and if so what?
He plays the Refrain from Spitting ;D
-
What level do you play at Steve? Do you listen to piano music and if so what?
I took most of the ABRSM exams. I prefer classical pieces. Not much of a fan of jazz. Chacun à son goût.
-
If you were a member of the Jeremy-is-innocent brigade you would say that DCI Taff Jones wasn't taking the case against Bamber seriously, he had already requested that Ann Eaton not make notes in his office and ended up throwing them out. If Robert Boutflour as paterfamilias decided he needed to shore up the evidence it might have been a risk he felt was worth taking. Of course he would have to have known that his blood group matched Sheila's or risk prosecution himself for perverting the course of justice.
But how could he possibly know this? The chances are one of us here will share the same groups if (as per podcast) 8% of the population share these groups.
Bamber's defence at trial could have argued this. They didn't so the opportunity is lost as far as I understand.
-
It was never mentioned at trial that RWB shared the same blood grouping as Sheila.
No but it could have been. Therefore as far as I understand it isn't possible to adjudicate on something at appeal that could have been argued at trial.
-
But how could he possibly know this? The chances are one of us here will share the same groups if (as per podcast) 8% of the population share these groups.
Bamber's defence at trial could have argued this. They didn't so the opportunity is lost as far as I understand.
But Sheila wasn't on trial. The Defence did its best by calling Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, and of course there was Jeremy's pack of lies about his sister having hit Daniel in the car one time, but fortunately the jury ultimately saw through it.
-
I took most of the ABRSM exams. I prefer classical pieces. Not much of a fan of jazz. Chacun à son goût.
Why did you decide to undertake the exams? Which classical pieces do you prefer? The reason I ask is that I tend to find a piece and then overplay it instead of exploring further. Do you have a playlist?
-
Why did you decide to undertake the exams? Which classical pieces do you prefer? The reason I ask is that I tend to find a piece and then overplay it instead of exploring further. Do you have a playlist?
Playing a piece is like examining a speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It's so concentrated at the advanced level. I don't play full movements any more (I think the Third Movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata might induce a stroke these days) but I do play Chopin pieces, Liszt and Beethoven, which are my favourites.
-
Re 8 above why would Robert Boutflour put his blood inside the silencer? How would he, or anyone else for that matter, know he shared the same complex blood groups as Sheila? Based on 8% of the population sharing these groups it stands to reason others who handled the silencer will share the same groups. I can't see the review people being impressed with such fanciful notions.
Also as I understand it this could have been argued at trial. It wasn't thus its now redundant unless somehow it can be shown it was fabricated. Simply alleging Robert Boutflour might have contaminated the silencer I don't think is going to cut it.
First, if you stop and think about it, your whole argument here actually underlines the defence case.
Second, it was at least implied at trial. The reason Robert Boutflour stormed off angrily (so it is claimed) is that Rivlin asked him about the suggestion of a cut on his finger at the time he was examining the silencer before it was handed to the police.
You ask why Robert Boutflour would put his blood in the silencer. The answer is to frame Jeremy of course. He could be done easily.
You refer to the importance of matching blood groups. In fact, as I have explained on here before, the blood groups need not have matched for the ruse to work. It may just be a 'happy' coincidence that they did.
How these people perceive the strength of the evidence is immaterial. Its how the review people perceive it and ultimately the appeal court if it gets that far which I somehow doubt.
I'm quite aware of that. My point, which you oddly take out of context, is that we don't know the strength of Jeremy's case for review and appeal, so it's hopeless either accepting what is being said or rejecting it. That's jumping the gun. Only Jeremy and the CT and his lawyers can know. In due course, we will also find out, as you say, how the CCRC see it.
-
Playing a piece is like examining a speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It's so concentrated at the advanced level. I don't play full movements any more (I think the Third Movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata might induce a stroke these days) but I do play Chopin pieces, Liszt and Beethoven, which are my favourites.
Beethoven is my favourite and Moonlight Sonata is sublime. I think I know what you mean by concentrated. I recall going to a Vivaldi Four Seasons concert in Prague where I was seated right in front of the cellist who I thought was going to explode!
-
First, if you stop and think about it, your whole argument here actually underlines the defence case.
Second, it was at least implied at trial. The reason Robert Boutflour stormed off angrily (so it is claimed) is that Rivlin asked him about the suggestion of a cut on his finger at the time he was examining the silencer before it was handed to the police.
You ask why Robert Boutflour would put his blood in the silencer. The answer is to frame Jeremy of course. He could be done easily.
You refer to the importance of matching blood groups. In fact, as I have explained on here before, the blood groups need not have matched for the ruse to work. It may just be a 'happy' coincidence that they did.
I'm quite aware of that. My point, which you oddly take out of context, is that we don't know the strength of Jeremy's case for review and appeal, so it's hopeless either accepting what is being said or rejecting it. That's jumping the gun. Only Jeremy and the CT and his lawyers can know. In due course, we will also find out, as you say, how the CCRC see it.
36 years on I don't think the review people are going to be interested in any may be.
The podcast by Bamber's campaigners outlines the submission. Frankly they sound like a bunch of cranks to me. For example they believe all concerned know Bamber is innocent and that the police shot Sheila a second time during a training exercise. Where's the evidence for all of this. I bet the review people are having a right old chuckle.
-
36 years on I don't think the review people are going to be interested in any may be.
The podcast by Bamber's campaigners outlines the submission. Frankly they sound like a bunch of cranks to me. For example they believe all concerned know Bamber is innocent and that the police shot Sheila a second time during a training exercise. Where's the evidence for all of this. I bet the review people are having a right old chuckle.
Sorry, but I think we're at cross purposes. I'm not referring specifically to Jeremy's submissions to the CCRC. I'm just answering your question about how the planting of the silencer could have occurred. I have simply no idea what Bamber's submissions to the CCRC are. Nobody does, other than the people involved, so it's next-to-pointless to speculate about the strengths or weaknesses of it. Only they know if their submissions are truly credible or it's all a bluff, and it will be a decision for the CCRC and the courts.
I don't need to be lectured to about what the CCRC may or may not accept. I am not an expert on the law and the legal system, but I am not naive about it either. I do know quite a lot about it.
I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent. I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been the 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later. These things happen and that would have been the end of it. I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up. They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.
Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat.
In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the probability of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record. There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others. This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy. The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.
The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation. The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.
I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish. These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers. However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories.
-
I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent. I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later. These things happen and that would have been the end of it. I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up. They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.
Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat.
In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the possibility of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record. There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others. This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy. The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.
The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation. The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.
I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish. These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers. However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories.
Once again, sharp writing that encapsulates the conspirational approach to the case.
-
Sorry, but I think we're at cross purposes. I'm not referring specifically to Jeremy's submissions to the CCRC. I'm just answering your question about how the planting of the silencer could have occurred. I have simply no idea what Bamber's submissions to the CCRC are. Nobody does, other than the people involved, so it's next-to-pointless to speculate about the strengths or weaknesses of it. Only they know if their submissions are truly credible or it's all a bluff, and it will be a decision for the CCRC and the courts.
I don't need to be lectured to about what the CCRC may or may not accept. I am not an expert on the law and the legal system, but I am not naive about it either. I do know quite a lot about it.
I don't personally believe the police shot Sheila, nor do I believe that, if they had shot her, they would then try to cover it up by framing Jeremy, knowing him to be innocent. I think if they had shot Sheila, they would have owned up to it immediately and probably just claimed she was pointing a gun at them, or if it was obviously an accident, they could have claimed she was already dead having committed suicide, and that would have been 'conspiracy' we would now be discussing 37 years later. These things happen and that would have been the end of it. I've never understood why people think the police would cover that up. They had no motive to do so and the nature of the situation gave them every opportunity to come up with a cover story to justify or excuse shooting her, which would have been accepted by pretty much everybody.
Having said that, it's worth adding a caveat.
In a scenario in which Sheila is shot by the police, the possibility of a conspiracy increases if, for whatever reason, the police don't admit to it straight-away and enter it into the record. There is a small possibility that she was accidentally shot by a police officer, who then panicked and covered it up with the assistance of one or two others. This, however, is independent of the later investigation of Jeremy. The police may have had genuine reasons for treating Jeremy as a suspect regardless of such a cover-up, though it could also be that the police were driven to go after Jeremy by a sense of guilt that one of their own had shot Sheila under whatever circumstances.
The pro-innocent argument we sometimes hear is that senior officers were threatened, or in effect blackmailed, by the relatives - specifically, Robert Boutflour - who had found out that Sheila had been somehow shot by the police and had also discovered other irregularities in the investigation. The relatives told the police that the press would be informed unless the spotlight turned on Jeremy.
I don't accept any of this, but that's not because I think it is crankish. These theories do have a logic to them and the police might have been persuaded to look at Jeremy and then find evidence on him in order to avoid embarrassment and maybe even a criminal investigation of police officers. However,, there is no clear evidence to support it, so I can't know if it is true or not, and for various common-sense reasons, I'm inclined not to accept such theories.
The police certainly did not shoot Sheila with police issued firearms since the ammunition is different to that used in the shootings. The only other possibility is that the police accidentally discharged the murder weapon upon removing it from the body. However there's no evidence that anyone interfered with the scene until some considerable time after Sheila was found. The pathologist said both shots were inflicted in very quick succession ie seconds. I think the whole notion of police involvement is utter madness. Either Sheila shot herself twice with the light trigger pull semi-automatic or her brother murdered her as the prosecution claim.
The defence at trial was well aware the chain of custody surrounding the silencer was suspect to say the least. They could have argued contamination but chose not to and instead relied upon the argument that the blood represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which also represented Sheila's blood groupings as a stand alone. Its not then possible to go back to the review body or appeal courts and argue contamination with vague notions that somehow Robert Boutflour's blood ended up in the silencer.
We know broadly speaking what's in the submission as Bamber's support people spend about an hour and a half telling us in a very recent podcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=114s
1. Claims of two silencers based on exhibit labels.
Already dealt with by the female forensic scientist.
2. Burn marks to Mr Bamber's back.
The Home Office pathologist and defence pathologist both agreed at trial, to some extent, that they could not be entirely certain the marks were in fact burns or how they were caused.
Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.
3. Grey hair.
It was made clear the grey hair went missing before it could be forensically examined. The biologist told the court even if it hadn't gone missing it held little forensic value as noone could be sure how it came to be there. Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.
4. Windows.
Defence at trial relied upon notes from DCI Jones' notebook confirming all windows were secured from within except a pantry window which was covered in cobwebs and clearly hadn't been used. The trial judge told the court how Bamber entered and exited was not important.
Again irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.
As Patrick O'Connor said in the doc to even stand a chance a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence is required and I didn't hear anything from these people that they had anything of the sort.
-
Once again, sharp writing that encapsulates the conspirational approach to the case.
