Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: killingeve on October 06, 2021, 12:47:PM
-
The female presenter made a number of claims including a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr to the police; Sheila making a 999 call and writing a suicide note 'I have just killed myself'; Sheila observed by the Aga and running up the stairs to shoot herself once; the police shooting Sheila a second time, the police using the crime scene as a training exercise, Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating the silencer. Can someone provide me with any evidence to support these allegations?
-
The female presenter made a number of claims including a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr to the police; Sheila making a 999 call and writing a suicide note 'I have just killed myself'; Sheila observed by the Aga and running up the stairs to shoot herself once; the police shooting Sheila a second time, the police using the crime scene as a training exercise, Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating the silencer. Can someone provide me with any evidence to support these allegations?
There is none. But 36 years is a long time for supporters to get carried away.
-
https://youtu.be/mBvnLsdpL08
Just watched this. As it's only 2.09 minutes.
-
They say after it was found MM had an alibi, the police said to Julie 'have another go'. But MM is in her WS.
They say the initial assumption was murder/suicide. As the judge said - 'the police had been lead in that direction'.
Taking body tempretures is a new one. Was it crime scene protocol in 1985? If not, then no point mentioning it.
'Just the media' saying he was arrogant & a womaniser. Books as well.
Nevill rang the police at 3.26am. Did Bamber ring the police at 3.36am? That gives him less than 10 minutes to get to WHF.
-
I think a neutral viewpoint on this would be:
The female presenter made a number of claims including a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr to the police;
Nevill could easily have made a call to the police, the question is specifically whether he got through to them and spoke to them. I believe it is unlikely as there would be no reason for the police to conceal a record of such a call and the investigation would never have focused on Jeremy in such circumstances. There is a small possibility that a telephone operator did speak to Nevill and in all the confusion has conflated one call with another, but again, it seems a stretch.
There is the additional possibility that Nevill did make a 999 call but was injured and could not talk into the phone.
Sheila making a 999 call and writing a suicide note 'I have just killed myself';
They have not claimed this.
Sheila observed by the Aga and running up the stairs to shoot herself once;
Well a female was observed in the kitchen. The official story is that this was a mistake and that the mistake was quickly corrected. It's a whole discussion in its own right. One ground for questioning the police story on this topic is that they are recorded as spotting both a male and a female at the same time in the same part of the house through a window.
the police shooting Sheila a second time,
There is no physical evidential bar to this, on the condition that you accept the 'swopped bullet' theory. Personally I believe the swopped bullet theory is flawed, for reasons I have gone over on other threads. It falls apart under closer scrutiny.
the police using the crime scene as a training exercise,
I simply have no idea if this is true or not, but why shouldn't the police exploit the crime scene for training purposes? It seems like a good idea to me.
Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating the silencer.
Very plausible in my view.
Can someone provide me with any evidence to support these allegations?
No, or rather, the evidence for these allegations is already canon. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence and what inferences you choose to draw.
It is interesting how one camp is very quick to draw all sorts of inferences about Jeremy, including that he is a mass murderer and double child killer - just for money - while ignoring all the fantastical prerequisites for the execution of such a criminal plot.
-
I think a neutral viewpoint on this would be:
Nevill could easily have made a call to the police, the question is specifically whether he got through to them and spoke to them. I believe it is unlikely as there would be no reason for the police to conceal a record of such a call and the investigation would never have focused on Jeremy in such circumstances. There is a small possibility that a telephone operator did speak to Nevill and in all the confusion has conflated one call with another, but again, it seems a stretch.
There is the additional possibility that Nevill did make a 999 call but was injured and could not talk into the phone.
They have not claimed this.
Well a female was observed in the kitchen. The official story is that this was a mistake and that the mistake was quickly corrected. It's a whole discussion in its own right. One ground for questioning the police story on this topic is that they are recorded as spotting both a male and a female at the same time in the same part of the house through a window.
There is no physical evidential bar to this, on the condition that you accept the 'swopped bullet' theory. Personally I believe the swopped bullet theory is flawed, for reasons I have gone over on other threads. It falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I simply have no idea if this is true or not, but why shouldn't the police exploit the crime scene for training purposes? It seems like a good idea to me.
Very plausible in my view.
No, or rather, the evidence for these allegations is already canon. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence and what inferences you choose to draw.
It is interesting how one camp is very quick to draw all sorts of inferences about Jeremy, including that he is a mass murderer and double child killer - just for money - while ignoring all the fantastical prerequisites for the execution of such a criminal plot.
Does your Sheila scenario have Nevill ringing the police?
-
The female presenter made a number of claims including a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr to the police; Sheila making a 999 call and writing a suicide note 'I have just killed myself'; Sheila observed by the Aga and running up the stairs to shoot herself once; the police shooting Sheila a second time, the police using the crime scene as a training exercise, Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating the silencer. Can someone provide me with any evidence to support these allegations?
The informatives thing was discovered about a decade ago. IIRC, it caused some consternation within EP, that it had come to light.
A few years ago, it came to light that Stan Jones had told Met officers in 2002 that there was a suicide note; and in my opinion, he paraphrased the note in an extremely concise way. The Met were approached regarding this and they didn't refute the audio recording (which was part of the Stokenchurch interviews).
A note also came to light a few years ago, with morbid phrases / ideation. IIRC, it was claimed to be a note from Sheila to her birth mother.
-
Does your Sheila scenario have Nevill ringing the police?
Good idea, Adam. Thanks.
-
Good idea, Adam. Thanks.
Let me know if Nevill rings the police before or after ringing Jeremy.
Although going by Bamber/CT, Nevill phoned Jeremy at 3.15am & the police at 3.26am.
So that's an extra 11 minutes to be accounted for in the Sheila scenario.
-
I did ask Rob about the 11 minute period when responding to his scenario. Asking him what waa going on. Eleven minutes is a long time in that situation.
But got no reaponse.
-
Let me know if Nevill rings the police before or after ringing Jeremy.
Although going by Bamber/CT, Nevill phoned Jeremy at 3.15am & the police at 3.26am.
So that's 11 minutes to be accounted for in the Sheila scenario.
Thanks Adam. It's good that you're here to put me through my paces.
Maybe if I can produce a Perfect Sheila Scenario, you'll finally recognise my brilliance and recommend me for the CT?
For now, here's me sulking after being overlooked by you and Myster, the Cluedo Supremo:
-
I did ask Rob about the 11 minute period when responding to his scenario. Asking him what waa going on. Eleven minutes is a long time in that situation.
But got no reaponse.
I think I said "approx" in some of my timings Adam because I don't know.
I am looking forward to your improved scenario that does not have JB getting caught the next day. Don't forget you need to explain why Bews ran. I am glad you agree I only had flaws in mine thanks!
At least in your last scenario you never mentioned June being shot first so you are at least taking notice of us cranks!
-
I think a neutral viewpoint on this would be:
Nevill could easily have made a call to the police, the question is specifically whether he got through to them and spoke to them. I believe it is unlikely as there would be no reason for the police to conceal a record of such a call and the investigation would never have focused on Jeremy in such circumstances. There is a small possibility that a telephone operator did speak to Nevill and in all the confusion has conflated one call with another, but again, it seems a stretch.
There is the additional possibility that Nevill did make a 999 call but was injured and could not talk into the phone.
They have not claimed this.
Well a female was observed in the kitchen. The official story is that this was a mistake and that the mistake was quickly corrected. It's a whole discussion in its own right. One ground for questioning the police story on this topic is that they are recorded as spotting both a male and a female at the same time in the same part of the house through a window.
There is no physical evidential bar to this, on the condition that you accept the 'swopped bullet' theory. Personally I believe the swopped bullet theory is flawed, for reasons I have gone over on other threads. It falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I simply have no idea if this is true or not, but why shouldn't the police exploit the crime scene for training purposes? It seems like a good idea to me.
Very plausible in my view.
No, or rather, the evidence for these allegations is already canon. It's a matter of how you interpret the evidence and what inferences you choose to draw.
It is interesting how one camp is very quick to draw all sorts of inferences about Jeremy, including that he is a mass murderer and double child killer - just for money - while ignoring all the fantastical prerequisites for the execution of such a criminal plot.
The review commission are not interested in looking at submissions from a neutral viewpoint. They want fresh evidence or argument that is going to stand up to scrutiny in the appeal court.
Please re-listen to the podcast. @ l.00 in the female claims Sheila made a 999 call. @ 1.06 in she then claims a suicide note was found.
-
The review commission are not interested in looking at submissions from a neutral viewpoint. They want fresh evidence or argument that is going to stand up to scrutiny in the appeal court.
Please re-listen to the podcast. @ l.00 in the female claims Sheila made a 999 call. @ 1.06 in she then claims a suicide note was found.
I am neutral in the case. I am giving you my own views, not the views of the CCRC. Please read my posts carefully and reply to what I actually say, not what you think I say in your imagination.
The CCRC is constitutionally impartial. It has already been explained to you that the Campaign Team do not make the submissions to the CCRC and anything the Campaign Team say on podcasts must be taken with a very large pinch of salt. The CCRC may or may not have received submissions along these lines, but we don't yet know what the submissions are or what the evidence is in support. I prefer to wait and see. If you can't follow that, I'm very sorry, but please don't lecture me on what the process involves. I assure you, I don't need to be educated on the subject.
-
I am neutral in the case. I am giving you my own views, not the views of the CCRC. Please read my posts carefully and reply to what I actually say, not what you think I say in your imagination.
The CCRC is constitutionally impartial. It has already been explained to you that the Campaign Team do not make the submissions to the CCRC and anything the Campaign Team say on podcasts must be taken with a very large pinch of salt. The CCRC may or may not have received submissions along these lines, but we don't yet know what the submissions are or what the evidence is in support. I prefer to wait and see. If you can't follow that, I'm very sorry, but please don't lecture me on what the process involves. I assure you, I don't need to be educated on the subject.
My post contained 5 very brief sentences so hardly a lecture but I apologise if it came over as mini sermon.
We clearly have different interpretations on the female's claims. My interpretation is that she, along with others in Bamber's support group, have put together the submissions.
In any event back to my post you find objectionable. The female clearly states @ l hour in Sheila made a 999 call. @ 1 hour 6 mins in she claims a suicide note was found. You claimed she said neither.
-
The review commission are not interested in looking at submissions from a neutral viewpoint. They want fresh evidence or argument that is going to stand up to scrutiny in the appeal court.
Please re-listen to the podcast. @ l.00 in the female claims Sheila made a 999 call. @ 1.06 in she then claims a suicide note was found.
Regardless of whether there was or wasn't a call at 6.09, what makes you think that such a call precludes Sheila having or acting out suicidal intentions?
-
My post contained 5 very brief sentences so hardly a lecture but I apologise if it came over as mini sermon.
We clearly have different interpretations on the female's claims. My interpretation is that she, along with others in Bamber's support group, have put together the submissions.
In any event back to my post you find objectionable. The female clearly states @ l hour in Sheila made a 999 call. @ 1 hour 6 mins in she claims a suicide note was found. You claimed she said neither.
No I bloody didn't! You're the one who keeps stupidly saying that they have claimed Sheila wrote a suicide note after killing herself. They haven't said that.
-
Thanks Adam. It's good that you're here to put me through my paces.
Maybe if I can produce a Perfect Sheila Scenario, you'll finally recognise my brilliance and recommend me for the CT?
For now, here's me sulking after being overlooked by you and Myster, the Cluedo Supremo:
They should have had the Mythster on the mindhouse series explaining how JB is guilty because he always "won at Cluedo as a wee lad" ;D
-
They should have had the Mythster on the mindhouse series explaining how JB is guilty because he always "won a Cluedo as a wee lad" ;D
Thanks David. I think, for me, that would have been the clincher, and instead of 94.5% guilty, I would have come on here boasting of how I had now joined the guilters.
It was a missed opportunity for Myster.
-
A question for QC.
If it had been initially proven that Sheila had committed suicide, would there have been any legal implications because she'd originally have been a beneficiary of her parent's Will ?Such as immediate or delayed access to what would have been her funds if the parents had died before her ?
-
Would the process of probate have taken longer than the usual 4 months ? How much more complicated could it have been ?
Taking all this into consideration I imagine it was far less complicated to go for a straight murder case.!?
( this is my mind working overtime )
-
A question for QC.
If it had been initially proven that Sheila had committed suicide, would there have been any legal implications because she'd originally have been a beneficiary of her parent's Will ?Such as immediate or delayed access to what would have been her funds if the parents had died before her ?
Actually, this is a brilliant question you raise, but it requires us to go off on a tangent. Bear in mind I'm not a lawyer, never mind a probate lawyer, but I will give you my thoughts.
First, to answer you directly, I shouldn't have thought it would make any difference, as long as there is a clear and prompt coronial verdict that Sheila's death was not an unlawful killing and as long as that is not then overturned by a criminal investigation and verdict at trial.
The more interesting issue would be that of Sheila's sons, had either or both survived.
If Sheila's sons had survived, then it would be more complicated for Jeremy because Colin as the father would then come into it and Colin's lawyers would then need to to do things:
(i). read the wills and check to see if there was a survivorship clause - i.e. a clause that requires Sheila to survive for, say, 30 days before she can inherit. Such a clause was and is quite common in taxable estates such as this, for technical reasons we needn't discuss here;
(ii). consider the effect of the forfeiture rule and whether this could be waived in Sheila's case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
Both would be crucial points because the twins were not clearly dependents of their grandparents, so there is no clear right to an inheritance if there is a survivorship requirement, and also no clear basis to waive the forfeiture rule.
Assuming survivorship doesn't apply, then there is at least a half-decent argument for waiving the forfeiture rule on the basis of the mental incapacity of Sheila (and maybe also, at a stretch, you could argue the twins were dependents), so Jeremy would probably have been advised by his lawyers to reach a settlement with Colin, which may have taken the form of some sort of trust for the twins held in the joint names of Jeremy and Colin or just Colin.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Would the process of probate have taken longer than the usual 4 months ? How much more complicated could it have been ?
Taking all this into consideration I imagine it was far less complicated to go for a straight murder case.!?
( this is my mind working overtime )
No, I think the murder case complicated things greatly. Remember that there was already a coroner's verdict of suicide, so you had a contradictory situation and a lot of uncertainty.
Yet even in the more certain circumstances of everybody accepting Sheila has committed murder-suicide, probate overall would have taken a long time anyway, as it was a complex estate and it sounds like the relatives would then have taken steps to dispute the estate with Jeremy.
-
No, I think the murder case complicated things greatly. Remember that there was already a coroner's verdict of suicide, so you had a contradictory situation and a lot of uncertainty.
I thought the original inquest was adjourned pending on going police investigations at the time. I believe it was said to be looking strongly as a case of murder suicide but investigations were on going. Clearly after JB's conviction the inquest verdict would be a forgone conclusion. I do not believe there was ever an inquest verdict before JB was charged
-
Many thanks for your reply QC.
During the first month the situation was in the coroners hands so do you think that he'd prepared any documentation pertaining to a suicide ? Under the circumstances at that early stage and after the inquest, it wasn't a situation that could be fast-tracked because of the involvement of the shooting of others.
I'd be curious to know if any documentation would have been written within that first month/ 6 weeks, but sadly I doubt if we'd ever get to know, though my scant knowledge tells me that notes/ preparations are in place, leaving an open verdict if no known cause of suicide is found and burial/ cremation is delayed.
Sheila's swift burial tells me that for reasons unknown that the case was indeed fast-tracked because there WAS evidence of suicidal tendencies. This was within a couple of weeks of the tragedy.
-
During my work at the hospital, part of my job was dealing with case notes containing notes from those who'd died from suicides, which were retained for a number of years because of cases like this one in the event that someone in the future would ask questions.
I wonder where Sheila's hospital notes are ?
-
You can bet your life that the relatives had all this worked out as RWB hurtled to his solicitor when changing the grannie's Will !!
-
The female presenter made a number of claims including a phone call from Mr Bamber Snr to the police; Sheila making a 999 call and writing a suicide note 'I have just killed myself'; Can someone provide me with any evidence to support these allegations?
The documentation won’t be released until after the CCRC has made a decision on referral. I can tell you what the evidence is though. The 2002 Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch enquiry uncovered a lot of evidence that has been suppressed. One item was an ‘action’ requiring an officer to investigate the 999 call made from WHF at 06:09. It states this as fact; the call was made. They interviewed PC Millbank who was the officer who received the call. When this became known around 2018, Millbank was contacted by a Guardian journalist who asked him if he received the 999 call. Millbank replied that if the document said he did, then he must have.
The suicide note reference was discovered by me. During the course of interviewing Stan Jones about the kitchen telephone, DCI McDairmid asked a question and Jones said in effect that they didn’t search more thoroughly because they had a suicide note from Sheila saying that she was going to kill her self. Jones said, it was four murders and a suicide, we didn’t need to search for evidence. McDiarmid ignored this admission from Jones that there was a suicide note; she just asked another question about the telephone.
Thus, the Metropolitan Police knew in 2002 that Jeremy was innocent and they buried the information. It was never intended to become public knowledge.
-
The documentation won’t be released until after the CCRC has made a decision on referral. I can tell you what the evidence is though. The 2002 Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch enquiry uncovered a lot of evidence that has been suppressed. One item was an ‘action’ requiring an officer to investigate the 999 call made from WHF at 06:09. It states this as fact; the call was made. They interviewed PC Millbank who was the officer who received the call. When this became known around 2018, Millbank was contacted by a Guardian journalist who asked him if he received the 999 call. Millbank replied that if the document said he did, then he must have.
The call in question here was the BT operator Jean Rowe who directed the WHF phone over the 999 line to the police station so they can listen in. There was nobody in the house actually physically making a call.
-
No I bloody didn't! You're the one who keeps stupidly saying that they have claimed Sheila wrote a suicide note after killing herself. They haven't said that.
I think others can make of the posts what they will.
-
The documentation won’t be released until after the CCRC has made a decision on referral. I can tell you what the evidence is though. The 2002 Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch enquiry uncovered a lot of evidence that has been suppressed. One item was an ‘action’ requiring an officer to investigate the 999 call made from WHF at 06:09. It states this as fact; the call was made. They interviewed PC Millbank who was the officer who received the call. When this became known around 2018, Millbank was contacted by a Guardian journalist who asked him if he received the 999 call. Millbank replied that if the document said he did, then he must have.
The suicide note reference was discovered by me. During the course of interviewing Stan Jones about the kitchen telephone, DCI McDairmid asked a question and Jones said in effect that they didn’t search more thoroughly because they had a suicide note from Sheila saying that she was going to kill her self. Jones said, it was four murders and a suicide, we didn’t need to search for evidence. McDiarmid ignored this admission from Jones that there was a suicide note; she just asked another question about the telephone.
Thus, the Metropolitan Police knew in 2002 that Jeremy was innocent and they buried the information. It was never intended to become public knowledge.
I think you misunderstand the weight of evidence Bamber needs for an acquittal.
Any suicide note will go the same way as the photo depicting the wardrobe with the inscription "I hate this place". If you care to read the 2002 appeal you will get an understanding of the judges' thinking. They will argue Bamber was not prejudiced as jurors heard evidence from the defence and its experts (Drs Findlay and Bradley) about Sheila's mental state. Dr Findlay stated Sheila discussed suicide ideation with him which the defence had access to.
With regard to the 999 call I believe this is contained in the open log and was something to do with the GPO/police making checks on the line.
-
The photo of Sheila shows the bible resting on her arm. Impossible for Sheila to put it there after the second shot.
Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot as stated in the COA. The rifle and bible were then put on her.
Rob's claim that after returning the silencer & burning Nevill's back, Bamber would not be able to walk back upstairs has no basis. No one reported Bamber having any walking difficulties after the massacre.
-
The photo of Sheila shows the bible resting on her arm. Impossible for Sheila to put it there after the second shot.
Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot as stated in the COA. The rifle and bible were then put on her.
Rob's claim that after returning the silencer & burning Nevill's back, Bamber would not be able to walk back upstairs has no basis. No one reported Bamber having any walking difficulties after the massacre.
Adam sorry to say this but I think you are a bit of a joke really sorry to be rude.
I am still waiting for your improved JB scenario Adam? though from what Bill has posted I don't think it matters now.
-
Adam sorry to say this but I think you are a bit of a joke really sorry to be rude.
I am still waiting for your improved JB scenario Adam? though from what Bill has posted I don't think it matters now.
Notice how he changes tack when there are posts in JB's favour. Adam's going to look silly I'm afraid.
-
As well as a few more with eggy faces !
-
The photo of Sheila shows the bible resting on her arm. Impossible for Sheila to put it there after the second shot.
We know from the TFG that the Bible wasn't originally in that position. So it was either rucked up against her arm by an officer opening the door - or - it was deliberately placed prior to photography. Given that it is covering a peculiar blood stain on the carpet (which we probably only know about due to Mike Tesko photographing the photos obtained by JB's solicitor at the time) I would plum for deliberate placement.
-
Notice how he changes tack when there are posts in JB's favour. Adam's going to look silly I'm afraid.
Going to Lookout? he already does I am afraid!. He thinks I said JB cannot go back upstairs because of a walking problem gosh, though maybe it was because of the flippers!
-
Going to Lookout? he already does I am afraid!. He thinks I said JB cannot go back upstairs because of a walking problem gosh, though maybe it was because of the flippers!
I'm sure you sussed him out a while back Rob.
-
Is anyone able to explain how a police officer admitting on tape that there was a suicide note at WHF, is the same thing as anonymous scribble on a wardrobe, stating 'I hate this place'? In addition, is anyone able to explain how a professional discussing suicidal ideation, is the same thing as a police officer admitting on tape that a suicide note was found at WHF?
-
Is anyone able to explain how a police officer admitting on tape that there was a suicide note at WHF, is the same thing as anonymous scribble on a wardrobe, stating 'I hate this place'? In addition, is anyone able to explain how a professional discussing suicidal ideation, is the same thing as a police officer admitting on tape that a suicide note was found at WHF?
It’s ridiculous
Why is Cambridge cutie so desperate for the application to be thrown out and to make out she is impartial
It’s absolutely vile and I am sick to death of people posting on this forum desperate for the truth NOT to come out
-
Adam sorry to say this but I think you are a bit of a joke really sorry to be rude.
I am still waiting for your improved JB scenario Adam? though from what Bill has posted I don't think it matters now.
Good old Bill.
What would you like amended?
-
Adam sorry to say this but I think you are a bit of a joke really sorry to be rude.
I am still waiting for your improved JB scenario Adam? though from what Bill has posted I don't think it matters now.
A bit? :))
-
We know from the TFG that the Bible wasn't originally in that position. So it was either rucked up against her arm by an officer opening the door - or - it was deliberately placed prior to photography. Given that it is covering a peculiar blood stain on the carpet (which we probably only know about due to Mike Tesko photographing the photos obtained by JB's solicitor at the time) I would plum for deliberate placement.
We know from the TFG that the Bible wasn't originally in that position.
----------
Was the bible moved after the police accidentially shot her?
-
We know from the TFG that the Bible wasn't originally in that position.
----------
Was the bible moved after the police accidentially shot her?
MT has previously suggested so, I believe.
-
I think you misunderstand the weight of evidence Bamber needs for an acquittal.
There’s no need for patronizing comment. We are fully aware that the odds are stacked against us. But it’s better to labour for years to discover materials that cast doubt on the conviction than sit and passively accept that the judiciary will always win. It is essential that the evil acts carried out by the police and people such as Mugford and Eaton/Boutflour are exposed even if it doesn’t lead to Jeremy’s release. At least we will have tried.
In terms of “the woman” in the podcast, her name is Yvonne Hartley, one of the finest people I have ever met. Her sacrifices to expose the wrongdoing in the case are staggering. She is an extremely talented investigator and deserves the admiration and respect of everyone.
-
Is anyone able to explain how a police officer admitting on tape that there was a suicide note at WHF, is the same thing as anonymous scribble on a wardrobe, stating 'I hate this place'? In addition, is anyone able to explain how a professional discussing suicidal ideation, is the same thing as a police officer admitting on tape that a suicide note was found at WHF?
The 2002 appeal contains 2 arguments which to some extent or another revolve around Sheila's state of mind: open pages of the bible and inscription on the wardrobe (Ground 8 Points 392 - 404 and Ground 9 Points 405 - 421). If you care to read you will see how the appeal judges have batted away. Any suicide note will go the same way. The Court will argue the jury heard about Sheila's state of mind and they still found Bamber guilty. Then you have all the rest of the evidence against Bamber, particularly the silencer and Julie Mugoford, which will trump any suicide note.
As Patrick O'Connor said it requires a slam dunk or blockbuster piece of evidence.
-
There’s no need for patronizing comment. We are fully aware that the odds are stacked against us. But it’s better to labour for years to discover materials that cast doubt on the conviction than sit and passively accept that the judiciary will always win. It is essential that the evil acts carried out by the police and people such as Mugford and Eaton/Boutflour are exposed even if it doesn’t lead to Jeremy’s release. At least we will have tried.
In terms of “the woman” in the podcast, her name is Yvonne Hartley, one of the finest people I have ever met. Her sacrifices to expose the wrongdoing in the case are staggering. She is an extremely talented investigator and deserves the admiration and respect of everyone.
I apologise if you found my comment patronising but I do believe Bamber, his support group and those commenting here misunderstand the weight of evidence needed for an acquittal.
I will go through the points raised in the podcast and let you know how each one will be rejected by the review commission.
-
Statement of Reasons (Non-referral)
1. Tel call Mr Bamber Snr to the police
Lack of evidence. Logs as described by PC West in the doc
2. Tel call Sheila to 999
Lack of evidence. 999 call made by GPO/police for purpose of checking line and listening in.
3. Suicide note
As explained above
4. Grey hair
Biologist testified at trial it was lost and of little forensic value. Judge confirmed in summing up lost and that even if it came to be there as a result of the rifle making contact with Mr Bamber's head it would not account for the blood in the silencer at the depth it is claimed it was found.
5. Paint
It is a while since I read the summing up but as far as I can recall the judge did not refer to the paint and scratches. The focus was on the blood. Therefore even if Bamber has something to override the paint it is very unlikely to trump the blood.
6. Defence injuries to Sheila
Lack of evidence. Unlikely anything will surface to override the pathologist who carried out the post-mortems.
7. Windows
As I explained in earlier posts whether anyone agrees or not the judge dealt with this at trial by saying how Bamber entered and left could not affect the outcome. This was largely based on Bamber's admission that he was able to enter via secured or unsecured windows although to the best of my knowledge he has not at any time said he was able to exit leaving windows secured.
Have I missed anything?
-
Missing audio tapes concerning calls !
Coroners documents.
-
Bamber's 2002 & 2012 submissions just made him look more guilty.
The judges said in 2002 'the more we look at the case, the more we believe the jury were right'.
His 2012 appeal just helped explain why the silencer was taken off & put away. As well as highlight the killer was strong & composed enough to lift Nevill onto a coal scuttle & burn his back. So could only be Bamber.
The points in the current submission also make him look more guilty.
-
The 2002 appeal also brought up that Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot.
-
..those commenting here misunderstand the weight of evidence needed for an acquittal.
No... They don't. But regardless of this, you will keep telling them that they do. As already explained above, you're here for quick win. Prior to a potential refusal, you have appeared just in time to predict a refusal. Then when the refusal occurs, you can bask in your own self importance.
-
Statement of Reasons (Non-referral)
1. Tel call Mr Bamber Snr to the police
Lack of evidence. Logs as described by PC West in the doc
2. Tel call Sheila to 999
Lack of evidence. 999 call made by GPO/police for purpose of checking line and listening in.
3. Suicide note
As explained above
4. Grey hair
Biologist testified at trial it was lost and of little forensic value. Judge confirmed in summing up lost and that even if it came to be there as a result of the rifle making contact with Mr Bamber's head it would not account for the blood in the silencer at the depth it is claimed it was found.
5. Paint
It is a while since I read the summing up but as far as I can recall the judge did not refer to the paint and scratches. The focus was on the blood. Therefore even if Bamber has something to override the paint it is very unlikely to trump the blood.
6. Defence injuries to Sheila
Lack of evidence. Unlikely anything will surface to override the pathologist who carried out the post-mortems.
7. Windows
As I explained in earlier posts whether anyone agrees or not the judge dealt with this at trial by saying how Bamber entered and left could not affect the outcome. This was largely based on Bamber's admission that he was able to enter via secured or unsecured windows although to the best of my knowledge he has not at any time said he was able to exit leaving windows secured.
Have I missed anything?
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
These are the 8 points of submission.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
These are the 8 points of submission.
Yes I thought I had missed something and you reminded me - the burns.
8. 'Burns'
Both pathologists at trial, to some extent, agreed they could not even be certain the marks were in fact burns. Therefore jurors could not possibly have relied on this evidence to reach a verdict. My view is that they may well be unconnected to the night of the murders.
-
No... They don't. But regardless of this, you will keep telling them that they do. As already explained above, you're here for quick win. Prior to a potential refusal, you have appeared just in time to predict a refusal. Then when the refusal occurs, you can bask in your own self importance.
As I keep saying I joined early 2020. Others might recall I spent some considerable time here reading the docs, but unlike you and others here I actually read material, think about it carefully, examine my own thoughts etc, etc before opening my mouth!
Also I am stating my opinions clearly now before the commission issues it statement of reasons. There's always the possibility I might be wrong and I am sure you and others will be quick to ensure I choke on humble pie!
-
As I keep saying I joined early 2020. Others might recall I spent some considerable time here reading the docs, but unlike you and others here I actually read material, think about it carefully, examine my own thoughts etc, etc before opening my mouth!
Also I am stating my opinions clearly now before the commission issues it statement of reasons. There's always the possibility I might be wrong and I am sure you and others will be quick to ensure I choke on humble pie!
You're banking on the that possibility being very slight, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
-
347,000 pages of evidence which EP had withheld from JB, including police logs which all came to light after the 30 years retaining period was not applicable.
Many of these papers prove that the jury were not provided with evidence and were misled repeatedly.
Each of those 8 submissions/ issues which have been set out contain information which answers the questions on the main subjects on which the conviction was based.
Evidence now supports the fact that every part of the case is untrue.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
These are the 8 points of submission.
I was going off the podcast. I will look at above. I tend to stay away from the website as I find it an unreliable source of information.
-
You're banking on the that possibility being very slight, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
You have absolutely no idea why I'm here.
-
I was going off the podcast. I will look at above. I tend to stay away from the website as I find it an unreliable source of information.
I would stay away from the police evidence and the relatives statements as well then because it’s unreliable
But you know that anyway don’t you
-
You have absolutely no idea why I'm here.
I could hazard a few guesses. I'm just going to let you crack on now. Fill your boots.
-
I could hazard a few guesses. I'm just going to let you crack on now. Fill your boots.
Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.
-
347,000 pages of evidence which EP had withheld from JB, including police logs which all came to light after the 30 years retaining period was not applicable.
Many of these papers prove that the jury were not provided with evidence and were misled repeatedly.
Each of those 8 submissions/ issues which have been set out contain information which answers the questions on the main subjects on which the conviction was based.
Evidence now supports the fact that every part of the case is untrue.
Good luck convincing the review commission.
-
Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.
Do you think the above makes any sense at all?
-
Do you think the above makes any sense at all?
Of course I do.
-
Good luck convincing the review commission.
Thankyou.
-
I've always been prepared for all kinds of flak whenever there's been a hint of a pending appeal. It's part of human nature in those of a pessimistic outlook. Never fails.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
Statement of Reasons (non-refferal)
1. Silencer (claims of 2/Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating/contamination general)
The defence at trial agreed with the prosecution that the silencer was used but argued the blood flake represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which combined produced the same blood group ings as Sheila's blood as a stand-alone. The defence argued Sheila used the silencer before removing it, placing it in the gun cupboard and returning ustairs to shoot herself. The judge quite rightly ridiculed defence argurments at trial.
Attempting to go down the route of Robert Boutflour's blood (or a.n. other) is analgous to placing a bet, losing and then going into the bookies and saying actually I didn't mean team x to win I meant team y (the winning team).
The time to argue contamination was at trial not 36 years down the line.
2. Telephone calls
As explained above
3. Intergrity of scene
Dealt with at 2002 appeal. Anything new will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
4. Windows
As explained above
5. Sheila alive when Bamber outside
999 call explained above. Trick of light dealt with at trial. Lights and curtains on and off, opening and closing are simply down to officers referring to the same lights/windows/curtains but using slightly different descriptions to convey the same message.
Will not trumpt blood/Julie Mugford
6. Photos
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
7. Police wrongdoing
Dealt with 2002 appeal
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
3. Inheritance
Dealt with 2002 appeal
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
-
I've always been prepared for all kinds of flak whenever there's been a hint of a pending appeal. It's part of human nature in those of a pessimistic outlook. Never fails.
Its not pessimistic its realistic based on how the commission will review it.
-
Of course I do.
Well let me tell you it doesn't. Why would any solicitor want to be associated with a high profile case that will easily be batted away by the review commission?
-
So, let's crack on about this submission.
Here's hoping that besides the silencer having been " found " in the cupboard there was also another item, the metal cap which allowed a silencer to be fitted on the end of the rifle. Because no silencer was used, the red paint would have been on the end of the metal cap and not the silencer.
I'll stick my neck out here and say that the burns on Nevill's back were caused by this metal cap which after firing the rifle would have got hot and caused the solid burns, not the end of the gun's barrel, nor a silencer.
In Davidson's statement, he was adamant when he'd stated that there was paint on the gun's barrel and not the silencer. Then there was Hammersley who'd stuck to his silencer evidence along with everyone else and when COLP interviewed him he whinged like a girl, knowing he'd lied. Why didn't COLP pursue this instead of brushing it under the carpet ? Closed ranks as always !
-
BTW, the said metal cap had been given an exhibit number but no sign of who'd found it etc.
-
You have absolutely no idea why I'm here.
We have been here before. Nobody here is stupid.
Matt the troll pretending he had links to the CCRC and knew the decision of the CCRC before it was announced
I’m pretty confident in guessing the relatives who did there best to mislead the jury would have known the results of the application before they were publicly announced
Just like the police trying to mislead the public by drip feeding private unreleased documentation to media outlets
-
Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.
She doesn't seem to take in to account the impact and implications of non disclosure with regard to previous appeals. Some of the issues that have been brought up in the past were done so without the benefit of disclosures yet to occur. Therefore, there is a chance that rejections of individual grounds this time, could be nothing more than proof of a rigged system full of flaws itself. But she's portraying it as something other than this, attaching validity to such potential rejections. I will add a caveat, that it is possible that some grounds may not deserve to progress because they may be based upon misinterpretations of case evidence.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission
Statement of Reasons (non-refferal)
1. Silencer (claims of 2/Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating/contamination general)
The defence at trial agreed with the prosecution that the silencer was used but argued the blood flake represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which combined produced the same blood group ings as Sheila's blood as a stand-alone. The defence argued Sheila used the silencer before removing it, placing it in the gun cupboard and returning ustairs to shoot herself. The judge quite rightly ridiculed defence argurments at trial.