Interesting for forum debate but do you think conspiracy theories are going to cut it with the review body/appeal courts?
-
2. Burn marks to Mr Bamber's back.
The Home Office pathologist and defence pathologist both agreed at trial, to some extent, that they could not be entirely certain the marks were in fact burns or how they were caused.
Irrelevant as played no part in jury's decision making.
In the pathologists original notes, it's stated that the burn marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle.
This is extremely relevant because the jury's decision making was based primarily on the silencer being attached to the weapon during the murders.
-
In the pathologists original notes, it's stated that the burn marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle.
This is extremely relevant because the jury's decision making was based primarily on the silencer being attached to the weapon during the murders.
It might be extremely relevant to you but I dont think the review body will share your views. They are interested in what the jury was told at trial. At trial both patholgoists concluded, to some extent, they could not be certain the marks were burns or what caused them. Therefore it played no part in the jury's decision making.
-
Trial judge re the windows
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
Judge gave a clear direction to the jury.
-
Trial judge re the windows
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
Judge gave a clear direction to the jury.
Obviously, absurd direction. Drake's rep preceded him (Carl Bridgewater and the Shrewsbury pickets).
-
It might be extremely relevant to you but I dont think the review body will share your views. They are interested in what the jury was told at trial. At trial both patholgoists concluded, to some extent, they could not be certain the marks were burns or what caused them. Therefore it played no part in the jury's decision making.
The defence at trial never had the original autopsy notes.
Moreover I am more interested in what actually took place that night than the legal arguments.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9528.msg441998.html#msg441998 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9528.msg441998.html#msg441998)
-
The 2012 CCRC submission was based on the murderer inflicting the burn marks on Nevill minus silencer. Suggesting the silencer was not used.
If proved, it would just mean Bamber took the silencer off upstairs. Went downstairs & put it away. Then burned Nevill's back to check for life.
Bamber would complete his shooting before doing any staging or burning.
-
The only other possibility is that the police accidentally discharged the murder weapon upon removing it from the body. However there's no evidence that anyone interfered with the scene until some considerable time after Sheila was found
There was no rifle on top of Sheila, when the TFG last witnessed her crime scene. The Bible and her head were also in different positions..
Therefore Jeremy Bamber was prosecuted and convicted by using a police-constructed crime scene. The jury were not told this. If they had have been told this, I would imagine it would have led to an electric moment in British crown court history.
-
Moreover I am more interested in what actually took place that night than the legal arguments.
Now you sound like me. I hate all that legal twaddle. What matters is what happened. If anyone uses legal twaddle in an attempt to prevent what actually happened from being discovered, explored, exposed etc, I can't help but feel my regard for them is diminished.
-
I tend to veer from the legal matters of a crime too. Too " bookish " for me, as I like to start from the beginnings in what led to a murder being committed.
-
Trial judge re the windows
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
Judge gave a clear direction to the jury.
If there is no known way of getting out how did he do it then? It's highly relevant to me anyway.
-
I am not the architect of the judicial system but I do know that if Bamber wants his conviction overturned he will need to be mindful of the system and processes.
-
If there is no known way of getting out how did he do it then? It's highly relevant to me anyway.
It might be highly relevant to you but it's not highly relevant in terms of Bamber overturning his conviction. It's dead in the water.
-
If there is no known way of getting out how did he do it then? It's highly relevant to me anyway.
He got out through the kitchen window. Then banged it shut from outside.
The housekeeper said things around the kitchen window had been moved.
-
He got out through the kitchen window. Then banged it shut from outside.
The housekeeper said things around the kitchen window had been moved.
I watched the one and half hour YouTube program last night and they were saying there is a secondary latch that cannot be locked from outside on this window? Is this correct do you know?
-
I watched the one and half hour YouTube program last night and they were saying there is a secondary latch that cannot be locked from outside on this window? Is this correct do you know?
No idea. He just needed one latch to partially fall into place.
-
He got out through the kitchen window. Then banged it shut from outside.
The housekeeper said things around the kitchen window had been moved.
You can bang a window shut from the outside, but it can't lock itself ! It has to be secured from the inside and all windows had been secured from the inside---stated " Taff "Jones. No sign of a forced entry.
Articles around the kitchen window were moved by AE when she was rinsing bloodied clothes.
-
You can bang a window shut from the outside, but it can't lock itself ! It has to be secured from the inside and all windows had been secured from the inside---stated " Taff "Jones. No sign of a forced entry.
Articles around the kitchen window were moved by AE when she was rinsing bloodied clothes.
Banging the latch down from outside means the window is 'secure'.
Keep up.
-
Banging the latch down from outside means the window is 'secure'.
Keep up.
You cheeky article !!
It does NOT mean that type of latch is secure at all.
-
No idea. He just needed one latch to partially fall into place.
It sounds like the latch you use to hold the window open at a certain angle? These cannot be shut from outside, if there is a withheld photo the defense never had at trail showing this latch closed then this is more than interesting.
-
It sounds like the latch you use to hold the window open at a certain angle? These cannot be shut from outside, if there is a withheld photo the defense never had at trail showing this latch closed then this is more than interesting.
You are dead in the water on this Rob.
Your stance needs to be -'yeah the window could be banged secure from outside. But that doesn't make Bamber guilty'.
-
It sounds like the latch you use to hold the window open at a certain angle? These cannot be shut from outside, if there is a withheld photo the defense never had at trail showing this latch closed then this is more than interesting.
Rob I've lived in a couple of houses ( Georgian and Victorian ) both having these type of window locks and I know that they can only be secured from the inside as on the base of one frame is a set of lugs which on the opening part is a " handle " with a set of holes that go over the lugs from the inside and it's the last hole that secures the window.
-
It was accepted by everyone involved 36 years ago the kitchen window could be banged secure from outside.
Trying to change that will go nowhere.
-
We know broadly speaking what's in the submission as Bamber's support people spend about an hour and a half telling us in a very recent podcast
We don't, because Jeremy's Campaign Team are not his lawyers.
As Patrick O'Connor said in the doc to even stand a chance a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence is required and I didn't hear anything from these people that they had anything of the sort.
That's the opinion of one barrister who has had no involvement whatsoever in the case. He is an experienced criminal counsel, so his opinion is of note, but what he says is not the be-all and end-all. Repeatedly quoting him, as you do, as if he is some sort of authority on this particular case, is coming over as rather dull and tiresome.
It remains the position that Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, he only has to demonstrate that the convictions are unsafe. That is the position in all criminal appeals.
36 years on I don't think the review people are going to be interested in any may be.
Everything the CCRC looks at is a 'may be'. The CCRC is not a court and the Commissioners cannot deliver a verdict on the evidence in front of them. All they can do is decide whether the defence submissions warrant further inquiries and investigations and whether there is a real prospect of the convictions being overturned that may justify a referral to the Court of Appeal.
-
Well one judge seemed to think it was worth trying for an appeal with the amount of information that had been garnered. Joe Stone QC had said, after the discovery of a second silencer that " evidence could significantly undermine the prosecution case ".
-
If proved, it would just mean Bamber took the silencer off upstairs. Went downstairs & put it away. Then burned Nevill's back to check for life.
Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. :))
-
Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. :))
I don't follow.
The 2012 CCRC submission was that Nevill's back was burnt minus silencer.
This just means Bamber took the silencer off & put it away prior to burning Nevill's back.
-
Ah yes. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to make your scenario fit. It would also mean Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up. :))
Let's think about this:
My own view is that Jeremy would not have taken the rifle back downstairs at all. He had no reason to, and he was also unlikely to, because remember that in order to figure out how to stage Sheila's suicide, he had to take the silencer off the rifle and then place the rifle on Sheila's body. He would have just left the rifle on or by the body and put the silencer in the gun cupboard before leaving.
However, we can't rule out completely the idea that after placing the rifle on Sheila's body, he decided that he needed to check on Nevill by prodding him with the rifle, so returned downstairs with the rifle having the intention of putting it back on Sheila's body later. So let's assume that Jeremy returns the silencer to the gun cupboard, and in doing so, he also checks Nevill's body with the rifle.
The immediate problem Jeremy would have is that Nevill's body blocks the way to the den. How does he get to the gun cupboard if he can't get through the back door of the kitchen into the back corridor?
It must be that Jeremy moved the body either before or after leaving the silencer in the gun cupboard (and if before, that means he's moved it twice). But why would Jeremy block the back door of the kitchen with Nevill's body? One possibility is that Nevill was still alive and after killing Sheila, Jeremy heard Nevill downstairs or even when he was in Nevill's den, and that is when the struggle between them ensued in which Jeremy hits a dying Nevill with the rifle butt, etc.
The next problem is how Jeremy can go through the back corridor and across the floor of the den without leaving blood traces and blood prints (feet, hands, fingers) on the floor and walls and in the gun cupboard itself. He is carrying a silencer that has blood in it and he must have blood on his shoes/boots and clothing as he has presumably struggled with Nevill. This I can't explain. Did Jeremy remove all his clothing and tip-toe across?
-
Me & Bamber agree on two things -
An available silencer would be used in a silent massacre attempt.
There is a possibility Nevill's back burns were inflicted minus silencer.
---------
Bamber argues point 2 suggests the silencer was not used at all.
However the blood & paint evidence shows the silencer was used. So the silencer would have been taken off & put away prior to burning Nevill's back.
-
Remember----two silencers and two rifles were in use ! Work that out.
-
I don't follow.
It means that (in your fictional scenario) Jeremy knew all along that there was evidence to negate the silencer that could be presented to the jury and appellate court yet never told his trial counsel about it and sat in prison for 25 years before bringing it up.
I can only explain it to you. I cant understand it for you.
-
However, we can't rule out completely the idea that after placing the rifle on Sheila's body, he decided that he needed to check on Nevill by prodding him with the rifle
After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? ???
Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.
Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).
-
After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? ???
Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.
Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).
Sheila could not have lifted Nevill onto a coal scuttle. Why would she want to burn Nevill's back in the middle of a psychotic rage.
Bamber did it minus silencer to check for signs of life. Rather than re load again. He was pretty sure he would not have to re load. So put the silencer away.
-
After shooting him 8 times and beating him with the rifle? ???
Have you ever heard of a rational killer doing this? A rational killer would simply ensure the victim is dead by inflicting at least one headshot.
Whoever decided to spend time heating up the barrel and then prod Nevil was not in a reasonable state of mind (like Sheila).
I wasn't saying Jeremy did any of these things. I also wasn't saying he didn't. If you read my post through, I was considering the plausibility of it.
As to whether he would check for life after shooting Nevil eight times and beating him with a rifle, it depends. We don't know, do we. It depends on just how injured Nevill was as a result of the first assault and also in what order Jeremy, if guilty, did things.
He was shot eight times, but with a vermin rifle. In that situation, he could still be alive for some time, and the prosecution case is that he moved around the house after being shot at least four times, including shots to the head.