Attempting to go down the route of Robert Boutflour's blood (or a.n. other) is analgous to placing a bet, losing and then going into the bookies and saying actually I didn't mean team x to win I meant team y (the winning team).
The time to argue contamination was at trial not 36 years down the line.
2. Telephone calls
As explained above
3. Intergrity of scene
Dealt with at 2002 appeal. Anything new will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
4. Windows
As explained above
5. Sheila alive when Bamber outside
999 call explained above. Trick of light dealt with at trial. Lights and curtains on and off, opening and closing are simply down to officers referring to the same lights/windows/curtains but using slightly different descriptions to convey the same message.
Will not trumpt blood/Julie Mugford
6. Photos
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
7. Police wrongdoing
Dealt with 2002 appeal
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
3. Inheritance
Dealt with 2002 appeal
Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford
Mmm, you've got every faith haven't you ?
Could you then tell me why the case has rumbled on non-stop for 35 years ? Why do you think ?
-
I doubt that. She seems to be one of those people who doesn't see the flaws in how JB was defended at trial, nor the impact and implications of non disclosure with regard to previous appeals. Some of the issues that have been brought up in the past were done so without the benefit of disclosures yet to occur. Therefore, there is a chance that rejections of individual grounds this time, could be nothing more than proof of a rigged system full of flaws itself. But she's portraying it as something other than this, ie she is attaching validity to such potential rejections. I will add a caveat, that it is possible that some grounds may not deserve to progress because they may be based upon misinterpretations of case evidence.
I think you are wrong. I think she/he is connected to the case in some way like Matt and has been told how the case is likely to go
She/he is going in the ignore box with Adam so she/he can argue with itself
-
I doubt that. She seems to be one of those people who doesn't see the flaws in how JB was defended at trial, nor the impact and implications of non disclosure with regard to previous appeals. Some of the issues that have been brought up in the past were done so without the benefit of disclosures yet to occur. Therefore, there is a chance that rejections of individual grounds this time, could be nothing more than proof of a rigged system full of flaws itself. But she's portraying it as something other than this, ie she is attaching validity to such potential rejections. I will add a caveat, that it is possible that some grounds may not deserve to progress because they may be based upon misinterpretations of case evidence.
Oh I'm well aware that she/ he is hoping JB will fall at the first fence, as will anyone who, as you say, weren't conversant with how JB had been let down by his defence team at trial through lack of evidence which was being withheld.
The sooner people realise the cruel and callous workings of the police at that time, the better.
-
I thought the original inquest was adjourned pending on going police investigations at the time. I believe it was said to be looking strongly as a case of murder suicide but investigations were on going. Clearly after JB's conviction the inquest verdict would be a forgone conclusion. I do not believe there was ever an inquest verdict before JB was charged
Yes, this may be correct. It doesn't change my posts above, but my source about the inquest may be wrong as it is more usual for the coroner to adjourn the inquest in these circumstances.
-
No, I think the murder case complicated things greatly. Remember that there was already a coroner's verdict of suicide, so you had a contradictory situation and a lot of uncertainty.
Another example of your tendency to sweeping statements not supported by evidence or the facts. I see you have corrected this thanks. I trust members will take these issues into account when deciding the veracity of your posts.
-
Another example of your tendency to sweeping statements not supported by evidence or the facts. I see you have corrected this thanks. I trust members will take these issues into account when deciding the veracity of your posts.
My posts are accurate about the law. Whether there was a coroner's verdict or not, what I said in response to Lookout stands and remains unchanged. If you disagree, then tell me where I am actually wrong on the important points.
I see you have now started goading me too. Why? It's enough just to say to me: 'Oh, I think you may have got that fact wrong'. I'm happy to correct it. It's a discussion, not an ego-struggle.
-
A question for QC.
If it had been initially proven that Sheila had committed suicide, would there have been any legal implications because she'd originally have been a beneficiary of her parent's Will ?Such as immediate or delayed access to what would have been her funds if the parents had died before her ?
This was Lookout's original question. My answer was that if it was accepted that Sheila had committed suicide, then that in itself makes no difference to the length of time probate takes.
It may be that the coroner adjourned the case for further investigations, but that's a separate issue. It doesn't change the answer to the question Lookout asked me.
The police told the coroner that it was four murders and a suicide and the bodies were released. I'm not sure why the inquest was adjourned, but I think this is fairly standard procedure and is just to allow the police to formally conclude an investigation.
-
How long until the outcome is known?
Review commission aims to complete a minimum of 85% of cases within 12 months of receiving the application.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/facts-figures/
How long did it take in 2001/02 when referred to appeal court?
How long did it take in 2011/12 when non-referred?
I would say the longer it takes the less chance of a referral. If there was a slam dunk/blockbuster piece of evidence it could be referred expeditiously. If there isn't such evidence the review commission is obliged to produce a belt and braces statement of reason why it is not being referred.
-
Well one thing's for sure. Nobody's waiting on tenterhooks. It is what it is. A rejection to me will make no odds, other than perhaps make me slightly annoyed that one or two things were so ambiguous regarding interpretation, that they shouldn't have been included.
-
Well one thing's for sure. Nobody's waiting on tenterhooks. It is what it is. A rejection to me will make no odds, other than perhaps make me slightly annoyed that one or two things were so ambiguous regarding interpretation, that they shouldn't have been included.
Agreed nobody here is waiting on teneterhooks but I rather think JB, his support group and prosecution witnesses are.
Even when the review commission reaches the inevitable I doubt Bamber will release the full statement. Who has seen the full statement from 2011/12?
-
I also imagine that the relatives will be awaiting with bated breath too !
-
I also imagine that the relatives will be awaiting with bated breath too !
Relatives are proseuction witnesses!
-
Agreed nobody here is waiting on teneterhooks but I rather think JB, his support group and prosecution witnesses are.
Even when the review commission reaches the inevitable I doubt Bamber will release the full statement. Who has seen the full statement from 2011/12?
NGB1066 has a copy of it.
-
Relatives are proseuction witnesses!
Same crap, same old, same boring people. We have all been here before with the troll Matt. You are embarrassing yourself with every post
-
Relatives are proseuction witnesses!
So ?
-
So ?
All the more reason for their " interest ", shall we say.
-
So ?
So why mention the relatives when I had already said they were an interested party by referring to them as prosecution witnesses?
-
NGB1066 has a copy of it.
This is the forum moderator? How do you know he/she has a copy?
-
Same crap, same old, same boring people. We have all been here before with the troll Matt. You are embarrassing yourself with every post
I think others can judge for themselves who's am embarrasment around here?
Do you actually make any case related posts or do you just bandy about names no one seems remotely interested in intermingled with the word troll?
-
This is the forum moderator? How do you know he/she has a copy?
I have posted that information in the past. Personally I would see no reason for the CT not to publish it, but they have decided not to. It is not a document which is made public by the CCRC.
-
This is the forum moderator? How do you know he/she has a copy?
He was doing pro bono legal work for JB in 2010-2012 and paid for some of the expert evidence put to the CCRC.
-
I have posted that information in the past. Personally I would see no reason for the CT not to publish it, but they have decided not to. It is not a document which is made public by the CCRC.
Oh I see you thank you for explaining. I assume you have agreed not to make it public?
Quite ironic that Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case and yet have decided not to make the document avaialble to the public who they wish to get on side.
-
He was doing pro bono legal work for JB in 2010-2012 and paid for some of the expert evidence put to the CCRC.
I assume he's a solciitor then? Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you :-[
-
I assume he's a solciitor then? Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you :-[
He's a barrister.
-
So why mention the relatives when I had already said they were an interested party by referring to them as prosecution witnesses?
I doubt anyone needs to worry much. I suspect the caseworkers understand he is innocent, from some, if not all evidence placed in front of them, and from previous communication. However, as you have pointed out, their hands may be tied, politically - which is why legalese nonsense is used to prevent referral. They can't refer because the crown would be unable to contest the case at its current stage. With masses of non-disclosure still in place (ie 2002), the crown could defend. It can't now. Therefore they have to find a way to refuse.
-
He's a barrister.
A very altruistic one by the sounds of things. :)
-
I assume he's a solciitor then? Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you :-[
I am a barrister.
-
I doubt anyone needs to worry much. I suspect the caseworkers understand he is innocent, from some, if not all evidence placed in front of them, and from previous communication. However, as you have pointed out, their hands may be tied, politically - which is why legalese nonsense is used to prevent referral. They can't refer because the crown would be unable to contest the case at its current stage. With masses of non-disclosure still in place (ie 2002), the crown could defend. It can't now. Therefore they have to find a way to refuse.
Talking of non-disclosure have you any idea why Bamber and his support group are denying the public full access to the 2011/12 Statement of Reason doc when they're attempting to get them on side?
-
I am a barrister.
Do you practice the law? If so can I ask which area(s)?
-
Talking of non-disclosure have you any idea why Bamber and his support group are denying the public full access to the 2011/12 Statement of Reason doc when they're attempting to get them on side?
No. I don't. I suspect ngb is correct.
-
Do you practice the law? If so can I ask which area(s)?
I am no longer in practice. I used to have a mixed practice, part criminal and part civil, with the emphasis more on criminal work.
-
Oh I see you thank you for explaining. I assume you have agreed not to make it public?
Quite ironic that Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case and yet have decided not to make the document avaialble to the public who they wish to get on side.
I have not specifically given an undertaking to keep this and other material I have confidential, but I would be uneasy about publishing it on the forum because of the circumstances in which I came into possession of the material. I do think however that no harm would come from publishing the information.
-
If the female contributor to the podcast reads this forum question for you please?
At the end you say something about wanting to garner public support and letting the whole world know about what you consider to be Bamber's wrongful conviction. Throughout the podcast you also talk extensively about non-disclosure in terms of Bamber struggling to obtain full disclosure of case related documents from the authorities. Therefore can you please tell me why the public should support Bamber when you seem to be picking and choosing what we have access to?
Maybe you could look to upload the document to the website you run on Bamber's behalf? If you want full disclosure, transparency and accuse many of lying (they feature in 'Liars Lobby') I really think you should look to discslose this document? If you're unable to then perhaps you could explain why?
Thank you.
-
No. I don't. I suspect ngb is correct.
Sorry I must have missed the point correct about what?
-
I am no longer in practice. I used to have a mixed practice, part criminal and part civil, with the emphasis more on criminal work.
Thanks. Can I ask do you believe Bamber factually innocent?
-
Sorry I must have missed the point correct about what?
Reply 92, I was agreeing with his views on the document you refer to.
-
I doubt anyone needs to worry much. I suspect the caseworkers understand he is innocent, from some, if not all evidence placed in front of them, and from previous communication. However, as you have pointed out, their hands may be tied, politically - which is why legalese nonsense is used to prevent referral. They can't refer because the crown would be unable to contest the case at its current stage. With masses of non-disclosure still in place (ie 2002), the crown could defend. It can't now. Therefore they have to find a way to refuse.
If the list of grounds on the CTs website is all there is to it, then a referral will be denied and rightly so.
NGB has said in the past the CCRC watch this forum. Ironically I could be doing there job for them. They already have all the rebuttals they need in my own posts. :(
-
I have not specifically given an undertaking to keep this and other material I have confidential, but I would be uneasy about publishing it on the forum because of the circumstances in which I came into possession of the material. I do think however that no harm would come from publishing the information.
Are you able to summarise the reasons why it was not referred? Or maybe it would be better to ask Bamber's support group for full disclosure?
-
If the female contributor to the podcast reads this forum question for you please?
At the end you say something about wanting to garner public support and letting the whole world know about what you consider to be Bamber's wrongful conviction. Throughout the podcast you also talk extensively about non-disclosure in terms of Bamber struggling to obtain full disclosure of case related documents from the authorities. Therefore can you please tell me why the public should support Bamber when you seem to be picking and choosing what we have access to?
Maybe you could look to upload the document to the website you run on Bamber's behalf? If you want full disclosure, transparency and accuse many of lying (they feature in 'Liars Lobby') I really think you should look to discslose this document? If you're unable to then perhaps you could explain why?
Thank you.
They're not asking specifically for public disclosure though are they? More like disclosure to the defence, which is what the ex Essex detective was campaigning for.
-
As long as Ainsley's still breathing he'll make sure that the case won't go anywhere.
-
Reply 92, I was agreeing with his views on the document you refer to.
Ok. I think our wires are crossed. I interpreted the post as NGB1066 having posted previously that he is a barrister and seen the document.
I then asked you why the support group have not disclosed the document. As far as I can see NGB1066 has not given a reason for non-disclsoure.
-
As long as Ainsley's still breathing he'll make sure that the case won't go anywhere.
I must say his breathing seemed rather laboured in the doc and he looked to be carrying some excess weight around his middle which probably isn't ideal given his age. The prosecutor looked painfully frail.
Anyway it has nothing to do with Ainsley. He is no more influential at this stage than we are here.
-
I must say his breathing seemed rather laboured in the doc and he looked to be carrying some excess weight around his middle which probably isn't ideal given his age. The prosecutor looked painfully frail.
Anyway it has nothing to do with Ainsley. He is no more influential at this stage than we are here.
Oh I think he has more clout than us morsels here, frail or not.
-
They're not asking specifically for public disclosure though are they? More like disclosure to the defence, which is what the ex Essex detective was campaigning for.
That may be so but if you listen to the podcast at the end the female wants everyone on board and said we can ask anything and all will be revealed but we know this is not true as they are not releasing the statment of reasons from 2011/12? How do you know you're not being hoodwinked?
-
Oh I think he has more clout than us morsels here, frail or not.
I didn't say he was frail.
What evidence do you have that a long retired police officer is capable of influencing the review commission and/or appeal courts?
-
Are you able to summarise the reasons why it was not referred? Or maybe it would be better to ask Bamber's support group for full disclosure?
The CCRC Statement of Reasons is a very lengthy document and it would take a bit of time for me to summarise it here now. If you search posts here from 2012 you will find a lot written about it and about the subsequent Judicial Review application.
-
I didn't say he was frail.
What evidence do you have that a long retired police officer is capable of influencing the review commission and/or appeal courts?
It was something that Paul Terzeon had once said when he was acting as JB's defence, in that Terzeon had blamed Ainsley for the withholding of evidence at trial.
-
Speaking of influence, the relatives also were able to turn something on its head when JB was " de-categorised " to B from A. They wrote and said how afraid they'd be and as if by magic, he was returned to Cat A.
-
I think I'd be afraid too if I'd knowingly swindled someone out of millions !!
-
A very altruistic one by the sounds of things. :)
An you come across as intelligent. Which is ironic considering you continually try to judge people.
Maybe we should discuss any legal action Jeremy will take when his conviction is overturned to get back what is rightfully his.
He will definitely have enough money to take action
-
Thanks. Can I ask do you believe Bamber factually innocent?
I approach the case from a different perspective, as a defence lawyer would approach it. I believe that the trial and to an extent JB's defence were deeply flawed and as a result the convictions are unsafe. By that I mean there is a very real doubt about JB's guilt. I believe there are valid grounds of appeal to be developed and presented and I obviously believe that the case should be referred again to the Court of Appeal. If those grounds are properly researched, presented and argued I think there is a realistic chance of the convictions being overturned. That does not mean an acquittal "on a technicality", it means an acquittal on the basis that the convictions are unsafe.
I have in the past posted some additional views on the case and if you look back to 2011 and 2012 you should be able to find some of this.
-
The CCRC Statement of Reasons is a very lengthy document and it would take a bit of time for me to summarise it here now. If you search posts here from 2012 you will find a lot written about it and about the subsequent Judicial Review application.
Will do, thanks.
-
It was something that Paul Terzeon had once said when he was acting as JB's defence, in that Terzeon had blamed Ainsley for the withholding of evidence at trial.
Yes I can accept that was a possibility at the 1986 trial but DCI Ainsley is long retired and I don't believe would have any infleuence over the review commission/appeal courts now whatsoever other than obviously anything he may have had a helping in hand in at the time.
-
I approach the case from a different perspective, as a defence lawyer would approach it. I believe that the trial and to an extent JB's defence were deeply flawed and as a result the convictions are unsafe. By that I mean there is a very real doubt about JB's guilt. I believe there are valid grounds of appeal to be developed and presented and I obviously believe that the case should be referred again to the Court of Appeal. If those grounds are properly researched, presented and argued I think there is a realistic chance of the convictions being overturned. That does not mean an acquittal "on a technicality", it means an acquittal on the basis that the convictions are unsafe.
I have in the past posted some additional views on the case and if you look back to 2011 and 2012 you should be able to find some of this.
Thanks for the succinct explanation. I will certainly look through your back posts.
-
An you come across as intelligent. Which is ironic considering you continually try to judge people.
Maybe we should discuss any legal action Jeremy will take when his conviction is overturned to get back what is rightfully his.
He will definitely have enough money to take action
Who do you believe I have judged unfairly or otherwise?
I think it is a little premature to be talking about legal action post acquittal but it would certainly be interesting to see what the legal position would be on any claims Bamber might have to his inheritance that was rightfully denied due to his conviction.
-
Yes I can accept that was a possibility at the 1986 trial but DCI Ainsley is long retired and I don't believe would have any infleuence over the review commission/appeal courts now whatsoever other than obviously anything he may have had a helping in hand in at the time.
He was more than able to lend a" helping hand" to Carol Ann Lee when she wrote her book, even sending unseen information and photographs----some of which he then destroyed at his home ! What gives anyone the right to destroy what must have been, important documents ?
-
Who do you believe I have judged unfairly or otherwise?
I think it is a little premature to be talking about legal action post acquittal but it would certainly be interesting to see what the legal position would be on any claims Bamber might have to his inheritance that was rightfully denied due to his conviction.