He was beat with the rifle, supposedly, but this could have happened later when Jeremy realised he was still alive and moving around. Or it could have been mixed up in the shooting, as the prosecution say. Or it may be that he wasn't beaten up and the injuries were sustained from falling or something else.
-
There was no rifle on top of Sheila, when the TFG last witnessed her crime scene. The Bible and her head were also in different positions..
Therefore Jeremy Bamber was prosecuted and convicted by using a police-constructed crime scene. The jury were not told this. If they had have been told this, I would imagine it would have led to an electric moment in British crown court history.
Ron Cook told the jury that he took the rifle off the body and moved her arm. If the TFG came into the witness box saying her head and bible were moved. It wouldn't make any difference to how things played out.
-
Ron Cook told the jury that he took the rifle off the body and moved her arm. If the TFG came into the witness box saying her head and bible were moved. It wouldn't make any difference to how things played out.
The TFG expressed the rifle and bible was at her side, a short distance away from her body. The TFG witnessed her crime scene first, and protested regarding it, when later shown images of the scene. So I think it's safe to say that a TFG officer could stand in the witness box and play havoc with the convictions.
-
The TFG expressed the rifle and bible was at her side, a short distance away from her body.
No, they didn't.
The TFG witnessed her crime scene first, and protested regarding it, when later shown images of the scene. So I think it's safe to say that a TFG officer could stand in the witness box and play havoc with the convictions.
None of that has any bearings on Julie Mugford or the sound moderator evidence, which is what the prosecution rested on.
-
We don't, because Jeremy's Campaign Team are not his lawyers.
That's the opinion of one barrister who has had no involvement whatsoever in the case. He is an experienced criminal counsel, so his opinion is of note, but what he says is not the be-all and end-all. Repeatedly quoting him, as you do, as if he is some sort of authority on this particular case, is coming over as rather dull and tiresome.
It remains the position that Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, he only has to demonstrate that the convictions are unsafe. That is the position in all criminal appeals.
Everything the CCRC looks at is a 'may be'. The CCRC is not a court and the Commissioners cannot deliver a verdict on the evidence in front of them. All they can do is decide whether the defence submissions warrant further inquiries and investigations and whether there is a real prospect of the convictions being overturned that may justify a referral to the Court of Appeal.
If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer. In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times. Unfortunately for Bamber I think between them, support group and lawyer, they have got it horribly wrong and the submission will go absolutely nowhere.
Please refer me to the text you are relying on when you say all Jeremy has to show is that the convictions are unsafe. I think you are quite wrong in this regard. If you care to look at the review commission's website you will find the criteria.
Who we are
We were set up to look at criminal cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. These cases are for those who have already lost their appeal.
If we do find something wrong with a conviction or sentence, we can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
To launch a fresh appeal, we need something important like strong new evidence or an argument that makes the case look different now.
Since this can be very hard to find many cases cannot be referred for appeal.
Significant new evidence or legal argument
This means it needs to be something not covered at your trial or appeal. For example, new evidence not known about at the time, or a new scientific development.
We cannot revisit things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.
Information known at your trial even if you believe that they made the wrong decision will not be looked at again.
We need to find something new that makes your case look very different now. Repeating the
same points to us from your trial or appeal will not be helpful.
What we need is something new and important which will make the appeal court think
differently about your case. You need to tell us anything new in your application form which you know is new and could make a difference in your case.
-
If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer.
And? They can say all sorts of things. They are not Jeremy's lawyers. They are not responsible for the submissions.
In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times.
I know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers. I know more about it than a lot of solicitors.
-
If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer. In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times. Unfortunately for Bamber I think between them, support group and lawyer, they have got it horribly wrong and the submission will go absolutely nowhere.
Please refer me to the text you are relying on when you say all Jeremy has to show is that the convictions are unsafe. I think you are quite wrong in this regard. If you care to look at the review commission's website you will find the criteria.
Who we are
We were set up to look at criminal cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. These cases are for those who have already lost their appeal.
If we do find something wrong with a conviction or sentence, we can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
To launch a fresh appeal, we need something important like strong new evidence or an argument that makes the case look different now.
Since this can be very hard to find many cases cannot be referred for appeal.
Significant new evidence or legal argument
This means it needs to be something not covered at your trial or appeal. For example, new evidence not known about at the time, or a new scientific development.
We cannot revisit things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.
Information known at your trial even if you believe that they made the wrong decision will not be looked at again.
We need to find something new that makes your case look very different now. Repeating the
same points to us from your trial or appeal will not be helpful.
What we need is something new and important which will make the appeal court think
differently about your case. You need to tell us anything new in your application form which you know is new and could make a difference in your case.
Why worry? Nobody is under any illusion that JB's team and supporters have always had on arm tied behind their back. The crown always wins because throughout its many agencies dealing with courts and law enforcement, it tacitly supports that police officers can withhold or destroy evidence without any real censure. The same for statement editing and a whole host of other practices. Given the long drawn out process of how the undestroyed evidence has been released, we are under no illusions as to how JB has used up his chances in a rigged system. I mean, it might have been handy to know some things in 85/86, for example, burns and ballistics evidence casting doubt on the use of a silencer in the killings. Unfortunately, we had to wait until 2012 for that. But like I say, why worry? If you think the crown has it sewn up that why stress about a JB appeal?
Take it easy - we're used to the other side winning by cheating. So if it happens again and JB dies in prison, then we'll just have to hope that posthumously, history will have shown us to be on the right side. Maybe we'll find out in 2054?
-
No, they didn't.
None of that has any bearings on Julie Mugford or the sound moderator evidence, which is what the prosecution rested on.
Yes... they did... to their superiors.. who quashed their concerns. Years later it was relayed to COLP by the same officers. COLP then did not publish it in their findings.
The prosecution allege that Jeremy Bamber staged his sister's crime scene. The jury were shown images of Sheila with a rifle atop her body and a Bible resting against her arm
-
Now you sound like me. I hate all that legal twaddle. What matters is what happened. If anyone uses legal twaddle in an attempt to prevent what actually happened from being discovered, explored, exposed etc, I can't help but feel my regard for them is diminished.
The law is the going currency in this situation. You can scream and shout about truth and justice all you want, but it boils down to whether you can convince the Commissioners and then three appeal judges.
However, you never know.
-
How refreshing to hear/read that at least someone lives in the real world, Roch. Well done for your posts.
-
How refreshing to hear/read that at least someone lives in the real world, Roch. Well done for your posts.
The thing is Lookout, if they have these so called 'tests' and other jumping through hoops measurements before considering a referral, isn't it a bit subjective as to what's classed as 'new' evidence or evidence sufficient enough to warrant that the original jury would have decided differently. Who in their right mind would believe that the original jury would convict, given everything that's come to light since 1986?. Rivlin would have been armed to the teeth and would have no excuse to not defend JB properly (instead of as a '2nd prosecutor' as he was recently labelled).
But somebody can just say, no - we do not believe it would have made any difference.
Instead, we should get the original jury members or their descendants and present them with the material and guide them through it and then ask them - 'do you believe this would have made a difference in you or your relative reaching your / their verdict'?
-
Yes... they did... to their superiors.. who quashed their concerns. Years later it was relayed to COLP by the same officers. COLP then did not publish it in their findings.
The prosecution allege that Jeremy Bamber staged his sister's crime scene. The jury were shown images of Sheila with a rifle atop her body and a Bible resting against her arm
On the other side of the ledger, some of the firearms officers - apparently - did express concerns about the conclusion of murder/suicide, and the meeting later that day between the firearms officers and the investigating team was partly to address those concerns.
A facet of this was that some of the firearms officers wondered why there was no silencer at the crime scene or near the body. I suppose a firearms officer would easily spot this because of the threads visible at the end of the rifle. However, that does make me all the more confused about what they were doing when other officers checked the gun cupboard. Why would you check a gun cupboard except to check for weapons, ammunition and paraphernalia? The police want us to buy into the idea that it was just a cursory check. They saw a few cardboard boxes, and ignored it, but is that a plausible account?
One school of thought says this is a firearms incident, so you would check what was in the boxes, and four police officers did look in the gun cupboard, and it seems rather unlikely they would not check the contents of the boxes.
The failure to do so created 'structural doubt' in the case because:
(i). it opened the way for an incriminating article to be entered into evidence under highly questionable circumstances; and,
(ii). anybody who chooses to believe Jeremy is guilty then has to put complete faith and trust in the relatives, who had a direct financial interest in Jeremy's conviction and openly admitted their dislike of him (even hatred, in the case of Robert Boutflour).
The other point-of-view is that Jeremy had already told them where he left the rifle and the magazine, which was loaded, and they could see more ammunition on the kitchen worktop. If they assumed a conclusion of murder/suicide, then why be concerned with what was in the gun cupboard? It is therefore understandable that the silencer was missed in the initial searches and only found later by relatives who were concerned with disposing of certain house contents, including firearms.
I think the answer to this crux is in the mundanities. We need to know what was exactly in there and ideally see a photograph.
-
And? They can say all sorts of things. They are not Jeremy's lawyers. They are not responsible for the submissions.
I know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers. I know more about it than a lot of solicitors.
As I said the supporters in the podcast claim they have put together the submissions and the lawyer effectively has rubber stamped it. They believe they are lucky in that the lawyer will work with them which has not been the case in the past with previous lawyers. They believe they understand the issues and it works well. The proof of the pudding will be if the review commission refers to the appeal court and I heard absolutely nothing during the entire podcast that gave me any confidence whatsoever.
If you know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers then I am surprised you made the statment that Jeremy simply needs to show his conviction is unsafe.
-
If you know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers then I am surprised you made the statment that Jeremy simply needs to show his conviction is unsafe.
That is literally what he needs to do. There should be no surprise about it.
-
Why worry? Nobody is under any illusion that JB's team and supporters have always had on arm tied behind their back. The crown always wins because throughout its many agencies dealing with courts and law enforcement, it tacitly supports that police officers can withhold or destroy evidence without any real censure. The same for statement editing and a whole host of other practices. Given the long drawn out process of how the undestroyed evidence has been released, we are under no illusions as to how JB has used up his chances in a rigged system. I mean, it might have been handy to know some things in 85/86, for example, burns and ballistics evidence casting doubt on the use of a silencer in the killings. Unfortunately, we had to wait until 2012 for that. But like I say, why worry? If you think the crown has it sewn up that why stress about a JB appeal?
Take it easy - we're used to the other side winning by cheating. So if it happens again and JB dies in prison, then we'll just have to hope that posthumously, history will have shown us to be on the right side. Maybe we'll find out in 2054?
Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life :)
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
-
That is literally what he needs to do. There should be no surprise about it.
I think CC has an awareness that 'unsafe' is subjective. In other words, should the CCRC set an extremely high bar as to what constitutes 'unsafe', then anything that falls short of that bar could be dismissed. However, a reason lay person with common sense may well judge the very same evidence as rendering the convictions unsafe.