He won't get a penny. His case is worse than Barry George's.
-
I doubt if Jeremy has his eyes set on any financial " prize ". If he should win an appeal he'll become wealthy in his own right.
-
Who do you believe I have judged unfairly or otherwise?
I think it is a little premature to be talking about legal action post acquittal but it would certainly be interesting to see what the legal position would be on any claims Bamber might have to his inheritance that was rightfully denied due to his conviction.
You have just labelled someone altruistic
-
He won't get a penny. His case is worse than Barry George's.
You have no idea, you just do not know. Anyway I would think the main legal action will be against the relatives.
Jeremy would be so rich, with books films etc he will be able to instruct the best lawyers
-
You have just labelled someone altruistic
Not so much a label more a description. How would you describe someone who works pro bono AND funds forensic tests?
-
I doubt if Jeremy has his eyes set on any financial " prize ". If he should win an appeal he'll become wealthy in his own right.
Agree with the second sentence.
-
Not so much a label more a description. How would you describe someone who works pro bono AND funds forensic tests?
A hero
-
I have just emailed the support group requesting a copy of the submission.
Hi. I enjoyed your recent podcast presented by Shaun Atwood. At the end Yvonne Hartley said if viewers required further info etc to just ask and it would be made available to enable interested parties to form their own opinions. Therefore I would be grateful if you could email me the full 'Statement of Reasons' issued by the review commission setting out why Jeremy Bamber's submission was declined in 2011/12 as I am unable to locate on your website.
Thank you.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8263.msg392394.html#msg392394
Is this not what you want?
-
A hero
Well that as well I guess but sounds like you might have a crush ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8263.msg392394.html#msg392394
Is this not what you want?
Thanks but no I believe that's the summary and there's a somewhat more comprehensive doc?
-
Thanks but no I believe that's the summary and there's a somewhat more comprehensive doc?
The full document is around 100 pages.
-
The full document is around 100 pages.
Given what QT has expressed regarding a 'bolt and braces' refusal document, the next one could be 300 pages :-\
-
Well that as well I guess but sounds like you might have a crush ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0
Not at all Ngb and I fall out all the time but I do believe if he worked exclusively for Jeremy the case would be referred
The help he has given Jeremy is amazing
-
The full document is around 100 pages.
Thanks NGB1066. I would like to read through the document. I think Bamber himself said in a police interview when something was put to him that 'seeing is believing'. As the review commission is funded by the tax payer are the public entitled to obtain a copy through a 'Freedom of Information' request?
Philip Walker said in the podcast about 1 hour, 19 mins in something like 'They should ask themselves why Essex police are withholding documents. We believe its because they're hiding the truth'. (Philip if you read this forum please can you make available the full 2011/12 Statement of Reasons issued by the review commission by uploading it to Bamber's website. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, and in the absence of some explanation, your claim about Essex police smacks of hypocrisy).
-
And what of Peter Tatchell who I believe campaigns for Bamber in respect of disclosure of documents.? Has he seen this document? Is he aware that the public are being denied access? Eric Allison?
And what about those here who are supportive of Bamber have they seen this doc? If not are you happy to continue supporting Bamber when a 100 page document exists setting out why the review commission was unable to refer Bamber's case which you have effectively been denied access to?
-
And what of Peter Tatchell who I believe campaigns for Bamber in respect of disclosure of documents.? Has he seen this document? Is he aware that the public are being denied access? Eric Allison?
And what about those here who are supportive of Bamber have they seen this doc? If not are you happy to continue supporting Bamber when a 100 page document exists setting out why the review commission was unable to refer Bamber's case which you have effectively been denied access to?
I have a suggestion, which may be able to help break the deadlock.
-
I have a suggestion, which may be able to help break the deadlock.
I'm all ears!
-
I have just emailed the support group requesting a copy of the submission.
Hi. I enjoyed your recent podcast presented by Shaun Atwood. At the end Yvonne Hartley said if viewers required further info etc to just ask and it would be made available to enable interested parties to form their own opinions. Therefore I would be grateful if you could email me the full 'Statement of Reasons' issued by the review commission setting out why Jeremy Bamber's submission was declined in 2011/12 as I am unable to locate on your website.
Thank you.
Ive received a response from Yvonne
Hello XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your e-mail and for listening to the interview.
Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the Statement of Reasons from 2012 at this time, as the legal team and Jeremy haven't authorised the release.
However, if you have any specific questions regarding any of the previous submissions, i will be happy to help.
Thank you
Kind regards
Yvonne
-
I responded
Hi Yvonne
Many thanks for the speedy response.
I would like to read the Statement of Reasons to draw my own conclusions.
Without wishing to sound rude I think Jeremy Bamber is being somewhat disingenuous by on the one hand claiming non-disclosure of case related material by Essex police is hampering his chances of having his conviction overturned and on the other hand withholding from the general public a vital document that sets out exactly why his 2011/12 submission was not referred to the appeal courts.
At the end of your podcast you said you want the whole world to know about what you consider to be a miscarriage of justice and yet it seems we are being denied access to documents to enable us to reach informed opinons.
I am very disappointed about this and wonder if you might speak with Bamber and put to him my argument above and see what he has to say on the matter.
Thank you
XXXXXXX
-
I responded
Hi Yvonne
Many thanks for the speedy response.
I would like to read the Statement of Reasons to draw my own conclusions.
Without wishing to sound rude I think Jeremy Bamber is being somewhat disingenuous by on the one hand claiming non-disclosure of case related material by Essex police is hampering his chances of having his conviction overturned and on the other hand withholding from the general public a vital document that sets out exactly why his 2011/12 submission was not referred to the appeal courts.
At the end of your podcast you said you want the whole world to know about what you consider to be a miscarriage of justice and yet it seems we are being denied access to documents to enable us to reach informed opinons.
I am very disappointed about this and wonder if you might speak with Bamber and put to him my argument above and see what he has to say on the matter.
Thank you
XXXXXXX
Lol the X's are my name not kisses!
-
NGB1066 has seen this document. I am assuming there's nothing particularly incriminating in it to Bamber, other than what is already known, otherwise I doubt NBG1066 would still be here.
Who esle has seen this document other than I assume Bamber and his defence lawyers at the time?
Have the support group eg Yvonne and Phillip seen it?
-
How do those here who support Bamber feel about this document being withheld?
-
How do those here who support Bamber feel about this document being withheld?
I've actually posted on the wrong thread about this.
-
NGB1066 has seen this document. I am assuming there's nothing particularly incriminating in it to Bamber, other than what is already known, otherwise I doubt NBG1066 would still be here.
Who esle has seen this document other than I assume Bamber and his defence lawyers at the time?
Have the support group eg Yvonne and Phillip seen it?
It is in my view not damaging to JB's case and I regret that it has not been released. If it had been released it would be possible to deal with the arguments and show why key positions taken by the CCRC were flawed. Nothing in the Statement of Reasons in my view weakens the key arguments in favour of a fresh referral to the Court of Appeal. The document certainly did not change my view of the case in any way.
-
It is in my view not damaging to JB's case and I regret that it has not been released. If it had been released it would be possible to deal with the arguments and show why key positions taken by the CCRC were flawed. Nothing in the Statement of Reasons in my view weakens the key arguments in favour of a fresh referral to the Court of Appeal. The document certainly did not change my view of the case in any way.
Thank you NGB1066.
I am at a loss as to why Bamber would want to withhold it given what you have said especially as he is so passionate about non-disclosure. If I do not receive a satisfactory response from Yvonne I might email Bamber to hear from the horses mouth.
-
Thank you NGB1066.
I am at a loss as to why Bamber would want to withhold it given what you have said especially as he is so passionate about non-disclosure. If I do not receive a satisfactory response from Yvonne I might email Bamber to hear from the horses mouth.
If you contact Jeremy Bamber he will reply. He is very good at answering correspondence and is usually happy to discuss aspects of the case and answer questions. You have to remember however that he has been a prisoner now for most of his life and he does depend very much upon the team of people who support him. He listens to the views of his close confidants and rarely goes against their advice. The current stance of the CT seems to be not to disclose much by way of detail. In the past they have been more open but that has sometimes not played out very well and they seem to be much more cautious now. Although I have known Jeremy to take an independent line on a particular point I think it this instance he will follow what he is advised by the CT and it is therefore unlikely in my view that he will authorise the release of the CCRC document. I may be wrong of course, and there is certainly no harm in raising the matter with him. You can either contact him by post or use the email a prisoner service which works well.
-
Thank you NGB1066.
I am at a loss as to why Bamber would want to withhold it given what you have said especially as he is so passionate about non-disclosure. If I do not receive a satisfactory response from Yvonne I might email Bamber to hear from the horses mouth.
If it's going to be used should there be an appeal, then nobody is going to tell you anything, you should know that, for obvious reasons.
-
It's not as though many have JB's interests at heart ! Well not genuinely.
-
I should hope that the CT use judgement !
-
I've just stumbled across the following
The CCRC's supposed difficulty in doing so is reflected in the fact that only two cases have ever been referred to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC more than once.[15]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/850/85005.htm
The doc was published 6 years ago so maybe another couple of cases to add to two but even so it shows the odds really are stacked up against Bamber.
-
If you contact Jeremy Bamber he will reply. He is very good at answering correspondence and is usually happy to discuss aspects of the case and answer questions. You have to remember however that he has been a prisoner now for most of his life and he does depend very much upon the team of people who support him. He listens to the views of his close confidants and rarely goes against their advice. The current stance of the CT seems to be not to disclose much by way of detail. In the past they have been more open but that has sometimes not played out very well and they seem to be much more cautious now. Although I have known Jeremy to take an independent line on a particular point I think it this instance he will follow what he is advised by the CT and it is therefore unlikely in my view that he will authorise the release of the CCRC document. I may be wrong of course, and there is certainly no harm in raising the matter with him. You can either contact him by post or use the email a prisoner service which works well.
Thanks. In the absense of a satisfactory response from Yvonne I will email Jeremy Bamber.
-
If it's going to be used should there be an appeal, then nobody is going to tell you anything, you should know that, for obvious reasons.
Why would the Statement of Reasons detailing the reasons the review commission did not refer in 2011/12 be used again in a fresh submission? They have already been rejected. I am interested in what the arguments were and why they were thrown out!
-
Why would the Statement of Reasons detailing the reasons the review commission did not refer in 2011/12 be used again in a fresh submission? They have already been rejected. I am interested in what the arguments were and why they were thrown out!
What I meant to say that because of the rejection I'd be very reluctant to say why, in view of the latest submission. I have my own reasons.
-
As I've already said, not everyone has Jeremy's interest at heart. I trust nobody !
-
Why not go the whole hog and contact Newby ?
-
What I meant to say that because of the rejection I'd be very reluctant to say why, in view of the latest submission. I have my own reasons.
But do you not find it somewhat hypocritical in that Bamber and his support group bang on about non-disclosure and yet Bamber himself is not revealing his full hand?
Yvonne said she wants as many people to support Bamber as possible. Why would they when they are denied access to important documents? Its all very well Yvonne saying she will tell me but I want to read the material word for word and draw my own opinions.
-
As I've already said, not everyone has Jeremy's interest at heart. I trust nobody !
You're telling me! They may be well intentioned but the likes of the support group with the podcast and website do Bamber a great disservice in my humble opinion.
Other miscarriages of justice or even those seeking justice eg the family of Stephen Lawrence have not set up what could be described as a circus. They have just got on with it quietly and in doing so met with their objectives.
-
You're telling me! They may be well intentioned but the likes of the support group with the podcast and website do Bamber a great disservice in my humble opinion.
Other miscarriages of justice or even those seeking justice eg the family of Stephen Lawrence have not set up what could be described as a circus. They have just got on with it quietly and in doing so met with their objectives.
Such people don't have a state induced/supported propaganda campaign against them. A one that can spue erroneous clichés out
-
But do you not find it somewhat hypocritical in that Bamber and his support group bang on about non-disclosure and yet Bamber himself is not revealing his full hand?
Yvonne said she wants as many people to support Bamber as possible. Why would they when they are denied access to important documents? Its all very well Yvonne saying she will tell me but I want to read the material word for word and draw my own opinions.
No I don't find it hypocritical at all as there are some things that people want to hold on to until such times it's convenient for them to decide when to produce and not for others whose opinions could well be used in a way to mislead or misconstrue what that person actually means. Documents can always be twisted to suit unless you physically see them so they're best kept under wraps until hopefully there's an appeal. There's nothing more damaging than " leaked documents ".
This case has had to be kept in the public eye as there's been no other way. It wouldn't have benefitted from any " behind the scenes " work such as the Stephen Lawrence case.
-
Such people don't have a state induced/supported propaganda campaign against them. A one that can spue erroneous clichés out
Oh Roch do me a favour ::) Bamber was a farmer in rural Essex not a political activist or investigative journalist unearthing some state secrets.
If you had access to the 100 page Statement of Reasons produced by the review commission in 2011/12 you might just think it had a point.
-
No I don't find it hypocritical at all as there are some things that people want to hold on to until such times it's convenient for them to decide when to produce and not for others whose opinions could well be used in a way to mislead or misconstrue what that person actually means. Documents can always be twisted to suit unless you physically see them so they're best kept under wraps until hopefully there's an appeal. There's nothing more damaging than " leaked documents ".
This case has had to be kept in the public eye as there's been no other way. It wouldn't have benefitted from any " behind the scenes " work such as the Stephen Lawrence case.
I think you have actually agreed with me without realising it!
As you said documents can be twisted unless you physically see them which is exactly why I want Bamber to make this document available to the public to allow them to form their own opinions.
As it stands Yvonne has said she is unable to make it available but will answer my queries.
What is Bamber hiding? NGB1066 has said there's nothing detrimental to Bamber and he would prefer it be in the public domain so why not?
-
I think you have actually agreed with me without realising it!
As you said documents can be twisted unless you physically see them which is exactly why I want Bamber to make this document available to the public to allow them to form their own opinions.
As it stands Yvonne has said she is unable to make it available but will answer my queries.
What is Bamber hiding? NGB1066 has said there's nothing detrimental to Bamber and he would prefer it be in the public domain so why not?
I would very much doubt that JB is hiding anything in particular which he wouldn't want to produce at a later date. It could well be something personal to himself that for the time being he'd rather not mention, which if that were the case then it's his prerogative. I imagine that anything pressing wouldn't have been given a second thought.
Whatever it is I'm sure we'll hear about it should he be allowed an appeal. It doesn't always do to say too much at this stage of the proceedings and JB will do what he thinks is best.
-
Oh Roch do me a favour ::) Bamber was a farmer in rural Essex not a political activist or investigative journalist unearthing some state secrets.
If you had access to the 100 page Statement of Reasons produced by the review commission in 2011/12 you might just think it had a point.
You think the drama was an accurate balanced portrayal of events? Or Theroux? What about the barrage of press articles? And ballistics expert Carol Ann Lee, imparting her sharpshooter narrative on millions of lay people regarding 25 shots / 25 hits?
Come off it. You know full well that a real old style 'rough justice' docu would make the prosecution case look like what it really is. Instead of this dumbed down propaganda being churned out en masse, spawning thousands of copycat podcasts.
-
Roch I think if the programme Rough Justice had still been shown, there'd have been no case to answer with this one.
-
You're telling me! They may be well intentioned but the likes of the support group with the podcast and website do Bamber a great disservice in my humble opinion.
Other miscarriages of justice or even those seeking justice eg the family of Stephen Lawrence have not set up what could be described as a circus. They have just got on with it quietly and in doing so met with their objectives.
Your use of exclamation marks is very telling. You obviously have two much time on your hands so why don’t you use your ‘intelligence’ and try and get all notes and evidence regarding Julie Mugford released. Why aren’t you pressing for those to be released considering she was the main prosecution witness
That will give you something to do
-
Your use of exclamation marks is very telling. You obviously have two much time on your hands so why don’t you use your ‘intelligence’ and try and get all notes and evidence regarding Julie Mugford released. Why aren’t you pressing for those to be released considering she was the main prosecution witness
That will give you something to do
Jackie, if a person's clever enough it shouldn't take any time at all to see that JM is typical of an embittered person who's been dumped.
-
Oh Roch do me a favour ::) Bamber was a farmer in rural Essex not a political activist or investigative journalist unearthing some state secrets.
If you had access to the 100 page Statement of Reasons produced by the review commission in 2011/12 you might just think it had a point.
More info on the 2012 CCRC decision can be found here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.msg152269.html#msg152269 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.msg152269.html#msg152269)
-
More info on the 2012 CCRC decision can be found here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.msg152269.html#msg152269 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.msg152269.html#msg152269)
Thank you. I think someone posted up the summary a few days ago. I would really like to read the full document which I believe is some 100 pages long. I think it's really hypocritical of Bamber and his support group to be up in arms about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing material especially when he is seeking public support. >:(
-
You think the drama was an accurate balanced portrayal of events? Or Theroux? What about the barrage of press articles? And ballistics expert Carol Ann Lee, imparting her sharpshooter narrative on millions of lay people regarding 25 shots / 25 hits?
Come off it. You know full well that a real old style 'rough justice' docu would make the prosecution case look like what it really is. Instead of this dumbed down propaganda being churned out en masse, spawning thousands of copycat podcasts.
In the last year or so I watched docus about Michael Stone and Luke Mitchell. These featured almost exclusively lawyers, foresnic scientists and former police officers who were assisting the programme makers. Most will be turned off by Bamber due to the circus he chooses to preside over.