-
That is literally what he needs to do. There should be no surprise about it.
Yes and it requires strong new evidence or argument underpinning it.
For example no matter what comes to light about the windows its already redundant as the judge told the jury "cannot affect the outcome of the case".
Some here will be up in arms about the judge's comment, and probably the mere fact I have recited it, but this is the reality of the situation.
The support people claim to have included this in the submission, presumably rubber stamped by the lawyer, but its a complete waste of time.
-
Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life :)
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
I completely agree that the pigeonholing is irritating and time-wasting, and also - in my opinion - suggests a poor understanding of the case because nobody (other than possibly, Jeremy) knows what occurred in the farmhouse that night. I also agree that the Forum is for debating the case, not goading and personal attacks.
Some of us are trying to debate the case properly, but there are people who are allowed to post here who have 'issues', as you can quickly see, and a lot of time is wasted dealing with them. Their intention is to keep the Forum small and obscure by putting people off joining and posting. It is humanly difficult, I am sure you appreciate, to post here constructively and ignore the disruptive behaviour and inevitably it affects the culture of the Forum and we all suffer.
On the point you are making, as you know, the test for criminal appeals is that the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. That is a high bar, in all cases, simply because the appellant has usually been convicted by a jury. I agree that, realistically, the more appeals submitted and rejected, the harder it becomes to overturn a conviction, simply because evidence is considered and seen to be rejected, but the test remains the same. Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, only that the convictions cannot be sustained.
Whether what is required is a 'slam dunk' (whatever that means - it's colloquial language) or something more technical, I cannot say. Nobody can say. The Campaign Team serve an entirely different function to the lawyers and it is the lawyers who craft and make the submissions, not the campaigners and activists. I take the view that anything the Campaign Team say needs to be taken with a proverbial pinch of salt, but that is no commentary on the overall strength or weakness of Jeremy's appeal.
We just don't know. We have to wait.
Yes and it requires strong new evidence or argument underpinning it.
For example no matter what comes to light about the windows its already redundant as the judge told the jury "cannot affect the outcome of the case".
Some here will be up in arms about the judge's comment, and probably the mere fact I have recited it, but this is the reality of the situation.
The support people claim to have included this in the submission, presumably rubber stamped by the lawyer, but its a complete waste of time.
We don't know. We have to wait. The Commissioners and the appeal judges have latitude. A lawyer once reminded me, when I was in the pit of hell, that only a fool would predict the outcome of litigation. He was right. People will say this and that, and something else happens. The law is not black and white, or not as black and white as it appears.
-
Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life :)
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
I am merely responding to how you come across. To me, you appear to come across as somebody who would relish the probability that an impossibly high bar would be set, thereby ensuring failure for the defence. We have seen this kind of posting before, at similar times in JB's legal due process. Sorry, but you can only speak as you find.
-
I think CC has an awareness that 'unsafe' is subjective. In other words, should the CCRC set an extremely high bar as to what constitutes 'unsafe', then anything that falls short of that bar could be dismissed. However, a reason lay person with common sense may well judge the very same evidence as rendering the convictions unsafe.
Have you read the website?
Its taken as a given that everything that could have been adjudicated on at trial was. That's really the time to throw the kitchen sink at it. Once a jury reaches a verdict it is seen as sacrosanct and the courts are reluctant to interfere. Obviously the system exists to right wrongful convictions. But frankly having a bunch of amateur slueths and wannabe lawyers running the show is not helpful to Bamber.
-
The thing is Lookout, if they have these so called 'tests' and other jumping through hoops measurements before considering a referral, isn't it a bit subjective as to what's classed as 'new' evidence or evidence sufficient enough to warrant that the original jury would have decided differently. Who in their right mind would believe that the original jury would convict, given everything that's come to light since 1986?. Rivlin would have been armed to the teeth and would have no excuse to not defend JB properly (instead of as a '2nd prosecutor' as he was recently labelled).
But somebody can just say, no - we do not believe it would have made any difference.
Instead, we should get the original jury members or their descendants and present them with the material and guide them through it and then ask them - 'do you believe this would have made a difference in you or your relative reaching your / their verdict'?
With all the information we now have you would only had to convince just one more jury member to change the verdict, how anyone can just say "no - we do not believe it would have made any difference" is beyond me!
-
I think CC has an awareness that 'unsafe' is subjective. In other words, should the CCRC set an extremely high bar as to what constitutes 'unsafe', then anything that falls short of that bar could be dismissed. However, a reason lay person with common sense may well judge the very same evidence as rendering the convictions unsafe.
Of course, there is an element of subjectivity because it's a decision based on facts and their interpretation and on an overall view of what is right; but there you contradict yourself a bit. If it's subjective, then we don't know. I'd also rather see the evidence for myself before coming to any conclusion about whether what is claimed is crankish.
-
I am merely responding to how you come across. To me, you appear to come across as somebody who would relish the probability that an impossibly high bar would be set, thereby ensuring failure for the defence. We have seen this kind of posting before, at similar times in JB's legal due process. Sorry, but you can only speak as you find.
I am simply being realistic about Bamber's prospects based on a podcast put out by his supporters. I believe I have given clear examples as to why the submission will fail.
-
We know for sure convictions are overturned. Over the years there have been a number of high profile acquitals so the system does work when presented with the right material.
-
Have you read the website?
Its taken as a given that everything that could have been adjudicated on at trial was. That's really the time to throw the kitchen sink at it. Once a jury reaches a verdict it is seen as sacrosanct and the courts are reluctant to interfere. Obviously the system exists to right wrongful convictions. But frankly having a bunch of amateur slueths and wannabe lawyers running the show is not helpful to Bamber.
Clearly, with a narrative controlled by a police force hell bent on non-disclosure; and a defence barrister unwilling to probe where he should have, not everything was adjudicated at trial. Which is why we are still here debating the case 35 years later. If it takes 35 years to achieve 70% disclosure, how could the kitchen sink been thrown at it in October 1986?
If the system set up to right wrongful convictions operated in a fit for purpose manner, then perhaps those amateur sleuths and wannabes (who are volunteers btw) could have moved on to something else. Don't get me wrong, I don't support everything they do or interpret. Far from it.
-
Let’s face it the Simon Hall case must have caused serious damage to genuine miscarriage of justice cases
-
I completely agree that the pigeonholing is irritating and time-wasting, and also - in my opinion - suggests a poor understanding of the case because nobody (other than possibly, Jeremy) knows what occurred in the farmhouse that night. I also agree that the Forum is for debating the case, not goading and personal attacks.
Some of us are trying to debate the case properly, but there are people who are allowed to post here who have 'issues', as you can quickly see, and a lot of time is wasted dealing with them. Their intention is to keep the Forum small and obscure by putting people off joining and posting. It is humanly difficult, I am sure you appreciate, to post here constructively and ignore the disruptive behaviour and inevitably it affects the culture of the Forum and we all suffer.
If that is a criticism aimed at me, I think it's a bit harsh. Maybe not totally underserved but certainly excessive.
-
Clearly, with a narrative controlled by a police force hell bent on non-disclosure; and a defence barrister unwilling to probe where he should have, not everything was adjudicated at trial. Which is why we are still here debating the case 35 years later. If it takes 35 years to achieve 70% disclosure, how could the kitchen sink been thrown at it in October 1986?
If the system set up to right wrongful convictions operated in a fit for purpose manner, then perhaps those amateur sleuths and wannabes (who are volunteers btw) could have moved on to something else. Don't get me wrong, I don't support everything they do or interpret. Far from it.
What do you believe has been disclosed since trial that might have affected the outcome?
-
What do you believe has been disclosed since trial that might have affected the outcome?
Let's reverse that. Why don't you tell us what has been disclosed since trial that wouldn't have affected the outcome at trial.
-
And btw, I don't agree with you about the windows. When you say the judge made the remark regarding how he did or how did not get or out... At which point in the trial was this remark made?
-
Let's reverse that. Why don't you tell us what has been disclosed since trial that wouldn't have affected the outcome at trial.
Nothing up until now hence Bamber is still behind bars.
-
And btw, I don't agree with you about the windows. When you say the judge made the remark regarding how he did or how did not get or out... At which point in the trial was this remark made?
Page 10E.
Point 286 of 2001 appeal document.
-
Nothing up until now hence Bamber is still behind bars.
This facile answer simply proves to me that I was right to consider your appearance on here with a pinch of salt.
-
Page 10E.
Point 286 of 2001 appeal document.
This is what you posted before..
Yes and it requires strong new evidence or argument underpinning it.
For example no matter what comes to light about the windows its already redundant as the judge told the jury "cannot affect the outcome of the case".
Some here will be up in arms about the judge's comment, and probably the mere fact I have recited it, but this is the reality of the situation.
So I asked, at which point in the trial did the judge make the remark.
-
This facile answer simply proves to me that I was right to consider your appearance on here with a pinch of salt.
What words would you like me to use to communicate a simple fact?
-
This is what you posted before..
So I asked, at which point in the trial did the judge make the remark.
I've told you to refer to Page E of the trial which is contained in the 2001 appeal document at point 286.
-
What words would you like me to use to communicate a simple fact?
I'm not interested tbh. I can't take you seriously. I suggest you carry on debating with whoever else will indulge you.
-
I've told you to refer to Page E of the trial which is contained in the 2001 appeal document at point 286.
The point I was getting at was whether it was during the summing up. If Rivlin was not privy to any information regarding the windows; and that lack of information was down to some form of non-disclosure, then by default Rivlin was hampered from pursuing the windows issue at trial to that issue's fullest extent. Such arguments would have occurred prior to the summing up.
So for example, Miller told Robert Boutflour that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows. Whether or not that was true or bullshit on the part of Miller, Rivlin would have been able to put Miller on the spot by asking for further clarification of what he meant regarding this remark. Miller then either has to refute the remark or admit to bullshitting Robert Boutflour, which in itself calls in to question Miller's honesty per se. All of this (and any other windows evidence that has come to light) would have played out before the summing up, as you so succinctly put it, while the kitchen sink was being thrown.
-
But frankly having a bunch of amateur slueths and wannabe lawyers running the show is not helpful to Bamber.
What absolutely insulting and slanderous nonsense; at least 3 of the people assisting the campaign are former police detectives. There is far more experienced expertise in place working on the appeal process than your limited knowledge of the case suggests.
-
Thankyou for that Bill.
-
Taken from the red
Does anyone know why David James Smith has been promoted as a ‘Sunday times journalist’ by the Mindhouse TV production and not as a journalist and ex criminal cases review commissioner (CCRC) ?
If journalist David James Smith were still a CCRC commissioner would he be ‘strongly arguing for referral’ of Bamber’s 5 murder convictions?