-
Thank you. I think someone posted up the summary a few days ago. I would really like to read the full document which I believe is some 100 pages long. I think it's really hypocritical of Bamber and his support group to be up in arms about non-disclosure when he himself is not disclosing material especially when he is seeking public support. >:(
Why should he when there's a process in progress ? JB will disclose what he's got when he's good and ready. I'm sure you would appreciate that ?
-
Your use of exclamation marks is very telling. You obviously have two much time on your hands so why don’t you use your ‘intelligence’ and try and get all notes and evidence regarding Julie Mugford released. Why aren’t you pressing for those to be released considering she was the main prosecution witness
That will give you something to do
And your misuse of the word 'two' is equally telling!!!!!!!!!!
The case is about more than Julie Mugford! Why are you obsessed with this woman?!
-
You're telling me! They may be well intentioned but the likes of the support group with the podcast and website do Bamber a great disservice in my humble opinion.
Other miscarriages of justice or even those seeking justice eg the family of Stephen Lawrence have not set up what could be described as a circus. They have just got on with it quietly and in doing so met with their objectives.
A very good point Cambridge.
-
Why should he when there's a process in progress ? JB will disclose what he's got when he's good and ready. I'm sure you would appreciate that ?
No I don't appreciate it at all. The document explains over 100 pages why Bamber's 2011/12 submission failed. Bamber and his support group want to garner public support and yet we are being denied critically important information. Why?
-
No I don't appreciate it at all. The document explains over 100 pages why Bamber's 2011/12 submission failed. Bamber and his support group want to garner public support and yet we are being denied critically important information. Why?
In case the media got hold of it ? There are some things that are obviously worth holding on to until the bitter end. I can't say as I blame them at this juncture.
-
And your misuse of the word 'two' is equally telling!!!!!!!!!!
The case is about more than Julie Mugford! Why are you obsessed with this woman?!
Exclamation marks again. I’m obsessed with the truth and as your obsessed with being open and transparent why are you not shouting out why evidence given by the bunny boiling main prosecution witness is still held under PII
I will become less obsessed when she is locked up for the numerous serious crimes she committed
-
In case the media got hold of it ? There are some things that are obviously worth holding on to until the bitter end. I can't say as I blame them at this juncture.
It was the bitter end Lookout! The review commission rejected Bamber's submission.
How will you feel if the current submission is rejected and he withholds yet another report?
Will you still have what amounts to blind faith?
-
Exclamation marks again. I’m obsessed with the truth and as your obsessed with being open and transparent why are you not shouting out why evidence given by the bunny boiling main prosecution witness is still held under PII
I will become less obsessed when she is locked up for the numerous serious crimes she committed
And how do you feel about Bamber withholding a 100 page document from the review commission detailing why it rejected Bamber's 2011/12 submission.
Even if, and its a big IFBamber's conviction is overturned I doubt there will be any repercussions for Julie Mugford.
-
It was the bitter end Lookout! The review commission rejected Bamber's submission.
How will you feel if the current submission is rejected and he withholds yet another report?
Will you still have what amounts to blind faith?
You might as well read & respond to the link I posted. It is a good 49 point summary.
-
You might as well read & respond to the link I posted. It is a good 49 point summary.
The summary is interesting thank you but I would like to see the other 100 pages!
-
JackieD, Lookout and Roche
As you're so convinced Bamber is innocent why don't you write to him and ask him for a copy of the full Statement of Reasons issued by the review commission setting out, over 100 pages, exactly why his submission failed. If he is unable or unwilling to part with this information then maybe you need to ask the question why!
-
It was the bitter end Lookout! The review commission rejected Bamber's submission.
How will you feel if the current submission is rejected and he withholds yet another report?
Will you still have what amounts to blind faith?
It won't happen, will it ? They know what they're doing. Maybe " blind faith " is better than having no faith at all ?
-
The summary is interesting thank you but I would like to see the other 100 pages!
What do think of the full 'Court of Appeal' document?
-
JackieD, Lookout and Roche
As you're so convinced Bamber is innocent why don't you write to him and ask him for a copy of the full Statement of Reasons issued by the review commission setting out, over 100 pages, exactly why his submission failed. If he is unable or unwilling to part with this information then maybe you need to ask the question why!
Now you're being silly ! Just as if JB's going to hand anything over to strangers ::) He might have been a mug before he went to prison but I'm sure he's learned a lot since. I don't blame him for not trusting anyone any more.
-
What do think of the full 'Court of Appeal' document?
It proves Bamber's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt!!!!!!!!!!
-
Now you're being silly ! Just as if JB's going to hand anything over to strangers ::) He might have been a mug before he went to prison but I'm sure he's learned a lot since. I don't blame him for not trusting anyone any more.
Well he has handed a lot of material over to someone as its here on this forum so why not the statement of reasons document?
-
Well he has handed a lot of material over to someone as its here on this forum so why not the statement of reasons document?
It's probably with his solicitor.
-
Well he has handed a lot of material over to someone as its here on this forum so why not the statement of reasons document?
Almost all of the case related case material posted here is material held by Mike Tesko. He obtained that material when he was assisting Jeremy Bamber as his Mackenzie adviser. A lot was passed to Mike by Jeremy Bamber's previous solicitors when their involvement in the case had finished and the time limit for archiving case papers had passed. It is not correct therefore to suggest that Jeremy Bamber has provided the material posted here. Mike does not have the 2012 CCRC Statement of Reasons, which is why he has not posted them. The fact that the Campaign Team have decided not to publish the document is not sinister. It is simply a policy decision they have taken. I may not agree with the decision but it is in no way a reflection of any weakness in the defence case or lack of confidence in it.
-
And how do you feel about Bamber withholding a 100 page document from the review commission detailing why it rejected Bamber's 2011/12 submission.
Even if, and its a big IFBamber's conviction is overturned I doubt there will be any repercussions for Julie Mugford.
I doubt ????? Your a nobody! So you don’t know anything. Stick to the facts not supposition
-
It proves Bamber's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt!!!!!!!!!!
Jokes. Pathetic. Embarrassing
-
And how do you feel about Bamber withholding a 100 page document from the review commission detailing why it rejected Bamber's 2011/12 submission.
Even if, and its a big IFBamber's conviction is overturned I doubt there will be any repercussions for Julie Mugford.
I know you have a problem processing information but if Julies Mugfords notes evidence etc was all released in the public domain we would not need statements of reasons. So give it a rest or fight for the really important information to be released
-
Why so desperate I wonder ?
-
It proves Bamber's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt!!!!!!!!!!
If that was the case, everybody would agree with you.
-
It's probably with his solicitor.
I am sure a number of people have copies eg past and present lawyers, Bamber, support group etc.
-
Almost all of the case related case material posted here is material held by Mike Tesko. He obtained that material when he was assisting Jeremy Bamber as his Mackenzie adviser. A lot was passed to Mike by Jeremy Bamber's previous solicitors when their involvement in the case had finished and the time limit for archiving case papers had passed. It is not correct therefore to suggest that Jeremy Bamber has provided the material posted here. Mike does not have the 2012 CCRC Statement of Reasons, which is why he has not posted them. The fact that the Campaign Team have decided not to publish the document is not sinister. It is simply a policy decision they have taken. I may not agree with the decision but it is in no way a reflection of any weakness in the defence case or lack of confidence in it.
I accept what you're saying but I would be interested in getting a handle on the review commissions thinking about the case. After all 100 pages is a lot of thinking!
Given Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case I am surprised they do not wish to be seen as anything less than totally transparent.
-
I doubt ????? Your a nobody! So you don’t know anything. Stick to the facts not supposition
Is that a nobody troll or just a nobody?!
Anyway on a serious note perhaps NGB1066 could give his opinion on whether in the event Bamber's conviction is overturned Julie Mugford would face prosecution?
-
Jokes. Pathetic. Embarrassing
It isn't! If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513
We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
-
I know you have a problem processing information but if Julies Mugfords notes evidence etc was all released in the public domain we would not need statements of reasons. So give it a rest or fight for the really important information to be released
I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!
How do you know
a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?
Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.
-
It isn't! If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513
We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
The jury were not told that the blood grouping in the sound moderator was a match for one of the major prosecution witnesses. They were not told that Miller had informed the same witness that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows at WHF. They were not told that peer reviewed ballistics and burns' experts reports were of the opinion a sound moderator wasn't used. The reports have not been contested by any other scientists and obviously would have brought in to play the question of deliberate contamination (if JB had used a defence barrister instead of Rivlin). They were not told that JM was arrested as opposed to having come forward. They were not told how many coaching sessions she had, or who paid her subsistence while she was at police college or that her deal with NOTW was pre-trial. Etc etc etc etc etc ,(ie prob tip of the iceberg, regarding what the jury were not told).
-
Is that a nobody troll or just a nobody?!
Anyway on a serious note perhaps NGB1066 could give his opinion on whether in the event Bamber's conviction is overturned Julie Mugford would face prosecution?
Now you are wasting time. Clearly that would depend on how and why Jeremys conviction is overturned!!!!!!!!
If you can grasp that
-
It isn't! If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513
We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
If you are telling the ‘truth’ and have read up about the case you would clearly know how much evidence was witheld from the jury. Just one piece of evidence that would have made a difference to the jury was the NOTW deal
So your post is pointless
-
I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!
How do you know
a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?
Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.
I am sure he will especially regarding the chief prosecution witness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Thanks Roch
-
I can fully endorse what Roch has said-----and more !
-
The jury were not told that the blood grouping in the sound moderator was a match for one of the major prosecution witnesses. They were not told that Miller had informed the same witness that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows at WHF. They were not told that peer reviewed ballistics and burns' experts reports were of the opinion a sound moderator wasn't used. The reports have not been contested by any other scientists and obviously would have brought in to play the question of deliberate contamination (if JB had used a defence barrister instead of Rivlin). They were not told that JM was arrested as opposed to having come forward. They were not told how many coaching sessions she had, or who paid her subsistence while she was at police college or that her deal with NOTW was pre-trial. Etc etc etc etc etc ,(ie prob tip of the iceberg, regarding what the jury were not told).
Realistically how would Robert Boutflour's blood have ended up in the silencer? How would he know that his blood groupings matched Sheila's? If Rivlin has gone down the road of contamination and brought to the attention of the jury the match no doubt the prosecution would have posed some challenging arguments about how Robert Boutflour could possibly know his blood was a match for Sheila's and how it ended up there?
I know nothing about "sophisticated equipment" used to detect tampering with windows. What evidence exists to support this?
Obviously jurors do not hear about forensic tests carried out by the defence post trial such as those you mention but they do not get to hear about forensic tests carried out by the proseuction either such as the one carried out for the 2002 appeal by a Mr Ismail. The learned judges concluded at point 519
Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
Does evidence exist supporting your assertions about Julie Mudgford?
-
If you are telling the ‘truth’ and have read up about the case you would clearly know how much evidence was witheld from the jury. Just one piece of evidence that would have made a difference to the jury was the NOTW deal
So your post is pointless
You seem to overlook the fact that Julie Mugford was just one prosecution witness. Others also testified:
Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family 116. Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.
117. During the winter of 1984 the appellant told one of the farm workers, "I'm not going to share my money with my sister" and he had always given the impression he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.
118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I fucking hate my parents".
119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
-
Realistically how would Robert Boutflour's blood have ended up in the silencer? How would he know that his blood groupings matched Sheila's? If Rivlin has gone down the road of contamination and brought to the attention of the jury the match no doubt the prosecution would have posed some challenging arguments about how Robert Boutflour could possibly know his blood was a match for Sheila's and how it ended up there?
I know nothing about "sophisticated equipment" used to detect tampering with windows. What evidence exists to support this?
Obviously jurors do not hear about forensic tests carried out by the defence post trial such as those you mention but they do not get to hear about forensic tests carried out by the proseuction either such as the one carried out for the 2002 appeal by a Mr Ismail. The learned judges concluded at point 519
Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
Does evidence exist supporting your assertions about Julie Mudgford?
You do realise the question asked by the jury, regarding Robert Boutflour, prior to delivering the verdicts? That in itself implies that the jury would have been interested in the fact that the blood group found in the sound moderator was not an exact match for Sheila only, it was an exact match for him also. Also to be considered, he was present when it was found.
Granted regarding your post trial remark. However, how can burns and ballistics experts be stating that there was no sound moderator on the rifle for the contact shots to Sheila, if her blood is supposed to have found its way in the sound moderator by a process of back spatter? Are you aware that MF didn't carry out any experiments to prove this? He got the theory from a text book or article.
You should watch the windows video, regardless of your opinions on the judge's summing up. You yourself have hinted that the judge's summing up on the windows is a ridiculous statement (you framed it differently, but that's what you meant). It might be a good idea to compare his remark with the window video content.
ngb may be able to confirm re JM and the NOTW deal. It is definitely now known she was put up in a police college and received subsistence. The defence have details of how many times she met with DS Stan Jones.
-
QT, there is a document somewhere on the forum which gives a run-down on when the silencer was found by the family and if I remember rightly it's this particular document that Ann Eaton had a sudden " lapse of memory " in that she couldn't remember quite a few things.
Also another document which states that Mr Hayward had been adamant that only Sheila's blood had contained the particular enzyme.
-
You do realise the question asked by the jury, regarding Robert Boutflour, prior to delivering the verdicts? That in itself implies that the jury would have been interested in the fact that the blood group found in the sound moderator was not an exact match for Sheila only, it was an exact match for him also. Also to be considered, he was present when it was found.
Granted regarding your post trial remark. However, how can burns and ballistics experts be stating that there was no sound moderator on the rifle for the contact shots to Sheila, if her blood is supposed to have found its way in the sound moderator by a process of back spatter? Are you aware that MF didn't carry out any experiments to prove this? He got the theory from a text book or article.
You should watch the windows video, regardless of your opinions on the judge's summing up. You yourself have hinted that the judge's summing up on the windows is a ridiculous statement (you framed it differently, but that's what you meant). It might be a good idea to compare his remark with the window video content.
ngb may be able to confirm re JM and the NOTW deal. It is definitely now known she was put up in a police college and received subsistence. The defence have details of how many times she met with DS Stan Jones.
The jury posed a question about inheritance and whether it was a reason for Robert Boutflour claiming Bamber made the following comment
424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
About 8% of the white British population share the same groupings so the fact Robert Boutflour's did is hardly surprising. If the defence argued Robert Boutflour placed his own blood inside the silencer it would need to overcome some serious obstacles for it to stand up under cross examination of expert witnesses. Bearing in mind the blood was supposedly seen as far down as the 5th/6th baffle.
I haven't seen the window video. Are you able to upload it?
The trial judge warned the jury about the reliablity of Julie Mudgord's evidence
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
-
QT, there is a document somewhere on the forum which gives a run-down on when the silencer was found by the family and if I remember rightly it's this particular document that Ann Eaton had a sudden " lapse of memory " in that she couldn't remember quite a few things.
Also another document which states that Mr Hayward had been adamant that only Sheila's blood had contained the particular enzyme.
Yes Lookout I am familiar with all aspects of the silencer evidence as it is the sticking point in my opinion.
I also note in the recent documentary that David Boutflour said when he recovered the silencer from the gun cupboard that he observed a hair which is inconsistent with other statements!!!!!!!!!!
-
Yes Lookout I am familiar with all aspects of the silencer evidence as it is the sticking point in my opinion.
I also note in the recent documentary that David Boutflour said when he recovered the silencer from the gun cupboard that he observed a hair which is inconsistent with other statements!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the vanishing hair.
-
Yes, the vanishing hair.
Which I would have said wasn't there initially, but after when it was taken to DB's home. RWB's for instance ?
-
All DB had remarked about when " finding " the silencer was the blood and paint----not a grey hair ?
-
You seem to overlook the fact that Julie Mugford was just one prosecution witness. Others also testified:
Other evidence of the appellant's dislike of his family 116. Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.
117. During the winter of 1984 the appellant told one of the farm workers, "I'm not going to share my money with my sister" and he had always given the impression he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.
118. James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I fucking hate my parents".
119. In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
As usual your points and posts are weak
Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person.
Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family.
Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father.
He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm.
The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family.
A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’
The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer. 😢
You are comparing these people above to Mary Mugford who raised her daughter to carry out over 20 serious criminal offences
Julie Mugford herself who carried out over 20 serious criminal offences
A farm worker ?
James Richards who was probably involved in Mugfords criminal activities
Do you wonder you look like a joke and nobody is taking you seriously
-
My personal take on the blood inside the baffles/ silencer was when it was dismantled. I'm not familiar with the baffles themselves but anyone unfamiliar with the handling of a dissected silencer could have found themselves with a sharp cut from the edges of them, namely RWB who'd been seen with some sort of injury to his finger as it was covered---plaster/ bandage ? Which, had he been handling it and had cut himself then his blood would have been on one or two of the baffles.
Again, when the silencer was put together again, chances are that the baffles wouldn't have been in the same order as when it was first dismantled. Of the 14 ? baffles contained within the silencer it would then have appeared that blood had reached further down the silencer than it had.
Was RWB aware of his blood grouping being the same as Sheila's ??
-
The jury posed a question about inheritance and whether it was a reason for Robert Boutflour claiming Bamber made the following comment
424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
About 8% of the white British population share the same groupings so the fact Robert Boutflour's did is hardly surprising. If the defence argued Robert Boutflour placed his own blood inside the silencer it would need to overcome some serious obstacles for it to stand up under cross examination of expert witnesses. Bearing in mind the blood was supposedly seen as far down as the 5th/6th baffle.
I haven't seen the window video. Are you able to upload it?
The trial judge warned the jury about the reliablity of Julie Mudgord's evidence
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
So if the jury had already been informed that RWB's blood grouping matched that of Sheila's (instead of being misdirected that the blood in the sound moderator only matched Sheila's), how much more cautiously would they have approached RWB's evidence about the alleged remark from Jeremy? They were already suspicious, as you have shown above.
You yourself are now aware of uncontested scientific findings that the marks to Sheila were formed by a rifle without a sound moderator. I have also informed you that MF admitted he hadn't carried out any experiments to confirm the back-spatter theory in this case. The judge directed the jury that they could convict on the sound moderator evidence alone. So we have have convictions in place for 35 years, shored up by a theory from an article or text book, without experiments and without precedent in the expert's own experience.
-
Anyway on a serious note perhaps NGB1066 could give his opinion on whether in the event Bamber's conviction is overturned Julie Mugford would face prosecution?
It depends upon the basis for the conviction being overturned. If it included proof that JM had perjured herself at trial prosecution would be likely, otherwise not.
-
I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!
How do you know
a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?
Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.
There is no doubt that non disclosed information exists. The prosecution have accepted this and declined to disclose a number of documents. Whether the information would assist the defence is a matter for speculation, but if it would not it is perhaps surprising that there is such reluctance on the part of the prosecution to disclose it. I am convinced, based upon my own knowledge of aspects of the case, that some of the withheld material would be of great assistance to the defence.
-
I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!
How do you know
a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?
Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.
There is no doubt that non disclosed information exists. The prosecution have accepted this and declined to disclose a number of documents. Whether the information would assist the defence is a matter for speculation, but if it would not it is perhaps surprising that there is such reluctance on the part of the prosecution to disclose it. I am convinced, based upon my own knowledge of aspects of the case, that some of the withheld material would be of great assistance to the defence.
Further to ngb's reply to you. This was published several years ago
https://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber
In addition, there is also this:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16871430
Clearly if something needs to be shut away until everyone has passed on, it's hardly something beneficial to the prosecution is it?
-
This is without doubt the idea of holding information----until everyone concerned is dead and buried ! 2054.
Case well and truly closed !
-
It depends upon the basis for the conviction being overturned. If it included proof that JM had perjured herself at trial prosecution would be likely, otherwise not.
But then a jury would have to find her guilty. If (being the operative word) it got to this stage I guess her defence could revolve around police coercion.
A number of high profile miscarriages involved prosecution witnesses committing perjury where charges were not brought.
-
There is no doubt that non disclosed information exists. The prosecution have accepted this and declined to disclose a number of documents. Whether the information would assist the defence is a matter for speculation, but if it would not it is perhaps surprising that there is such reluctance on the part of the prosecution to disclose it. I am convinced, based upon my own knowledge of aspects of the case, that some of the withheld material would be of great assistance to the defence.
Is it known whether the review submission has looked at the non-disclosed material to draw its own conclusions?
With respect I am arguing the same point with regard to Bamber's decision not to disclose the statement of reasons doc. You have said it is not harmful to the defence, and I am sure you're correct on this point, but Bamber will not disclose.
In any event I would like to see the prosecution make available all the non-disclosed material.
-
Further to ngb's reply to you. This was published several years ago
https://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber
In addition, there is also this:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16871430
Clearly if something needs to be shut away until everyone has passed on, it's hardly something beneficial to the prosecution is it?
Thanks. I hope the review commission order the release of the material. I believe it has the power to do so.
What sort of material is being held at the national archives?
-
Is it known whether the review submission has looked at the non-disclosed material to draw its own conclusions?
With respect I am arguing the same point with regard to Bamber's decision not to disclose the statement of reasons doc. You have said it is not harmful to the defence, and I am sure you're correct on this point, but Bamber will not disclose.
In any event I would like to see the prosecution make available all the non-disclosed material.
The CCRC did not inspect the withheld material. They do have the power to require its production, but they appear only to use that power quite sparingly, certainly in this case.
-
I haven't seen the window video. Are you able to upload it?
https://youtu.be/65t__yHjAjk
-
The CCRC did not inspect the withheld material. They do have the power to require its production, but they appear only to use that power quite sparingly, certainly in this case.
Bamber's support group claim court orders are in place to release so I am surprised Essex police are not forced to comply.
-
Bamber's support group claim court orders are in place to release so I am surprised Essex police are not forced to comply.
That's why I tried to alert you this former police officer's support
https://www.change.org/p/priti-patel-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence-team-whitehousefarm/c/772183661
-
https://youtu.be/65t__yHjAjk
Thanks. I am unaware of any equipment used to establish whether or not windows have been tampered with.
-
Thanks. I am unaware of any equipment used to establish whether or not windows have been tampered with.
Equipment may have existed to that effect. Whether it was used is another matter. However, I believe Miller should have been questioned about this at trial. This in turn, may have impacted upon the judge's summing up.
-
Equipment may have existed to that effect. Whether it was used is another matter. However, I believe Miller should have been questioned about this at trial. This in turn, may have impacted upon the judge's summing up.
In the Sky doc Anthony Arldige said he was concerned the judge was showing bias. I don't think his concern was for Bamber but rather in his experience jurors often go against the judge if they feel he/she is leading them too much/showing bias.
Lots of things probably should have happened at trial but it is what it is!
-
In the Sky doc Anthony Arldige said he was concerned the judge was showing bias. I don't think his concern was for Bamber but rather in his experience jurors often go against the judge if they feel he/she is leading them too much/showing bias.
Lots of things probably should have happened at trial but it is what it is!
How many circumstances that aligned were merely coincidence; and how many were by design?
A group of officers willing to frame a 'suspect'.
Large scale non-disclosure.
A group of relatives not served well by the wills of Nevill and June, who became prosecution witnesses.
A barrister who had never defended before and showed the prosecution way too much respect.
A pre-trial 'cheque-book journalism' agreement, (25K for a guilty verdict) masquerading as a post trial agreement.
A 'washed' star witness, provided with immunity from prosecution.
A judge involved in previous wrongful convictions, in another case involving corrupt police officers.
A SIO who retired after the first appeal was refused and was found to be employed by the very prosecution witness who had him installed as SIO in the first place.
Subsequent appeals and referrals having to take place with a backdrop of non-disclosure, despite a court order and despite the CCRC having powers.
Propaganda masquerading as fact based drama or documentaries (with glaring omissions and lack of depth).
You are right, it is what it is.. Not a very good advert for British justice or media journalism.
-
How many circumstances that aligned were merely coincidence; and how many were by design?
A group of officers willing to frame a 'suspect'.
Large scale non-disclosure.
A group of relatives not served well by the wills of Nevill and June, who became prosecution witnesses.
A barrister who had never defended before and showed the prosecution way too much respect.
A pre-trial 'cheque-book journalism' agreement, (25K for a guilty verdict) masquerading as a post trial agreement.
A 'washed' star witness, provided with immunity from prosecution.
A judge involved in previous wrongful convictions, in another case involving corrupt police officers.
A SIO who retired after the first appeal was refused and was found to be employed by the very prosecution witness who had him installed as SIO in the first place.
Subsequent appeals and referrals having to take place with a backdrop of non-disclosure, despite a court order and despite the CCRC having powers.
Propaganda masquerading as fact based drama or documentaries (with glaring omissions and lack of depth).
You are right, it is what it is.. Not a very good advert for British justice or media journalism.
Talking of propaganda the same could be said for the support group which attempts to mislead with points that simply do not stand up to scrutiny eg a phone call from Mr Bamber, a 999 call from Sheila, two bodies in the kitchen, movement inside the farmhouse when Bamber was outside, curtains opening/closing, lights on/off, police shooting Sheila, police using crime scene as training exercise.
-
Talking of propaganda the same could be said for the support group which attempts to mislead with points that simply do not stand up to scrutiny eg a phone call from Mr Bamber, a 999 call from Sheila, two bodies in the kitchen, movement inside the farmhouse when Bamber was outside, curtains opening/closing, lights on/off, police shooting Sheila, police using crime scene as training exercise.
I think this caused quite a stir within EP..
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-familys-107641
-
Does anyone else wonder whether Yvonne Hartley did the voiceovers for The Flumps?
-
In the Sky doc Anthony Arldige said he was concerned the judge was showing bias. I don't think his concern was for Bamber but rather in his experience jurors often go against the judge if they feel he/she is leading them too much/showing bias.
Lots of things probably should have happened at trial but it is what it is!
You really do take the biscuit of being one of the vilest people to frequent this forum just as Matt popped up just before the last decision.
You think. ??? Once again you haven’t got a clue, let’s hope you never sit on a jury
It is what it is ??? You absolute freak
An innocent man could well be sitting in prison and you come out with shit like that
You have not fooled a single one of the intelligent posters on here not for a second
And just to answer a question you raised earlier
Ngb would not lift a finger to help Jeremy if he really thought he had murdered 2 small children
Got it !!!!!!!!!
-
You really do take the biscuit of being one of the vilest people to frequent this forum just as Matt popped up just before the last decision.
You think. ??? Once again you haven’t got a clue, let’s hope you never sit on a jury
It is what it is ??? You absolute freak
An innocent man could well be sitting in prison and you come out with shit like that
You have not fooled a single one of the intelligent posters on here not for a second
And just to answer a question you raised earlier
Ngb would not lift a finger to help Jeremy if he really thought he had murdered 2 small children
Got it !!!!!!!!!
::)
-
I think this caused quite a stir within EP..
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-familys-107641
Why? I can't see there's any truth to it.
-
Why? I can't see there's any truth to it.
I'm not aware its been denied by EP. Even if it was, that wouldn't be proof that informatives didn't take place. Remember, the defence now have far more info on how many officers attended the scene.
-
, movement inside the farmhouse when Bamber was outside, curtains opening/closing, lights on/off,
There is actually evidence to support that one..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798)
-
There is actually evidence to support that one..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798)
-
There is actually evidence to support that one..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10027.msg457798.html#msg457798)
Thanks. Impressive detail but does it stand up? Can it be referred to as evidence?
I don’t recall Bamber mentioning anything about this in his police statements/interviews or at trial. When the prosecutor put it to him that he killed his family he replied ‘That’s for you to prove’. He could have said ‘No, absolutely not. I was outside with the police when there was movement in the house, lights going on/off and curtains opening/closing. PC Bewes thought it was a trick of the light but I think Sheila was still alive inside the house’. He could have referred to this in his first witness statement and interviews under caution but not a word until decades later when he’s scraping the barrel with his support group.
Bewes also states “No sign of life”.
There are a lot of windows at the farmhouse and I think its just a case of wires being crossed over identifying which window was being referred to. Were any night images taken?
I’m not sure the red glow in the bedroom window is a lightbulb. If you look at the front door you will see something similar at a level you would not expect to see a lightbulb unless it is some sort of optical illusion from a light much further away and you end up with a sort of prism effect if that makes sense!
-
David
You can also draw a straight line between those two 'lights' which gives me the impression it might well be the sun reflecting on some object.
-
Have I had a lightbulb moment? :P
-
Maybe we can see the 'trick of the light' with our own eyes!
-
The more I look at David's image of the front of the farmhouse I think it is a shaft a sunlight beaming down across the bedroom window through to the front door enabling us to see the 'trick of the light' ourselves.
Also I think the glow in the bedroom is too high to come from some sort of man-made ceiling light.
-
The more I look at David's image of the front of the farmhouse I think it is a shaft a sunlight beaming down across the bedroom window through to the front door enabling us to see the 'trick of the light' ourselves.
Also I think the glow in the bedroom is too high to come from some sort of man-made ceiling light.
I am sorry but from my perspective I do not see the effect you are seeing. I do not know what others might see but respectfully suggest you take a trip to Specsavers.
-
David
You can also draw a straight line between those two 'lights' which gives me the impression it might well be the sun reflecting on some object.
Which is why Bew's ran to his car as though his backside was on fire.
-
The more I look at David's image of the front of the farmhouse I think it is a shaft a sunlight beaming down across the bedroom window through to the front door enabling us to see the 'trick of the light' ourselves.
Also I think the glow in the bedroom is too high to come from some sort of man-made ceiling light.
Unless you were under the influence while looking at the photo. I agree with Bubo Bubo's recommendation you take a trip to SpecSavers.
-
Unless you were under the influence while looking at the photo. I agree with Bubo Bubo's recommendation you take a trip to SpecSavers.
QT does not even know the time that the photo was taken. WHF faces East South East. If the photo was taken at noon (Soco did not start until 10.00 am and that was inside) the sun would not be in the right place to create this mystical vision.
-
QT does not even know the time that the photo was taken. WHF faces East South East. If the photo was taken at noon (Soco did not start until 10.00 am and that was inside) the sun would not be in the right place to create this mystical vision.
Plus the grey sky and unvarying shade under the gutter indicates to me the sun is not even out when the photo was taken.
-
Maybe we can see the 'trick of the light' with our own eyes!
The trick of the light has interested me quite a bit, because after establishing it was a trick of the light Bews and co ran??
-
Which is why Bew's ran to his car as though his backside was on fire.
3 people were present: Bamber, PS Bewes, and PC Myall all of whom produced witness statements. If as you say one or more individuals became alarmed about something or someone and started running it would have been a notable event and recorded as such so please find.
-
The trick of the light has interested me quite a bit, because after establishing it was a trick of the light Bews and co ran??
3 people were present: Bamber, PS Bewes, and PC Myall all of whom produced witness statements. If as you say one or more individuals became alarmed about something or someone and started running it would have been a notable event and recorded as such so please find.
-
am sorry but from my perspective I do not see the effect you are seeing. I do not know what others might see but respectfully suggest you take a trip to Specsavers.
It matters not I am sure the review commission will share your views ::)
-
Unless you were under the influence while looking at the photo. I agree with Bubo Bubo's recommendation you take a trip to SpecSavers.
It matters not I am sure the review commission will agree with your views ::)
-
If the glow in the bedroom window is a light bulb can someone please tell me what the exact same glow is around the door handle on the main door. Thanks.
-
3 people were present: Bamber, PS Bewes, and PC Myall all of whom produced witness statements. If as you say one or more individuals became alarmed about something or someone and started running it would have been a notable event and recorded as such so please find.
Read the non disclosure booklet. It might be in there (situation report) prior to force arms being drawn.
-
3 people were present: Bamber, PS Bewes, and PC Myall all of whom produced witness statements. If as you say one or more individuals became alarmed about something or someone and started running it would have been a notable event and recorded as such so please find.
If you cared to read posts that are on this forum you will see that arguments have been advanced that suggest that Bews and Myall rewrote their witness statements and pocket books. You still have not read why I think there are issues with PV25 and PV26. If you take investigating this case seriously you have to read the evidence presented by people who claim innocence. Purely going by the case material here is a waste of time since if JB was framed you would expect the police to do a thorough job ensuring their case was solid.
Despite the fact that we only have a tiny fraction of the information available many have highlighted considerable number of issues contained in the information we do have. Some of these may well be part of the latest submission.
It is no good coming on the forum to spout the Crowns case, we all know it inside out. If you were truly serious in your endeavour's you would examine what people on here have found and generally absorb their stances on a whole variety of issues. We cannot debate with someone who only understands one side of the argument. If you are not prepared to do this then technically you might be considered a troll but if I may say not a nasty one.
-
All those who were " helping police with their enquiries " were quite adept at seeing things that weren't there ! Maybe QT has caught the bug too.
-
If you cared to read posts that are on this forum you will see that arguments have been advanced that suggest that Bews and Myall rewrote their witness statements and pocket books. You still have not read why I think there are issues with PV25 and PV26. If you take investigating this case seriously you have to read the evidence presented by people who claim innocence. Purely going by the case material here is a waste of time since if JB was framed you would expect the police to do a thorough job ensuring their case was solid.
Despite the fact that we only have a tiny fraction of the information available many have highlighted considerable number of issues contained in the information we do have. Some of these may well be part of the latest submission.
It is no good coming this then technically you might be considered a troll but if I may say not a nasty one.
Bubo you are wasting your time, it’s a wind up and he did exactly the same the last time an application was made to the CCRC. I’m ignoring the think now. What a sick individual
-
3 people were present: Bamber, PS Bewes, and PC Myall all of whom produced witness statements. If as you say one or more individuals became alarmed about something or someone and started running it would have been a notable event and recorded as such so please find.
Please at least take the trouble to study the three policeman's statements in detail, Saxby says they came running back, Bews and Myall don't even mention the event at all.
Bews claims he called in armed police before returning to the car, Saxby says the armed police were called after returning to the car.
In three interviews I have seen Bews give, first he says it was Myall, then JB then himself who first saw the reflection / movement in the window.
So my question stands if they saw nothing why did they run??
-
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial Bamber didn't mention it in his WS, police interviews or testimony.
So not surprised Bews can't remember who saw it. If it was Bamber, it was simply part of the insinuation plan. So Bews & Saxby automatically decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
But appreciate this minor thing has escalated over the last 36 years.
-
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial Bamber didn't mention it in his WS, police interviews or testimony.
So not surprised Bews can't remember who saw it. If it was Bamber, it was simply part of the insinuation plan. So Bews & Saxby automatically decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
But appreciate this minor thing has escalated over the last 36 years.
Keep up Adam it was Bews and Myall who decided it was nothing but then ran anyway. I find this event very interesting actually.
-
Bubo you are wasting your time, it’s a wind up and he did exactly the same the last time an application was made to the CCRC. I’m ignoring the think now. What a sick individual
I hear you. We have had QC and QT I wonder what happened to QD thru QS. Maybe we might expect them to drop by in the near future.
-
Read the non disclosure booklet. It might be in there (situation report) prior to force arms being drawn.
And if you had access to the review commissions statement of reasons for not referring Bamber's last submission, which Bamber refuses to disclose, you might feel very differently about aspects of the case!