March 2021
’A former commissioner, David James Smith told Newsnight that if he was still with the CCRC he would be ‘strongly arguing’ for referral. ‘’When you break it down each of the elements that led to the conviction has a weakness about them,’ he said.
Did he put himself forward to appear on the Mindhouse TV production or did they approach him?
-
" I had no reason to disbelieve him " was what David James Smith had said on meeting JB in prison prior to the docu.
-
" I had no reason to disbelieve him " was what David James Smith had said on meeting JB in prison prior to the docu.
I very much doubt Smith would support JB. If he did, we would know about it.
-
I very much doubt Smith would support JB. If he did, we would know about it.
Very strange when he said he had no reason to disbelieve him ???
-
If that is a criticism aimed at me, I think it's a bit harsh. Maybe not totally underserved but certainly excessive.
It wasn't aimed at you really. If everybody on the Forum was as civil as you are, there'd be no problems and the Forum would be busier.
-
I'm civil most of the time except when Mad-A is about. He'll be pleased to know that he gets on me wick.
-
It wasn't aimed at you really. If everybody on the Forum was as civil as you are, there'd be no problems and the Forum would be busier.
Right, OK. Just adjusting my halo :))
-
The point I was getting at was whether it was during the summing up. If Rivlin was not privy to any information regarding the windows; and that lack of information was down to some form of non-disclosure, then by default Rivlin was hampered from pursuing the windows issue at trial to that issue's fullest extent. Such arguments would have occurred prior to the summing up.
So for example, Miller told Robert Boutflour that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows. Whether or not that was true or bullshit on the part of Miller, Rivlin would have been able to put Miller on the spot by asking for further clarification of what he meant regarding this remark. Miller then either has to refute the remark or admit to bullshitting Robert Boutflour, which in itself calls in to question Miller's honesty per se. All of this (and any other windows evidence that has come to light) would have played out before the summing up, as you so succinctly put it, while the kitchen sink was being thrown.
May I suggest you read the window section within the 2001 appeal hearing and form your own opinion (Ground 3, 261 -288). All I am saying, whether the surrounding facts are correct or not, is that the jury was told by the judge ..."how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case".
The fact his campaign group have included the windows in the submission shows they are utterly clueless. Firstly, the judge gave a clear direction to the jury. Secondly, the judge's summing up was the subject of the first appeal. Thirdly, the lawyers had a go at the windows for the 2001 appeal and the appeal court judges simply batted it away based on the judge's direction. Time to move on folks the windows are going nowhere. Supporters can rant and rave over what they consider to be the unfairness of it all (and verbally abuse me on the basis that I've even mentioned it) but I am afraid this is the system and process.
The criteria for a successful appeal is NEW evidence or argument not known about at trial ie something that had the jury heard about may have brought about a different verdict. Whatever is presented about the windows will not meet the criteria as the judge gave a clear direction as above.
-
What absolutely insulting and slanderous nonsense; at least 3 of the people assisting the campaign are former police detectives. There is far more experienced expertise in place working on the appeal process than your limited knowledge of the case suggests.
At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf. If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place. It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others. Quite ironic given your statement above!
The entire website is a paradise for cranks and conspiracy theorists.
-
May I suggest you read the window section within the 2001 appeal hearing and form your own opinion (Ground 3, 261 -288). All I am saying, whether the surrounding facts are correct or not, is that the jury was told by the judge ..."how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case".
The fact his campaign group have included the windows in the submission shows they are utterly clueless. Firstly, the judge gave a clear direction to the jury. Secondly, the judge's summing up was the subject of the first appeal. Thirdly, the lawyers had a go at the windows for the 2001 appeal and the appeal court judges simply batted it away based on the judge's direction. Time to move on folks the windows are going nowhere. Supporters can rant and rave over what they consider to be the unfairness of it all (and verbally abuse me on the basis that I've even mentioned it) but I am afraid this is the system and process.
The criteria for a successful appeal is NEW evidence or argument not known about at trial ie something that had the jury heard about may have brought about a different verdict. Whatever is presented about the windows will not meet the criteria as the judge gave a clear direction as above.
When you show you have the intelligence to be a barrister you might be taken seriously regarding the application to the CCRC. As QC has pointed out to you clearly we have no idea of exactly what is in the submissions. If you can’t grasp that you have a serious problems. Nobody on here is ranting and raving as you have suggested regarding forum members. Personally I find your posting very similar to Adams and can’t take you seriously.
Patience is a virtue
-
At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf. If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place. It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others. Quite ironic given your statement above!
The entire website is a paradise for cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Here you go ranting and raving again.
You really need to calm down over a situation you claim your not interested in either way
-
At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf. If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place. It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others. Quite ironic given your statement above!
The entire website is a paradise for cranks and conspiracy theorists.
The more reasonable JB supporters here on this forum are all critical of the campaign team and believe it does him more harm than good.
-
At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf. If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place. It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others. Quite ironic given your statement above!
What is ironic about a number of former police officers recognizing that Bamber is innocent? Some cops are honest, some are bent, quite a few are rapists and sex predators. The police mentioned in the liars lobby are evidently liars.
You rant and mouth off for the sake of saying something vacuous. Grow up.
-
The more reasonable JB supporters here on this forum are all critical of the campaign team and believe it does him more harm than good.
Who are these people? Did Bamber appoint them or are they self-appointed? What motivates them?
Have you listened to the podcast?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M
Some here keep saying no one knows what's in the submissions but they tell us in the podcast. According to the female the lawyers allowed them carte blanche on the basis they understand the issues! It seems the lawyer simply rubber stamped it.
At the end of the podcast the listener is referred to a website
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
I have honestly never heard so much nonsense in my life.
Around 1.9% of submissions to the review commission are overturned by the appeal courts and I haven't heard or seen anything that will prevent it falling into the 98.1% category.
Why didn't the lawyers or this support group feature in the recent doc?
-
What is ironic about a number of former police officers recognizing that Bamber is innocent? Some cops are honest, some are bent, quite a few are rapists and sex predators. The police mentioned in the liars lobby are evidently liars.
You rant and mouth off for the sake of saying something vacuous. Grow up.
The liars lobby doesn't even stop at police officers. It includes forensic scientists, Bamber's relatives and former girlfriend, defence QC at trial, even Douglas Hurd. :o ;D
-
Right, OK. Just adjusting my halo :))
Der Feind deines Feindes ist auch nicht immer dein Feind.
-
Who are these people? Did Bamber appoint them or are they self-appointed? What motivates them?
Have you listened to the podcast?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M
Some here keep saying no one knows what's in the submissions but they tell us in the podcast. According to the female the lawyers allowed them carte blanche on the basis they understand the issues! It seems the lawyer simply rubber stamped it.
At the end of the podcast the listener is referred to a website
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
I have honestly never heard so much nonsense in my life.
Around 1.9% of submissions to the review commission are overturned by the appeal courts and I haven't heard or seen anything that will prevent it falling into the 98.1% category.
Why didn't the lawyers or this support group feature in the recent doc?
I have only listened to five minutes of one podcast and it was enough nonsense for me I stopped listening.
I guess they never appeared in the recent documentary because the makers were not prepared to entertain their outlandish theories.
-
The liars lobby doesn't even stop at police officers. It includes forensic scientists, Bamber's relatives and former girlfriend, defence QC at trial, even Douglas Hurd. :o ;D
Yes, forensic scientists too. Remember the Ian Tomlinson case ? There remains to be still a number of bad apples in every profession and one bad apple is too many !
As for the relatives, prior to this case Peter Eaton committed fraud concerning farm machinery etc. and Barbara Wilson reported the matter to the police. Any charges for this crime were dropped and the case swept under the carpet to make way for Jeremy's trial.
-
Then you have DS Jones tucking a pair of shoes/ slip-ons under his arm, that he'd taken from WHF during his investigation and who promptly turned to Ann Eaton and said, " you didn't see that ". What's that about if police are supposed to be honest ?
Those shoes had belonged to Sheila and may have been worn on the night of the murders, therefore would have had blood on/in them.
-
There are dozens of anomalies if you look for them !
-
I have only listened to five minutes of one podcast and it was enough nonsense for me I stopped listening.
I guess they never appeared in the recent documentary because the makers were not prepared to entertain their outlandish theories.
You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off. Surely you can see through them and understand that?
-
You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off. Surely you can see through them and understand that?
100%
-
You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off. Surely you can see through them and understand that?
I had a feeling straightaway and wasn't comfortable. My reason for the " non-welcome " initially.
Doesn't take long, does it ?
My Motto----Trust no-one !
-
May I suggest you read the window section within the 2001 appeal hearing and form your own opinion (Ground 3, 261 -288). All I am saying, whether the surrounding facts are correct or not, is that the jury was told by the judge ..."how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case".
The fact his campaign group have included the windows in the submission shows they are utterly clueless. Firstly, the judge gave a clear direction to the jury. Secondly, the judge's summing up was the subject of the first appeal. Thirdly, the lawyers had a go at the windows for the 2001 appeal and the appeal court judges simply batted it away based on the judge's direction. Time to move on folks the windows are going nowhere. Supporters can rant and rave over what they consider to be the unfairness of it all (and verbally abuse me on the basis that I've even mentioned it) but I am afraid this is the system and process.
The criteria for a successful appeal is NEW evidence or argument not known about at trial ie something that had the jury heard about may have brought about a different verdict. Whatever is presented about the windows will not meet the criteria as the judge gave a clear direction as above.
It’s not about ranting and raving. It’s about recognising that there is windows related evidence that could not be argued P-R-I-O-R to the judge’s summing up. In other words, the judge’s summing up was made without having the benefit the of said evidence being argued in the first place. You can’t have it all ways - either new evidence is evidence that wasn’t heard at trial because it has only come to light since trial - OR - no new evidence matters at all, IF it clashes with the judge’s summing up. Another way of putting it is, if the judge’a summing up can be shown to be flawed, then why can’t that flawed summing up be challenged? Show some gumption please.
-
I don't direct this at anybody in particular, but personally I would say we should be careful before accusing somebody of being a troll.
Trolling in a narrow sense is intentional disruption of a Forum, and I prefer that definition as it avoids bringing into it things that aren't trolling. If somebody disagrees with you, that does not make him or her a troll.
Commenting and posting here should be a pleasant experience for all. None of us should have to face goading and provocation, demands that we produce links to posts from months ago or be called liars, over-the-top moral condemnation of our opinions, and constant put-downs, badgering and harassment.
On the point in hand, as far as I am concerned, anything the Campaign Team say should be taken with a pinch of salt, simply because they are the Campaign Team and so will present everything in a slanted way - and occasionally, what they have said about the case or Jeremy has been ridiculously slanted.
It does sound like the Campaign Team are re-hashing old points, but with claims of new evidence. Since they are claiming there is new evidence, I assume the lawyers have passed this material, or summaries of it, on to the CCRC, so I am deferring judgement about this application to the CCRC until we know more about what the lawyers have submitted and what the arguments are. If it does turn out that the 2021 CCRC application is flawed, then we are back where we started. We still don't know what happened at the farmhouse that night - and unless Jeremy confesses, or startling new evidence arises that factually exonerates him, we never will.