-
If you cared to read posts that are on this forum you will see that arguments have been advanced that suggest that Bews and Myall rewrote their witness statements and pocket books. You still have not read why I think there are issues with PV25 and PV26. If you take investigating this case seriously you have to read the evidence presented by people who claim innocence. Purely going by the case material here is a waste of time since if JB was framed you would expect the police to do a thorough job ensuring their case was solid.
Despite the fact that we only have a tiny fraction of the information available many have highlighted considerable number of issues contained in the information we do have. Some of these may well be part of the :) latest submission.
It is no good coming on the forum to spout the Crowns case, we all know it inside out. If you were truly serious in your endeavour's you would examine what people on here have found and generally absorb their stances on a whole variety of issues. We cannot debate with someone who only understands one side of the argument. If you are not prepared to do this then technically you might be considered a troll but if I may say not a nasty one.
We do have Bamber's first statement dated 7th Aug 1985 and not a word about the 'trick of the light', movement in house, lights on/off, curtains opening/closing. Bamber has never claimed his statement was altered. Furthermore no one else mentioned such either those present or others that might have heard second hand eg Colin Caffell.
This is simply Bamber scraping the barrel.
-
Which is why Bew's ran to his car as though his backside was on fire.
Perhaps you could explain why Bamber overlooked mentioning this in his statement of 7th August 1985.
-
All those who were " helping police with their enquiries " were quite adept at seeing things that weren't there ! Maybe QT has caught the bug too.
You're the one claiming things that simply do not exist.
-
Keep up Adam it was Bews and Myall who decided it was nothing but then ran anyway. I find this event very interesting actually.
If they ran away why didn't Bamber refer to this in his statement of 7th August 1985? Or during his police interviews? Or at trial?
-
Bubo you are wasting your time, it’s a wind up and he did exactly the same the last time an application was made to the CCRC. I’m ignoring the think now. What a sick individual
You post such drivel I could be forgiven for thinking the State planted you here as a stooge!
I bet you don't ignore me because you wil lack the discipline to follow through!
-
The 'trick of the light' was so trivial Bamber didn't mention it in his WS, police interviews or testimony.
So not surprised Bews can't remember who saw it. If it was Bamber, it was simply part of the insinuation plan. So Bews & Saxby automatically decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
But appreciate this minor thing has escalated over the last 36 years.
The voice of reason :)
-
If the glow in the bedroom window is a light bulb can someone please tell me what the exact same glow is around the door handle on the main door. Thanks.
Any ideas about the above?
-
One thing for sure, the sun wouldn't have been that high at the time of the morning EP were there. It would have only been about 05.20 before the sun would even show itself at that time of the year, so no doubt it was an electric light. As for any other area which appeared to be illuminated, it only needs one light on to reflect into an adjoining room before daylight begins.
-
You're the one claiming things that simply do not exist.
I know what I mean even if you don't !
-
Perhaps you could explain why Bamber overlooked mentioning this in his statement of 7th August 1985.
It wasn't JB who saw it first, so he'd have been relying on the officers present to do the explaining.
IF he had been the one who'd first reported the sighting it would have been looked on as " another way out of him committing any crime by seeing someone alive inside ". Whatever he said he couldn't win----and sadly didn't, as he was surrounded by the craftiest sods on this earth !
-
And if you had access to the review commissions statement of reasons for not referring Bamber's last submission, which Bamber refuses to disclose, you might feel very differently about aspects of the case!
Are you claiming there was no situation report?
-
And if you had access to the review commissions statement of reasons for not referring Bamber's last submission, which Bamber refuses to disclose, you might feel very differently about aspects of the case!
Having read the document I very much doubt that.
-
One thing for sure, the sun wouldn't have been that high at the time of the morning EP were there. It would have only been about 05.20 before the sun would even show itself at that time of the year, so no doubt it was an electric light. As for any other area which appeared to be illuminated, it only needs one light on to reflect into an adjoining room before daylight begins.
To my mind, not even a moon was mentioned at the time.
-
Perhaps you could explain why Bamber overlooked mentioning this in his statement of 7th August 1985.
There's a thread-" Bamber v Bews, year 2011 which is worth a read.
-
If the glow in the bedroom window is a light bulb can someone please tell me what the exact same glow is around the door handle on the main door. Thanks.
Its another light bulb. The one photographed below.
-
Having read the document I very much doubt that.
I now have two members in the ignore list because they add literally nothing to this forum
-
I now have two members in the ignore list because they add literally nothing to this forum
I have Seven.
-
I have Seven.
David can you possibly bring the thread I mentioned, to here please. It's the " Bamber v Bews one from May 2011, which contains part of a blog of JB's mentioning the " movement " in the window as seen by Bews.
-
I have Seven.
That seems excessive. I doubt 7 current posters currently exist who would warrant being placed on ignore.
-
Having read the document I very much doubt that.
Which begs the question why Bamber chooses not to disclose it especially when he is being hampered in pursuing his case as a result of non-disclosure.
-
Its another light bulb. The one photographed below.
I'm not convinced that such a light would form a glow that far away.
-
David can you possibly bring the thread I mentioned, to here please. It's the " Bamber v Bews one from May 2011, which contains part of a blog of JB's mentioning the " movement " in the window as seen by Bews.
No one is doubting the 'trick of the light' but if Bamber thought it was evidence someone was alive at the time why didn't he mention it in his witness statement on the 7th Aug?
-
I've checked his statement and its very detailed. If he thought he saw someone alive in the house, lights on/off, curtains open/closing there's no reason for him not to have mentioned it. And he certainly would have mentioned it during his police interviews or trial but he didn't probably because they were non-events.
As I said simply scraping the barrel.
-
No one is doubting the 'trick of the light' but if Bamber thought it was evidence someone was alive at the time why didn't he mention it in his witness statement on the 7th Aug?
It was very trivial at the time. Bamber knew this & didn't bring it up in his police interviews.
If Bews/Saxby had spotted it, he knew it was a 'trick of the light' as he had killed everyone.
If he had spotted it, it was part of his insinuation & he knew Bews/Saxby had seen nothing.
-
If Bamber had spotted the 'trick of the light', it was better he did not mention it again after his arrest.
The prosecution would say it was part of his insinuation.
-
If Bews/Saxby had spotted the 'trick of the light', it was not worth mentioning it after his arrest.
He knew it was 'a trick of the light' & Bews/Saxby would confirm it.
-
The 'trick of the light' has gathered momentum over the last 36 years. Which is not surprising as the 'Campaign for Freedom' is very determined.
The main focus of it is that Bews cannot remember who saw it.
Bamber has never said who saw it.
-
That seems excessive. I doubt 7 current posters currently exist who would warrant being placed on ignore.
Most haven't posted in a long time.
-
I've checked his statement and its very detailed. If he thought he saw someone alive in the house, lights on/off, curtains open/closing there's no reason for him not to have mentioned it. And he certainly would have mentioned it during his police interviews or trial but he didn't probably because they were non-events.
As I said simply scraping the barrel.
The "trick of light" doesn't come from Jeremy. It comes from Bews and his ever changing version of who saw what.
-
JB said in his blog years ago that" he, Bews and Myall saw someone walking around in the master bedroom at 4am. Bews had refused to knock on the door or look through any of the downstairs windows. He'd appeared to have been very cautious. JB went on to say that all 3 of them had been aware that someone was walking around the house at that time and if either officers had gone into the house, lives could have been saved.
There was no evidence to say what time people died, but at least one person's life could have been saved had Bews not acted so timidly.
The article in question stated it was the first time that Bews admitted that he'd thought he'd seen someone moving around.
The curtains to the master bedroom were fully opened and all the lights were on in that room. It was Bews who'd pointed out that he could see someone to the right of the window. It was difficult to make them out as they walked from right to left in front of the window. You couldn't make out who it was except it was an adult. Bews thought they'd become a target and before they'd walked past the window he made us duck down behind a hedge. When we looked back up the person had gone.
We ran back to the radio car and Bews called the armed response unit. He also called HQ and made a full situation report.The original page one of the radio log is missing from the documents released to the defence, instead a new version had been written out on the back of another form.
I asked for page two of the original log to be ESDA tested as this technique can show from the indents left on the page beneath what was written on the first page. EP refused to allow forensic experts to use ESDA testing on this page, even in response to JB paying for it to be carried out, so there's no way of ever knowing what Bews told HQ over the radio which caused them to send out the TFU.
Contd.
-
If they ran away why didn't Bamber refer to this in his statement of 7th August 1985? Or during his police interviews? Or at trial?
Well why does Bews talk about it all these years latter if the event never happened? I believe JB passed a note to his defense asking for Bews to be questioned on this, but Rivlin let him off lightly I would have grilled him myself.
On the 7th Aug JB was not even a suspect so why mention it?
I find the event very interesting myself, they obviously thought they saw someone, Myall thought it was a male? It is Saxby in his statement who says they came running back, no mention of it in Bews and Myall's statement ???
What were they scared of to make them run? did they know more at that stage than they are letting on??
-
JB said in his blog years ago that" he, Bews and Myall saw someone walking around in the master bedroom at 4am. Bews had refused to knock on the door or look through any of the downstairs windows. He'd appeared to have been very cautious. JB went on to say that all 3 of them had been aware that someone was walking around the house at that time and if either officers had gone into the house, lives could have been saved.
There was no evidence to say what time people died, but at least one person's life could have been saved had Bews not acted so timidly.
The article in question stated it was the first time that Bews admitted that he'd thought he'd seen someone moving around.
The curtains to the master bedroom were fully opened and all the lights were on in that room. It was Bews who'd pointed out that he could see someone to the right of the window. It was difficult to make them out as they walked from right to left in front of the window. You couldn't make out who it was except it was an adult. Bews thought they'd become a target and before they'd walked past the window he made us duck down behind a hedge. When we looked back up the person had gone.
We ran back to the radio car and Bews called the armed response unit. He also called HQ and made a full situation report.The original page one of the radio log is missing from the documents released to the defence, instead a new version had been written out on the back of another form.
I asked for page two of the original log to be ESDA tested as this technique can show from the indents left on the page beneath what was written on the first page. EP refused to allow forensic experts to use ESDA testing on this page, even in response to JB paying for it to be carried out, so there's no way of ever knowing what Bews told HQ over the radio which caused them to send out the TFU.
Contd.
But why wait to write it in a blog during his long incarceration?
He produced a detailed witness statement on 7th August where he talks about arriving at the farmhouse, the dogs barking etc. Why not say then someone was still alive as he saw movement, lights on/off, curtains opening/closing?
Why not bring it up during his police interviews with DCI Jones/DS Jones when it was first put to him he murdered his family? He now wants to claim its his alibi.
Why didn't he get his defence to challenge at trial? Why didn't he mention himself when Anthony Arlige put it to him he killed his family instead of saying 'that's for you to prove' which incidentally he did!
-
One thing for sure, I wouldn't have radioed for armed officers if I'd thought it was a " trick of the light " so why did he ??
-
I hate inconsistencies and incompetence !
-
Well why does Bews talk about it all these years latter if the event never happened? I believe JB passed a note to his defense asking for Bews to be questioned on this, but Rivlin let him off lightly I would have grilled him myself.
On the 7th Aug JB was not even a suspect so why mention it?
I find the event very interesting myself, they obviously thought they saw someone, Myall thought it was a male? It is Saxby in his statement who says they came running back, no mention of it in Bews and Myall's statement ???
What were they scared of to make them run? did they know more at that stage than they are letting on??
Bews refers to it because years later Bamber wants to claim its his alibi!
Please provide evidence Bamber passed a note to Rivlin about the 'trick of the light'? I believe it was mentioned at trial but dismissed. Certainly nothing about lights on/off and curtains opening/closing.
Please provide evidence than Myall thought the movement was a male and that anyone run anywhere.
Its all myth and the idea the commission review will place any significance on this is laughable.
Ask yourself why Bamber didn't mention in his witness statement or at any time during his police interviews when he had an opportunity to put forward his 'alibi' rather than waiting decades later.
-
One thing for sure, I wouldn't have radioed for armed officers if I'd thought it was a " trick of the light " so why did he ??
Isn't if obvious?
Bamber rang the police telling them he received a call from his father saying his sister had gone crazy with a gun. He was told to go to the farmhouse where he told officers the same and that Sheila was mentally ill and had access to firearms and ammunition. There was no sign of life from the farmhouse other than the dogs barking. It was obvious there was something amiss. No sensible person would go near the farmhouse when they were under the impression a mad woman was on the loose with access to numerous firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
-
Bews refers to it because years later Bamber wants to claim its his alibi!
Please provide evidence Bamber passed a note to Rivlin about the 'trick of the light'? I believe it was mentioned at trial but dismissed. Certainly nothing about lights on/off and curtains opening/closing.
Please provide evidence than Myall thought the movement was a male and that anyone run anywhere.
Its all myth and the idea the commission review will place any significance on this is laughable.
Ask yourself why Bamber didn't mention in his witness statement or at any time during his police interviews when he had an opportunity to put forward his 'alibi' rather than waiting decades later.
This is the extract from the trail:
Rivlin: "Do you remember at some stage early on, this happened that one of you Police Officers said that you thought you could see a shadow and you all jumped?"
Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on.
We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window.
As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it."
Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"
Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"
So the defense let Bews off by suggesting it was a trick of the light, JB never had a defense just two prosecutors!
-
Bews refers to it because years later Bamber wants to claim its his alibi!
Please provide evidence Bamber passed a note to Rivlin about the 'trick of the light'? I believe it was mentioned at trial but dismissed. Certainly nothing about lights on/off and curtains opening/closing.
Please provide evidence than Myall thought the movement was a male and that anyone run anywhere.
Its all myth and the idea the commission review will place any significance on this is laughable.
Ask yourself why Bamber didn't mention in his witness statement or at any time during his police interviews when he had an opportunity to put forward his 'alibi' rather than waiting decades later.
How would it be possible to provide evidence of JB passing a note to Rivlin at trial? We know that there are examples of Rivlin seemingly not wanting to offend the prosecution. He approaches prosecution witnesses tentatively.
It's in one of the first attending officers' statements regarding running back to the car. A situation report had to be provided in order for permission for force arms to be withdrawn. The police won't release the situation report.
-
But why wait to write it in a blog during his long incarceration?
He produced a detailed witness statement on 7th August where he talks about arriving at the farmhouse, the dogs barking etc. Why not say then someone was still alive as he saw movement, lights on/off, curtains opening/closing?
Why not bring it up during his police interviews with DCI Jones/DS Jones when it was first put to him he murdered his family? He now wants to claim its his alibi.
Why didn't he get his defence to challenge at trial? Why didn't he mention himself when Anthony Arlige put it to him he killed his family instead of saying 'that's for you to prove' which incidentally he did!
This is from a blog dating back to 2010/11.
It would appear to me that nobody listened ! Apart from the fact that he probably expected the incident to have been discussed at trial.
Wouldn't you have wanted to know what page one had contained of Bews call to HQ ? JB had tried his best to find out but was rebuffed. Was this acceptable ?
Bews had quite clearly changed tack for reasons unknown as nobody I know runs from a shadow, or even reports one to an armed officer. It was Bews who noticed first, not Jeremy !
-
How would it be possible to provide evidence of JB passing a note to Rivlin at trial? We know that there are examples of Rivlin seemingly not wanting to offend the prosecution. He approaches prosecution witnesses tentatively.
It's in one of the first attending officers' statements regarding running back to the car. A situation report had to be provided in order for permission for force arms to be withdrawn. The police won't release the situation report.
No doubt Rivlin picked up on this from Bewes/Myall notebooks/statements and at the time it happened Bamber agreed it was a 'trick of the light'. But the point is Bamber had ample opportunity to present his alibi to DCI Jones/DS Jones during his interviews and at trial when Anthony Arlidge put it to him he murdered his family but he failed to do so because he knew it was a 'trick of the light' having seen it himself.
Decades later he wants to use this as his alibi because he's scraping the barrel!
-
Which begs the question why Bamber chooses not to disclose it especially when he is being hampered in pursuing his case as a result of non-disclosure.
Non disclosure of prosecution documents is a potentially serious and significant matter. Non disclosure by the defence of the CCRC Statement of Reasons may be irritating or even regrettable, but it has no bearing on the case.
-
No doubt Rivlin picked up on this from Bewes/Myall notebooks/statements and at the time it happened Bamber agreed it was a 'trick of the light'. But the point is Bamber had ample opportunity to present his alibi to DCI Jones/DS Jones during his interviews and at trial when Anthony Arlidge put it to him he murdered his family but he failed to do so because he knew it was a 'trick of the light' having seen it himself.
Decades later he wants to use this as his alibi because he's scraping the barrel!
There are a few who would NOT call it " scraping the barrel " and who are cleverer than yourself !!
-
Non disclosure of prosecution documents is a potentially serious and significant matter. Non disclosure by the defence of the CCRC Statement of Reasons may be irritating or even regrettable, but it has no bearing on the case.
I do appreicate that is so from a legal perspective but my frustration is that Bamber and his support people want to garner public support eg signing petitions to have the docs disclosed and yet Bamber himself is withholding documents to enable the public to form opinions. I find it somewhat hypocritical. I appreciate there's nothing untoward as you have stated but I would just like to see this 100 page doc from the commission to get a feel for the thinking.
According to the Guardian the last submission went to the commission Jan 2010 and the decision was made in Feb 2011 so we might have a while to wait and I guess even then Bamber will withhold the doc. Might have to wait even longer given the growing complexity by volume and cuts to budget.
The commission aims to turn cases around in 30 weeks but some go on for 2 years and I would have thought this case will drag on as even if commission think its a no goer they will need to dot i's and cross t's.
-
It means naff all to me when posters start criticizing. In fact I'm quite pleased when this attitude kicks in as it shows that something is working which is the reason behind their criticism.