Regardless of a rejection by the CCRC, or possibly, the Court of Appeal, I think we will always be left with the more limited and technical question of whether the convictions are safe and satisfactory, rather than the more engaging question of factual culpability and guilt or innocence.
Even if Jeremy is one day freed as a legally-innocent man, I think there will always be a huge question mark over him.
-
You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off. Surely you can see through them and understand that?
There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.
-
There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.
Well that's one way of putting it, but You're right David.
-
There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.
How much of the legal team's work been has pro bono up to now? I assume obviously that the barrister etc will have been paid for court appearances.
-
Well that's one way of putting it, but You're right David.
Arlidge QC being paid by the CPS to build the case against Jeremy is one example. ;D
-
Arlidge QC being paid by the CPS to build the case against Jeremy is one example. ;D
The whole blooming case was about £££££££££££'s
-
I don't direct this at anybody in particular, but personally I would say we should be careful before accusing somebody of being a troll.
Trolling in a narrow sense is intentional disruption of a Forum, and I prefer that definition as it avoids bringing into it things that aren't trolling. If somebody disagrees with you, that does not make him or her a troll.
Commenting and posting here should be a pleasant experience for all. None of us should have to face goading and provocation, demands that we produce links to posts from months ago or be called liars, over-the-top moral condemnation of our opinions, and constant put-downs, badgering and harassment.
On the point in hand, as far as I am concerned, anything the Campaign Team say should be taken with a pinch of salt, simply because they are the Campaign Team and so will present everything in a slanted way - and occasionally, what they have said about the case or Jeremy has been ridiculously slanted.
It does sound like the Campaign Team are re-hashing old points, but with claims of new evidence. Since they are claiming there is new evidence, I assume the lawyers have passed this material, or summaries of it, on to the CCRC, so I am deferring judgement about this application to the CCRC until we know more about what the lawyers have submitted and what the arguments are. If it does turn out that the 2021 CCRC application is flawed, then we are back where we started. We still don't know what happened at the farmhouse that night - and unless Jeremy confesses, or startling new evidence arises that factually exonerates him, we never will.
Regardless of a rejection by the CCRC, or possibly, the Court of Appeal, I think we will always be left with the more limited and technical question of whether the convictions are safe and satisfactory, rather than the more engaging question of factual culpability and guilt or innocence.
Even if Jeremy is one day freed as a legally-innocent man, I think there will always be a huge question mark over him.
If slam dunk evidence has been destroyed or ferreted away somewhere, then it's arguably not an option for the CT or legal team to produce it to the CCRC. I suggest if anyone wants such evidence to be prised from the grip of EP or whichever agency has custody, instead of vaunting it over supporters, they could apply pressure by campaigning to obtain its release. It's not like there isn't a list of stuff missing. What's missing was made public several years ago in a handy booklet. I don't think this person is here to disagree, I just think that they're here on a wind up. They could of course be a non-conspirational supporter (the type who doesn't like to criticise the authorities in this case). I have somebody in mind as to who that might be. In fact, I would be OK with that. Rather that, than a wind up merchant.
-
It's been a familiar pattern for years when there's been a hint of an appeal. Posters come onboard and do their worst.
-
It’s not about ranting and raving. It’s about recognising that there is windows related evidence that could not be argued P-R-I-O-R to the judge’s summing up. In other words, the judge’s summing up was made without having the benefit the of said evidence being argued in the first place. You can’t have it all ways - either new evidence is evidence that wasn’t heard at trial because it has only come to light since trial - OR - no new evidence matters at all, IF it clashes with the judge’s summing up. Another way of putting it is, if the judge’a summing up can be shown to be flawed, then why can’t that flawed summing up be challenged? Show some gumption please.
Have you actually read the parts of the appeal document I referred you to? Of course the window evidence went before the court. And you tell me to show some gumption.
-
Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life :)
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
Hear, hear!
-
It's been a familiar pattern for years when there's been a hint of an appeal. Posters come onboard and do their worst.
I have been a member here for almost 19 months long before I was even aware of Bamber's March 2021 submission.
-
Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life :)
I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger. I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.
I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile. If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.
I agree 100%. But as you will appreciate, there is a way of going about it, and one or two people on here have a way of going about it that puts people off, and over the years, people have voted with their feet and stopped posting. With the best will in the world, normal people don't want to come on a Forum and converse with unpleasant or maladjusted people who have mental problems. There are other things to be doing.
You haven't told us really what your view is on the case. If it turns out you disagree with me, there will be points when the discussions between us are heated and other points when it's impeccably civil, but as long as you don't insult me, I won't be insulting you or making it personal or anything like that. I haven't called you a troll, for one thing.
I agree that there needs to be more adult and civil behaviour all round and some people on here need to take a good hard look at themselves. However, one or two are here with an agenda and are close to the case. Assuming you are genuine, I'm sure you have already guessed who those one or two people are.
-
I agree 100%. But as you will appreciate, there is a way of going about it, and one or two people on here have a way of going about it that puts people off, and over the years, people have voted with their feet and stopped posting. With the best will in the world, normal people don't want to come on a Forum and read unpleasant things. There are other things to be doing.
You haven't told us really what your view is on the case. If it turns out you disagree with me, there will be points when the discussions between us are heated and other points when it's impeccably civil, but as long as you don't insult me, I won't be insulting you or making it personal or anything like that. I haven't called you a troll, for one thing.
I agree that there needs to be more adult and civil behaviour all round and some people on here need to take a good hard look at themselves. However, one or two are here with an agenda and are close to the case. Assuming genuine, I'm sure you have already guessed who those one or two people are.
I haven't insulted anyone here. And no you haven't referred to me as a troll. I have reported those who have and hope the moderator will take action.
-
I have been a member here for almost 19 months long before I was even aware of Bamber's March 2021 submission.
I'm still right in what I say though.
-
I haven't insulted anyone here. And no you haven't referred to me as a troll. I have reported those who have and hope the moderator will take action.
To be abundantly clear, I wasn't saying you have insulted anybody - it was more general comment, but agreeing with your sentiments.
-
Anyway----on with the motley.
-
Have you actually read the parts of the appeal document I referred you to? Of course the window evidence went before the court. And you tell me to show some gumption.
But not the parts that have only come to light in recent years. For example, the jury didn't see Miller in the box being questioned about the sophisticated equipment that had been used and which didn't detect any tampering with windows. Such questioning and the responses from Miller would not only have informed the jury, but also have informed the judge's summing up.
BTW if you're so bothered about the slam dunk piece of evidence being presented to the CCRC, then instead of crowing about its absence, why not campaign for its disclosure. The 'amateurs' produced a handy booklet about what's missing.
-
I'm still right in what I say though.
Right about what?
-
But not the parts that have only come to light in recent years. For example, the jury didn't see Miller in the box being questioned about the sophisticated equipment that had been used and which didn't detect any tampering with windows. Such questioning and the responses from Miller would not only have informed the jury, but also have informed the judge's summing up.
BTW if you're so bothered about the slam dunk piece of evidence being presented to the CCRC, then instead of crowing about its absence, why not campaign for its disclosure. The 'amateurs' produced a handy booklet about what's missing.
What parts of the appeal doc/windows do you not understand?
-
What parts of the appeal doc/windows do you not understand?
An obsession with reference to the 2002 appeal (not 2001 btw) will not get you very far on here.
-
Right about what?
About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.
-
An obsession with reference to the 2002 appeal (not 2001 btw) will not get you very far on here.
And the windows period will get Bamber nowhere.
-
About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.
But Lookout, why does that matter? This is a Forum for debating the case. People are entitled to their opinions. I don't see what is to be gained by second-guessing people's motives. The poster has made some harsh remarks about the Campaign Team, but the Campaign Team are in the public eye and the remarks were not directed to any specific individual.
I honestly don't understand the direction this thread has gone off on. It's really weird. It's like on the other thread, all I have done is commented on the case. I haven't insulted anybody, but I get Steve coming on making this over-the-top attack on me.
Is something funny being put in the water?
-
Yes---me whisky.
-
About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.
Oh PLEEEEze do me a favour...do you honestly think a poster on an internet forum under the guise of Cambridgecutie is capable of influencing the review commission or appeal judges :o ;D
Joe Stone apparently said the people to look into the case are the review commission. This was probably with regard to full disclosure since this was the reason the case fell on his desk?
In any event where have I put the mockers on anything? I am just pointing out the obvious.
-
And I'm here in opposition to your " obvious ", just so as you know.
-
And the windows period will get Bamber nowhere.
I never said it would. Some of us are interested in what actually took place.
If you're so arsed about knock out evidence, then why not share with us what you have in mind that would fit such criteria.
-
But Lookout, why does that matter? This is a Forum for debating the case. People are entitled to their opinions. I don't see what is to be gained by second-guessing people's motives. The poster has made some harsh remarks about the Campaign Team, but the Campaign Team are in the public eye and the remarks were not directed to any specific individual.
I honestly don't understand the direction this thread has gone off on. It's really weird. It's like on the other thread, all I have done is commented on the case. I haven't insulted anybody, but I get Steve coming on making this over-the-top attack on me.
Is something funny being put in the water?
Nobody's put anything funny in the water. I'm just not sure we have a genuine case debater on our hands. Think Adam and 2002 Appeal, and maybe you'd be closer.
-
Yes---me whisky.
The drink would certainly explain the behaviour of one or two on here.
-
And I'm here in opposition to your " obvious ", just so as you know.
You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.
-
You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.
Nobody has disputed that with you, so I'm not sure why you're so attached to telling us. Why not instead, impart your wisdom on what would constitute a winning submission?
-
Nobody's put anything funny in the water. I'm just not sure we have a genuine case debater on our hands. Think Adam and 2002 Appeal, and maybe you'd be closer.
You will be pleased to know I have no intention of hanging around. I had a look through the documents after watching the ITV prog back in 2020 and I had some spare time during lockdown. Just made a few posts after the Sky doc and listening to the podcast.
I might revisit when the review commission reaches the inevitable.
-
You will be pleased to know I have no intention of hanging around. I had a look through the documents after watching the ITV prog back in 2020 and I had some spare time during lockdown. Just made a few posts after the Sky doc and listening to the podcast.
I might revisit when the review commission reaches the inevitable.
How predictable. Let me translate that. You're an expert in the 2002 appeal. You're an expert in slating the Campaign Team and the recent submissions. You know fuck all about the case outside of those two distinctions. You'll be back to gloat when the submissions are rejected, even though most people on here a braced for failure anyway. Well done you.
-
But not the parts that have only come to light in recent years. For example, the jury didn't see Miller in the box being questioned about the sophisticated equipment that had been used and which didn't detect any tampering with windows. Such questioning and the responses from Miller would not only have informed the jury, but also have informed the judge's summing up.
BTW if you're so bothered about the slam dunk piece of evidence being presented to the CCRC, then instead of crowing about its absence, why not campaign for its disclosure. The 'amateurs' produced a handy booklet about what's missing.
Hear, hear
-
You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.
You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment
You just don’t know so your comments are a complete waste of space
It’s like the Simon Hall case all over again
-
You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment
It's not that her comment is ridiculous, it's that she treats members as if we don't already know there's a potentially high risk of failure.
Then she will come back and crow, if such failure occurs, as if to say 'see.. I told you so'.
-
How predictable. Let me translate that. You're an expert in the 2002 appeal. You're an expert in slating the Campaign Team and the recent submissions. You know fuck all about the case outside of those two distinctions. You'll be back to gloat when the submissions are rejected, even though most people on here a braced for failure anyway. Well done you.
You're obviously not an expert on Priti Patel. Firstly she is very right wing; prior to joining the cabinet, where she will now have to toe the party line, she was an advocate for the death penalty. Secondly, she is on record as being supportive of Bamber's relatives who she considers to be the victims in all of this.
I have reported your post for the use of foul language and that you continue to make it personal.
-
You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment
You just don’t know so your comments are a complete waste of space
It’s like the Simon Hall case all over again
What similarities exist between the cases of Hall and Bamber?
I have reported your post as you continue to make it personal.
-
You're obviously not an expert on Priti Patel. Firstly she is very right wing; prior to joining the cabinet, where she will now have to toe the party line, she was an advocate for the death penalty. Secondly, she is on record as being supportive of Bamber's relatives who she considers to be the victims in all of this.
I have reported your post for the use of foul language and that you continue to make it personal.
I'm well aware of Priti Patel. I'm not sure why you have referred to her. People probably campaign that Nigel Farage should show more empathy towards people in dinghies. That doesn't mean he will. But it also doesn't mean that such people shouldn't campaign to that affect.
If you knew anything about the submissions, you would know that the topic of PP's interference is included within them.
-
It's not that her comment is ridiculous, it's that she treats members as if we don't already know there's a potentially high risk of failure.
Then she will come back and crow, if such failure occurs, as if to say 'see.. I told you so'.
Anyone who is capable of reading material objectively will appreciate Bamber's support group are not fit for purpose however well intentioned they might be.
What happens after the submission is thrown out? These people will still persist in the same vein without pausing to think 'ok maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and rethink our entire strategy'. Instead they will accuse the review commission of being corrupt. They will no doubt seek a judicial review and when that fails they will accuse the judges of being corrupt. And perhaps unsurprisingly they will all end up in 'Liars Lobby'! Worse still they will attempt to use the same material again and again and again but just tweak it slightly to the extent the review commission will be obliged to review it again. If Bamber dies in the interim they will still seek a posthumous pardon.
-
At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf. If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place. It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others. Quite ironic given your statement above!
The entire website is a paradise for cranks and conspiracy theorists.
As a neutral commenter on this case and keen to get to the bottom of things, I'd appreciate it if you could just fill me in.
Which of the claims made on the 'Liars Lobby' page are untrue?
Link: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/liars-lobby
Thanks.
-
I'm well aware of Priti Patel. I'm not sure why you have referred to her. People probably campaign that Nigel Farage should show more empathy towards people in dinghies. That doesn't mean he will. But it also doesn't mean that such people shouldn't campaign to that affect.
If you knew anything about the submissions, you would know that the topic of PP's interference is included within them.
And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.
-
And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.
The subject of PP relates to her being the MP in whose constituency, certain individuals reside who have been accused wrongdoing or interference in the case. Regardless of whether the CCRC will bat it aside, the exposure of wrongdoing and any associated protective practices on the part of their MP, should be applauded. If you want to doth your cap to everyone in a position of authority, then knock yourself out. We won't stop you.
-
And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.
Nobody here is responsible for submissions to the CCRC or has any involvement with the lawyers or the Campaign Team. You can tell us it's all a waste of time, but nobody here knows what the submissions contain. The Campaign Team itself cannot be considered a reliable source in this respect. Other than the CCRC, only the lawyers and Jeremy Bamber himself know for sure what has been submitted.
We also don't know how the CCRC will respond to certain issues, assuming they have been raised, because - again - we don't know the exact basis for the submissions. Rest assured you will have ample opportunity to gloat if the application is rejected. Conversely, if the application is accepted and there is an appeal, I rather suspect we will never hear from you.
-
The subject of PP relates to her being the MP in whose constituency, certain individuals reside who have been accused wrongdoing or interference in the case. Regardless of whether the CCRC will bat it aside, the exposure of wrongdoing and any associated protective practices on the part of their MP, should be applauded. If you want to doth your cap to everyone in a position of authority, then knock yourself out. We won't stop you.
You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.
Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?
Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc. Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it.
-
Nobody here is responsible for submissions to the CCRC or has any involvement with the lawyers or the Campaign Team. You can tell us it's all a waste of time, but nobody here knows what the submissions contain. The Campaign Team itself cannot be considered a reliable source in this respect. Other than the CCRC, only the lawyers and Jeremy Bamber himself know for sure what has been submitted.
We also don't know how the CCRC will respond to certain issues, assuming they have been raised, because - again - we don't know the exact basis for the submissions. Rest assured you will have ample opportunity to gloat if the application is rejected. Conversely, if the application is accepted and there is an appeal, I rather suspect we will never hear from you.
Well either the female presenter in the recent podcast is lying (she came over as sincere in her beliefs to me) or you have misunderstood. I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it.
-
You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.
Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?
Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc. Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it.
I don't recognise your assessment of me. You keep banging on about fresh evidence without telling us exactly what in this particular case, fresh evidence would be. I have already signposted you to the booklet regarding missing evidence. If your so called fresh evidence is not within that batch, could it be in evidence not allowed for release until 2054? If not there, then where exactly should this holy grail of fresh evidence be found? If you think the campaign team have done such crap job or made such a hash of it, then at least provide us with something constructive in terms of where you would venture evidence wise, if you were in their shoes.
Have you ever wondered whether the system itself may be to blame for MOJ's not bring overturned. You can only work with what you have, and if the corrupt police you refer to have destroyed stuff, then what do you expect the campaign team or researchers to do?
-
The submission to the CCRC wouldn't be happening if there was no fresh evidence.
-
Well either the female presenter in the recent podcast is lying (she came over as sincere in her beliefs to me) or you have misunderstood. I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it.
They discuss this at 1:24:36. It is Philip Walker who says the CT put the submissions together and get the lawyers to approve it, then put it in to the CCRC, but I honestly think that can be interpreted in different ways. It's just words on a podcast. It could mean the CT do everything and the lawyers just read it for legality. Or it could mean that the CT do all the leg work and the lawyers then prepare and advise on the submissions (which I think is more likely).
I still say that I'm not inclined to rely on anything the CT say about the evidence or what they have done. They are campaigners, not lawyers, and during the podcast both Philip and Yvonne use legal jargon loosely and incorrectly. For instance, Philip talks about 'exculpatory evidence', which I doubt actually exists. I think he very likely means evidence that the CT believe casts doubt on the safety of the convictions.
More importantly, although the CT outline the submissions topically, they don't go into detail about what evidence they have.
I am inclined to wait before casting judgement on any of this, one way or the other, and I think this discussion on the thread is becoming a bit circular.
-
I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it.
That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.
-
What similarities exist between the cases of Hall and Bamber?
I have reported your post as you continue to make it personal.
Your posts are made with the intention of goading. Fact
Other members see this also
You are make comments about submissions which you could not possibly know the extent of the submissions
Fact
We had another poster on this forum previously who used to goad other members and I will continue to call you out if I personally believe your behaviour is unacceptable
-
Anyone who is capable of reading material objectively will appreciate Bamber's support group are not fit for purpose however well intentioned they might be.
What happens after the submission is thrown out? These people will still persist in the same vein without pausing to think 'ok maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and rethink our entire strategy'. Instead they will accuse the review commission of being corrupt. They will no doubt seek a judicial review and when that fails they will accuse the judges of being corrupt. And perhaps unsurprisingly they will all end up in 'Liars Lobby'! Worse still they will attempt to use the same material again and again and again but just tweak it slightly to the extent the review commission will be obliged to review it again. If Bamber dies in the interim they will still seek a posthumous pardon.
You just do not know. Fact. Presumptions are useless
-
And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.
Deja vu we have been here before with Matt the troll who pulled the wool over numerous posters eyes saying he knew what the CCRC were doing
It’s so boring now
-
That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.
Yes, this is in line with what I would expect.
-
You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.
Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?
Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc. Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it.
So rude.
Most posters who spend time on this forum are worried about every aspect of this case and the whole justice system. It is personal to all of us who know the case inside out
-
What did people make of this?
https://ccrc.gov.uk/press-releases/ccrc-releases-official-response-to-the-westminster-commission-report/
-
That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.
That was obvious to MOST of us
-
They discuss this at 1:24:36. It is Philip Walker who says the CT put the submissions together and get the lawyers to approve it, then put it in to the CCRC, but I honestly think that can be interpreted in different ways. It's just words on a podcast. It could mean the CT do everything and the lawyers just read it for legality. Or it could mean that the CT do all the leg work and the lawyers then prepare and advise on the submissions (which I think is more likely).
I still say that I'm not inclined to rely on anything the CT say about the evidence or what they have done. They are campaigners, not lawyers, and during the podcast both Philip and Yvonne use legal jargon loosely and incorrectly. For instance, Philip talks about 'exculpatory evidence', which I doubt actually exists. I think he very likely means evidence that the CT believe casts doubt on the safety of the convictions.
More importantly, although the CT outline the submissions topically, they don't go into detail about what evidence they have.
I am inclined to wait before casting judgement on any of this, one way or the other, and I think this discussion on the thread is becoming a bit circular.
You need to move on a little at 1.25. The female clearly states the support group understand the issues inside out, back to front, and upside down. She then goes on to say that the lawyers haven't had to research anything because the support group have done it on their behalf. She acknowledges this is unusual in that lawyers usually refuse to work with campaign groups.
Prior to this the male gave the example of how they found some new material re the burns. What he fails to understand is that at trial both pathologists were unable to conclude anything about the the so-called burns. Therefore the jury could not have possibly taken the 'burns' into account in reaching a verdict.
-
What did people make of this?
https://ccrc.gov.uk/press-releases/ccrc-releases-official-response-to-the-westminster-commission-report/
We welcome transparency????
Somebody was having a laugh writing that
Release everything Mugford told the police and the case will quickly be fast tracked to the appeal court
-
Your posts are made with the intention of goading. Fact
Other members see this also
You are make comments about submissions which you could not possibly know the extent of the submissions
Fact
We had another poster on this forum previously who used to goad other members and I will continue to call you out if I personally believe your behaviour is unacceptable
Have you listened to the podcast?
If my behaviour is unacceptable I am sure the moderator is more than capable of editing/removing posts/banning me. It seems to me you are unable to have your posts challenged without making it personal.
-
That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.
As I said in a post a moment ago the female presenter clearly states the lawyers did not need to do any research as the support group did it all on their behalf. Please listen for yourself at 1.25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEf2WCKkT1M&t=137s
-
Have you listened to the podcast?
If my behaviour is unacceptable I am sure the moderator is more than capable of editing/removing posts/banning me. It seems to me you are unable to have your posts challenged without making it personal.
I am not in the slightest bit interested in anything regarding the submissions apart from what the lawyers have submitted
I am not interested in a guessing game. The Jeremy Bamber case is very high profile at the moment and I focus on that. Every media/production company want a piece of the Bamber case. This is a good time for British Justice and a very bad time for everyone hoping this will go away
-
You need to move on a little at 1.25. The female clearly states the support group understand the issues inside out, back to front, and upside down. She then goes on to say that the lawyers haven't had to research anything because the support group have done it on their behalf. She acknowledges this is unusual in that lawyers usually refuse to work with campaign groups.
Prior to this the male gave the example of how they found some new material re the burns. What he fails to understand is that at trial both pathologists were unable to conclude anything about the the so-called burns. Therefore the jury could not have possibly taken the 'burns' into account in reaching a verdict.
We're going round in circles. We know the CT do the research. We've all told you this. I would assume that the lawyers make the submissions. What Bill says above supports this, and it's also the interpretation I choose to put on what Philip says.
-
We're going round in circles. We know the CT do the research. We've all told you this. I would assume that the lawyers make the submissions. What Bill says above supports this, and it's also the interpretation I choose to put on what Philip says.
Well its up to who you choose to rely but I can only go on what the support group puts out. Interestingly the female starts by saying 'I' and then reverts to 'We'...understand the issues inside out, back to front, and upside down. Can anyone provide me with evidence to support her claims that the police shot Sheila; the crime scene was used as a training exercise; a call from Mr Bamber snr to the police; a 999 call and suicide note from Sheila stating 'I have just killed myself'; evidence Sheila was observed by the Aga and run upstairs to shoot herself; conclusive evidence (which is what the review commission are looking for and ultimately appeal court) that shows the silencer was contaminated with Robert Boutflour's blood (or anyone elses).
-
I am not in the slightest bit interested in anything regarding the submissions apart from what the lawyers have submitted
I am not interested in a guessing game. The Jeremy Bamber case is very high profile at the moment and I focus on that. Every media/production company want a piece of the Bamber case. This is a good time for British Justice and a very bad time for everyone hoping this will go away
The other side have pulled off quite a propaganda coup with the drama and Theroux. It couldn't have happened at a worse time for JB. I do not believe the timing is a coincidence. JB is still very much the underdog here.
-
The other side have pulled off quite a propaganda coup with the drama and Theroux. It couldn't have happened at a worse time for JB. I do not believe the timing is a coincidence. JB is still very much the underdog here.
Bamber and his campaign team choose to use social media and attempt to get the likes of David James Smith and Carol Ann Lee on board. It backfires badly and they never learn. Now they have the likes of Bamber's so-called bestie turning on him. What positives have come out of Bambers association with social and mainstream media? Forums like this are different in that he and his support people can distance themselves.
Youre right Bamber is the underdog. Whether you agree or disagree with the contributors to the recent doc most believe Bamber is where he should be. And it wasn't just local gossips you have the likes of Justice Henriques.
-
Bamber and his campaign team choose to use social media and attempt to get the likes of David James Smith and Carol Ann Lee on board. It backfires badly and they never learn. Now they have the likes of Bamber's so-called bestie turning on him. What positives have come out of Bambers association with social and mainstream media? Forums like this are different in that he and his support people can distance themselves.
Youre right Bamber is the underdog. Whether you agree or disagree with the contributors to the recent doc most believe Bamber is where he should be. And it wasn't just local gossips you have the likes of Justice Henriques.
An over reliance on the 2002 appeal will not help you understand what really took place at WHF, in my opinion. It occurred before a huge amount of material was released. Material which may have prevented the original convictions in the first place (if Rivlin had had access and had performed his duties properly). I understand that differs from your opinion.
The makers of the drama in my opinion should be sued. In fact I hope they are at a later date. Though I accept, it is highly unlikely to take place. What is needed in this case is a 'Rough Justice' type exploration of the evidence from a defence stance, with some room afforded for counter argument from the prosecution stance. That will not happen. Such programmes are not made anymore. Media companies will not commission or produce anything similar until the convictions are overturned, therefore the defence lack the firepower of the state. It's an uneven competition, when it comes to resources. What we have just witnessed is a massive drive to shore up the conviction, in attempt to counteract anything that threatens the convictions from the material released in recent years. Although many of the protagonists involved genuinely believe in their own guilty stance, they are in effect puppets in a wider game being played out with high stakes. The likes of Jaques wouldn't impress me. I don't doth my cap to seniority.
-
An over reliance on the 2002 appeal will not help you understand what really took place at WHF, in my opinion. It occurred before a huge amount of material was released. Material which may have prevented the original convictions in the first place (if Rivlin had had access and had performed his duties properly). I understand that differs from your opinion.
The makers of the drama in my opinion should be sued. In fact I hope they are at a later date. Though I accept, it is highly unlikely to take place. What is needed in this case is a 'Rough Justice' type exploration of the evidence from a defence stance, with some room afforded for counter argument from the prosecution stance. That will not happen. Such programmes are not made anymore. Media companies will not commission or produce anything similar until the convictions are overturned, therefore the defence lack the firepower of the state. It's an uneven competition, when it comes to resources. What we have just witnessed is a massive drive to shore up the conviction, in attempt to counteract anything that threatens the convictions from the material released in recent years. Although many of the protagonists involved genuinely believe in their own guilty stance, they are in effect puppets in a wider game being played out with high stakes. The likes of Jaques wouldn't impress me. I don't doth my cap to seniority.
You obviously overlooked the fact I spent some considerable time here looking through the documents when I joined in March 2020. I have a tendency to think before I open my mouth ;)
-
An over reliance on the 2002 appeal will not help you understand what really took place at WHF, in my opinion. It occurred before a huge amount of material was released. Material which may have prevented the original convictions in the first place (if Rivlin had had access and had performed his duties properly). I understand that differs from your opinion.
The makers of the drama in my opinion should be sued. In fact I hope they are at a later date. Though I accept, it is highly unlikely to take place. What is needed in this case is a 'Rough Justice' type exploration of the evidence from a defence stance, with some room afforded for counter argument from the prosecution stance. That will not happen. Such programmes are not made anymore. Media companies will not commission or produce anything similar until the convictions are overturned, therefore the defence lack the firepower of the state. It's an uneven competition, when it comes to resources. What we have just witnessed is a massive drive to shore up the conviction, in attempt to counteract anything that threatens the convictions from the material released in recent years. Although many of the protagonists involved genuinely believe in their own guilty stance, they are in effect puppets in a wider game being played out with high stakes. The likes of Jaques wouldn't impress me. I don't doth my cap to seniority.
The prog makers no doubt contacted the likes of Judge Rivlin and Bamber's past and present lawyers. Perhaps they declined to comment.
-
You obviously overlooked the fact I spent some considerable time here looking through the documents when I joined in March 2020. I have a tendency to think before I open my mouth ;)
Well there are a lot of documents on here but there are a lot more we don't have access to on this forum. Not all documents are in statements and transcripts section on here. Some might be within the hundreds of threads that there are.
-
The prog makers no doubt contacted the likes of Judge Rivlin and Bamber's past and present lawyers. Perhaps they declined to comment.
It's a pity they didn't contact David to appear. In under ten mins, he could have significantly undermined Mugford's testimony. It's all about planting a seed isn't it?
-
It's a pity they didn't contact David to appear. In under ten mins, he could have significantly undermined Mugford's testimony. It's all about planting a seed isn't it?
How would he have done that?
David has just claimed AE told Julie about the kitchen window. While Julie was Bamber's girlfriend!
-
The other side have pulled off quite a propaganda coup with the drama and Theroux. It couldn't have happened at a worse time for JB. I do not believe the timing is a coincidence. JB is still very much the underdog here.
I'm inclined to agree. I think if the Mindhouse team took the pro-innocence argument seriously, the documentary would have been more focused on that - and it probably would have got much more attention and higher ratings. They clearly took a pro-guilty view and the documentary ended up as a series of random clips and rather aimless.
-
The other side have pulled off quite a propaganda coup with the drama and Theroux. It couldn't have happened at a worse time for JB. I do not believe the timing is a coincidence. JB is still very much the underdog here.
I’m not sure they have. The series left out major points like the very serious criminal history of Mugford the main prosecution witness.
Professionals appeared on the programme to mislead the public like Sheila not being able to load the gun. The way the summing up was discussed would have definitely caught the attention of the views
Two lengthy series in a couple of years is a big thing. This case is definitely not going anywhere. The truth is so very close to coming out however cry baby Boutflour would like it all to go away.
-
I'm inclined to agree. I think if the Mindhouse team took the pro-innocence argument seriously, the documentary would have been more focused on that - and it probably would have got much more attention and higher ratings. They clearly took a pro-guilty view and the documentary ended up as a series of random clips and rather aimless.
Aimless, agreed. A mess
-
Look forward to seeing it.
Wilkinson's WS does not mention a camp site.
Adam took a while but found the YouTube video which mentions why some who say the most likely route JB cycled was along the sea wall was risky. If you search "Barbara De'Ath on the Osea Caravan Park" you will find it.
-
Did Mindhouse Productions really set out to make Jeremy look guilty
Very confused ???
Jeremy Bamber: Louis Theroux left unsure if Bamber is guilty ahead of new White House Farm documentary
According to Sky, the makers of the documentary series wanted to interview Bamber, however, this was reportedly refused by the Ministry of Justice.
Theroux also stated that upon investigating the case, it left him asking questions about who was actually responsible for the murders.
-
Did Mindhouse Productions really set out to make Jeremy look guilty
Very confused ???
Jeremy Bamber: Louis Theroux left unsure if Bamber is guilty ahead of new White House Farm documentary
According to Sky, the makers of the documentary series wanted to interview Bamber, however, this was reportedly refused by the Ministry of Justice.
Theroux also stated that upon investigating the case, it left him asking questions about who was actually responsible for the murders.
Like many, Jackie, erring on the side of caution in case it ruins their reputation if they're wrong. They're full of bluff. Must have others to do their thinking for them.
-
That comment by him is comical.
Julie got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
Ann got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
(https://i.ibb.co/dmvB6wZ/dbmoney.jpg)
And what did Colin get?