-
No doubt Rivlin picked up on this from Bewes/Myall notebooks/statements and at the time it happened Bamber agreed it was a 'trick of the light'.
Where did Bamber agree? And as for Rivlin, in a case set up against JB, the police are hardly going to let through, any blatant evidence that someone was alive in the farmhouse. Rivlin should have dug and dug and been awkward. It's as if he didn't know how to. Instead, he just dothed his cap.
-
There are a few who would NOT call it " scraping the barrel " and who are cleverer than yourself !!
If this forms part of Bamber's submission we will never know because Bamber is unlikely to release the document!!
-
If this forms part of Bamber's submission we will never know because Bamber is unlikely to release the document!!
And you know ?
-
Where did Bamber agree? And as for Rivlin, in a case set up against JB, the police are hardly going to let through, any blatant evidence that someone was alive in the farmhouse. Rivlin should have dug and dug and been awkward. It's as if he didn't know how to. Instead, he just dothed his cap.
Bamber had a voice! Look at how sure of himself he was in the police interviews and at trial. If he felt that strongly about these matters that was the time to voice them not decades later when he's scraping the barrel.
Anthony Arlidge: You murdered your mother, father, sister and her 6 year old twin sons
Bamber: Thats for you to prove (and prove he did)
Bamber could have said: No Sir I did not. I was outside the farmhouse when PS Bewes, PC Myall and myself saw a figure move across a window. We also lights going on/off and curtains opening/closing.
-
And you know ?
No I don't know that's why I used the word 'unlikely' backed up by precedent.
-
Does anyone think the review commission will seriously accept this as in anyway showing the conviction is unsafe set against all the other evidence?
-
Does anyone think the review commission will seriously accept this as in anyway showing the conviction is unsafe set against all the other evidence?
The problem for the authorities is that because the other evidence is rubbish, the issue of an MOJ will never go away.
-
Does anyone think the review commission will seriously accept this as in anyway showing the conviction is unsafe set against all the other evidence?
Can you point me to this evidence because I don't see any! You keep asking forum members to give you information, where is the evidence that satisfy's you JB is guilty?
The crime to me was committed by someone totally off their head it was a act of total rage.
Your premise seems to be SC can't have done it so it must be JB? That's the only argument you have? So please list the keys bits of evidence that convinces you of guilt and I don't mean Adam's 74 items of total crap.
-
Can you point me to this evidence because I don't see any! You keep asking forum members to give you information, where is the evidence that satisfy's you JB is guilty?
The crime to me was committed by someone totally off their head it was a act of total rage.
Your premise seems to be SC can't have done it so it must be JB? That's the only argument you have? So please list the keys bits of evidence that convinces you of guilt and I don't mean Adam's 74 items of total crap.
It's sourced evidence. Seventy pieces not disputed by the CT.
Keep up.
-
It is surprising that people so passionately support Bamber.
However can't supply a Sheila scenario or find faults with mine (except it was dark outside).
They then refuse to accept sourced evidence!
-
To be fair Lookout, David & JackieD support Bamber for non evidence reasons.
Caroline, Trudie, Mike, Susan & JaneJ changed stance a long time ago.
Rob seems to be the only one kicking & screaming regarding the evidence.
-
To be fair Lookout, David & JackieD support Bamber for non evidence reasons.
Caroline, Trudie, Mike, Susan & JaneJ changed stance a long time ago.
Rob seems to be the only one kicking & screaming regarding the evidence.
What evidence ??
-
The evidence that AE wrote in her notebook a day after the funeral ? Yes, she couldn't even wait to hear any details from EP on how many bullets were fired, where they'd died, nothing whatsoever about the investigation, nor the fact that it was they, the relatives who took Nevill's wallet making it look as though JB had taken it. Sad and in mourning ? I don't think so as there was little love lost it would have seemed.
-
Can you point me to this evidence because I don't see any! You keep asking forum members to give you information, where is the evidence that satisfy's you JB is guilty?
The crime to me was committed by someone totally off their head it was a act of total rage.
Your premise seems to be SC can't have done it so it must be JB? That's the only argument you have? So please list the keys bits of evidence that convinces you of guilt and I don't mean Adam's 74 items of total crap.
There's a clear distinction between evidence and information. No one is disputing Bamber has a 100 page doc in his possession detailing why the 2010/11/12 submission failed.
A bit silly to say there's no evidence when Bamber is serving a whole tariff and has been behind bars for 36 years.
-
The evidence that AE wrote in her notebook a day after the funeral ? Yes, she couldn't even wait to hear any details from EP on how many bullets were fired, where they'd died, nothing whatsoever about the investigation, nor the fact that it was they, the relatives who took Nevill's wallet making it look as though JB had taken it. Sad and in mourning ? I don't think so as there was little love lost it would have seemed.
What has this got to do with the thread?
You sound like you are emotionally involved with Bamber. In your eyes he can do no wrong.
-
What has this got to do with the thread?
You sound like you are emotionally involved with Bamber. In your eyes he can do no wrong.
Emotionally involved ? I'm 81 for God's sake so have lived long enough to see that lots of things in life just don't add up. Our justice system for instance. With all the technology we now have, the law still gets it wrong ! If anyone was acting suspiciously it was the family/ relatives, not Jeremy as he hadn't got a clue what was about to transpire simply because he wasn't guilty of anything except telling the truth !
-
Emotionally involved ? I'm 81 for God's sake so have lived long enough to see that lots of things in life just don't add up. Our justice system for instance. With all the technology we now have, the law still gets it wrong ! If anyone was acting suspiciously it was the family/ relatives, not Jeremy as he hadn't got a clue what was about to transpire simply because he wasn't guilty of anything except telling the truth !
What's age got to do with anything? 18 or 81 you might have devloped romantic/intimate thoughts about Bamber. Age is no barrier!
I am not really understanding why you are so convinced Bamber is innocent? This is the reason I suggest you might have become emotionally involved.
-
What's age got to do with anything? 18 or 81 you might have devloped romantic/intimate thoughts about Bamber. Age is no barrier!
I am not really understanding why you are so convinced Bamber is innocent? This is the reason I suggest you might have become emotionally involved.
Now I know you're not the full shilling !! " Age is no barrier " I've heard everything now.
According to you I'm not even allowed to have my own view without there having to be an ulterior motive. I happen to believe strongly that the man is innocent.
No way am I emotionally involved. Let's just say I've experienced life and you haven't, up there in your ivory tower on that pedestal of yours. How I long for people like you to come tumbling down to earth----preferably with a bump !
-
Now I know you're not the full shilling !! " Age is no barrier " I've heard everything now.
According to you I'm not even allowed to have my own view without there having to be an ulterior motive. I happen to believe strongly that the man is innocent.
No way am I emotionally involved. Let's just say I've experienced life and you haven't, up there in your ivory tower on that pedestal of yours. How I long for people like you to come tumbling down to earth----preferably with a bump !
You do realise there are laws against ageism. :)
-
You do realise there are laws against ageism. :)
What's that got to do with anything ?
-
There's a clear distinction between evidence and information. No one is disputing Bamber has a 100 page doc in his possession detailing why the 2010/11/12 submission failed.
A bit silly to say there's no evidence when Bamber is serving a whole tariff and has been behind bars for 36 years.
Well what evidence convinces you JB is guilty? I have looked hard and am struggling, there is serious doubt at everything I look at?
Bullet points will do, lets see what you can come up with you seem very sure the conviction is safe.
-
Now I know you're not the full shilling !! " Age is no barrier " I've heard everything now.
According to you I'm not even allowed to have my own view without there having to be an ulterior motive. I happen to believe strongly that the man is innocent.
No way am I emotionally involved. Let's just say I've experienced life and you haven't, up there in your ivory tower on that pedestal of yours. How I long for people like you to come tumbling down to earth----preferably with a bump !
Lookout I think it’s time the thing is banned. You are absolutely right
QC has left and we have the thing instead.
I miss having someone who thinks Jeremy is guilty that you can actually debate with
-
No doubt Rivlin picked up on this from Bewes/Myall notebooks/statements and at the time it happened Bamber agreed it was a 'trick of the light'. But the point is Bamber had ample opportunity to present his alibi to DCI Jones/DS Jones during his interviews and at trial when Anthony Arlidge put it to him he murdered his family but he failed to do so because he knew it was a 'trick of the light' having seen it himself.
Decades later he wants to use this as his alibi because he's scraping the barrel!
If you took the trouble to read Bews and Myall's statements you would know there is no mention of the trick of the light in them. I keep asking you if they were satisfied it was a reflection why did they run?
-
Well what evidence convinces you JB is guilty? I have looked hard and am struggling, there is serious doubt at everything I look at?
Bullet points will do, lets see what you can come up with you seem very sure the conviction is safe.
Its the totality of the evidence.
-
If you took the trouble to read Bews and Myall's statements you would know there is no mention of the trick of the light in them. I keep asking you if they were satisfied it was a reflection why did they run?
And if you took the trouble to read PS Bews and PC Myall's statement you would know there is not mention of running!
-
Its the totality of the evidence.
Umm ok well if you think that is strong enough for someone to spend maybe 60 years in jail who am I to argue.
-
And if you took the trouble to read PS Bews and PC Myall's statement you would know there is not mention of running!
You have not studied the case have you, please read Saxby's statement who stayed with the car when Bews, Myall and JB went to the farmhouse.
-
Well what evidence convinces you JB is guilty? I have looked hard and am struggling, there is serious doubt at everything I look at?
Bullet points will do, lets see what you can come up with you seem very sure the conviction is safe.
He was given away by Juliet at six weeks old. He never truly bonded with his adoptive parents and was again sent away at eight years old. Possibly looking for affection and companionship amongst the pupils of the landed gentry of East Anglia he let slip that his birth parents weren't married when he was born and came to be labelled "The Bastard." He felt intimidated and apprehensive throughout his schooldays, gaining a modicum of acclaim through his shooting prowess.
He left Gresham's with few academic qualifications and enrolled at Chelmsford College, where the less stuffy atmosphere was more to his liking. Yet he still achieved very little, opting to travel to Australia and New Zealand in July 1980 instead of settling down to working life at White House Farm.
Upon returning to England in 1981 he got a job at Little Chef off the A12, enabling him to circumvent his parents' supervision yet again. Around this time he began a relationship with Suzette Ford, whom he met at the Frog and Beans in Colchester, the centre of his social life. She was separated from her husband and already had three children. Jeremy wished to marry her, but upon discovering the relationship June banished him from the Farm and disinheritance was discussed. Suzette suffered a miscarriage, which may have left an ineradicable imprint on Jeremy's mind. Yet again another chance to avoid this diabolical tragedy was lost, when Suzette returned to her husband.
With Jeremy's resentment of his parents' influence growing he demanded and received a loan of several thousand pounds from Nevill for a second trip to the Antipodes, arriving in New Zealand on 2nd August 1982. This is when his plan to become a scuba diving instructor came to nothing when he failed a medical, possibly as a result of June dropping him on the head when he was a baby. He struck up a relationship with Brett Collins, who fancied himself as an expert in antiques. One has to wonder whether the murder plans were incipient at this stage, Jeremy filing Brett's name in his head as someone who could be useful to him in the future.
With his mother's breakdown occurring the same year and Sheila's the year after Jeremy seemed to grow in confidence, especially as Nevill seemed downcast due to his wife and daughter's illnesses. He began to take an interest in the farm, probably connected with the conditions of his father's will, which he had secretly perused after purloining the safe key. Two statements may explain his mindset at this juncture: when asked by Julie why he didn't just clear out he replied: "because I've got too much to lose.". When farm secretary Barbara Wilson was asked about Jeremy's new-found enthusiasm for farming she remarked that Jeremy rarely did anything without an ulterior motive.
We know that Jeremy considered several methods of killing: the prescription tablets of Julie's, the burning of the Farm he speculated to Malcolm Waters at Christmas 1984, and of course his sounding out Julie, probably the first intelligent woman in his life who took the trouble to listen to him.
The final straw might have been Sheila's second illness in March 1985 and the drain on the Bamber finances from a source who was always unlikely to earn her own income. The effusive way his parents treated the twins, in contrast to the unexpressive way he had been reared, and the fear that they too would be sent away to public school for ten years at the Bambers' expense may well have been a factor. His quizzing of Colin as to the dates they were to stay at the Farm is another giveaway.
All had to be under the one roof for his plan to work, and all had to die.
-
Umm ok well if you think that is strong enough for someone to spend maybe 60 years in jail who am I to argue.
Not really what I think that counts. Appeal court and review submission seem happy enough with it. Bamber, his supporters and lawyers to date have been unsuccessful. At least the door is always open and Bamber has access to keep appealing if he find fresh evidence.
-
You have not studied the case have you, please read Saxby's statement who stayed with the car when Bews, Myall and JB went to the farmhouse.
As you said Rob Saxby remained in the car so how would he know what was going on?
-
He was given away by Juliet at six weeks old. He never truly bonded with his adoptive parents and was again sent away at eight years old. Possibly looking for affection and companionship amongst the pupils of landed gentry of East Anglia he let slip that his birth parents weren't married when he was born and became to be labelled "The Bastard." He felt intimidated and apprehensive throughout his schooldays, gaining a modicum of acclaim through his shooting prowess.
He left Gresham's with few academic qualifications and enrolled at Chelmsford College, where the less stuffy atmosphere was more to his liking. Yet he still achieved very little, opting to travel to Australia and New Zealand in July 1980 instead of settling down to working life at White House Farm.
Upon returning to England in 1981 he got a job at Little Chef off the A12, enabling him to circumvent his parents' supervision yet again. Around this time he began a relationship with Suzette Ford, whom he met at the Frog and Beans in Colchester, the centre of his social life. She was separated from her husband and already had three children. Jeremy wished to marry her, but upon discovering the relationship June banished him from the Farm and disinheritance was discussed. Suzette suffered a miscarriage, which may have left an ineradicable imprint on Jeremy's mind. Yet again another chance to avoid this diabolical tragedy was lost, when Suzette returned to her husband.
With Jeremy's resentment of his parents' influence growing he demanded and received a loan of several thousand pounds from Nevill for a second trip to the Antipodes, arriving in New Zealand on 2nd August 1982. This is when his plan to become a scuba diving instructor came to nothing when he failed a medical, possibly as a result of June dropping him on the head when he was a baby. He struck up a relationship with Brett Collins, who fancied himself as an expert in antiques. One has to wonder whether the murder plans were incipient at this stage, Jeremy filing Brett's name in his head as someone who could be useful to him in the future.
With his mother's breakdown occurring the same year and Sheila's the year after Jeremy seemed to grow in confidence, especially as Nevill seemed downcast due to his wife and daughter's illnesses. He began to take an interest in the farm, probably connected with the conditions of his father's will, which he had secretly perused after purloining the safe key. Two statements may explain his mindset at this juncture: when asked by Julie why he didn't just clear out he replied: "because I've got too much to lose.". When farm secretary Barbara Wilson was asked about Jeremy's new-found enthusiasm for farming she remarked that Jeremy rarely did anything without an ulterior motive.
We know that Jeremy considered several methods of killing: the prescription tablets of Julie's, the burning of the Farm he speculated to Malcolm Waters at Christmas 1984, and of course his sounding out Julie, probably the first intelligent woman in his life who took the trouble to listen to him.
The final straw might have been Sheila's second illness in March 1985 and the drain on the Bamber finances from a source who was always unlikely to earn her own income. The effusive way his parents treated the twins, in contrast to the unexpressive way he had been reared, and the fear that they too would be sent away to public school for ten years at the Bambers' expense may well have been a factor. His quizzing of Colin as to the dates they were to stay at the Farm is another giveaway.
All had to be under the one roof for his plan to work, and all had to die.
What absolute bollocks. You know the truth. Your mate the bunny boiler set him up because she was dumped and the relatives set him up because they were broke.
I can’t wait for Mugford to get her punishment
-
As you said Rob Saxby remained in the car so how would he know what was going on?
Saxby says in his statement:
"About five minutes latter all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and Pc Bews contacted Information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report"
Where is the situation report I would like to see it?
-
What absolute bollocks. You know the truth. Your mate the bunny boiler set him up because she was dumped and the relatives set him up because they were broke.
I can’t wait for Mugford to get her punishment
I know a large part of the truth, yes. I am not conceited or dull-witted like Yvonne Fletcher to claim I know everything.
-
All had to be under the one roof for his plan to work, and all had to die.
Thanks for your comprehensive reply Steve I have edited out most of it to save space.
Was it an act of blind rage or blind greed? I think it was a moment of blind rage but as you said in a previous post I will keep reading!
-
I know a large part of the truth, yes. I am not conceited or dull-witted like Yvonne Fletcher to claim I know everything.
Yvonne Fletcher was the police officer killed during the Libyan embassy siege. Yvonne Hartley was a voiceover artist on The Flumps. She is also the main face of the CT these days.
-
I know a large part of the truth, yes. I am not conceited or dull-witted like Yvonne Fletcher to claim I know everything.
Your memory's going already ;D
-
Thanks for your comprehensive reply Steve I have edited out most of it to save space.
Was it an act of blind rage or blind greed? I think it was a moment of blind rage but as you said in a previous post I will keep reading!
He didn't care as to the fate of any of the five individuals. Julie controversially tried to reason with him as to the sparing of the twins' lives. This part of her statement is difficult to swallow, though also gives it an air of legitimacy as a whole. He rationalized that he would be doing Colin a favour as the latter had full-time responsibility for their care by this stage and was unable to get regular work.
I don't know fully how the mind of a mass murderer works and I don't particularly want to know.
-
Saxby says in his statement:
"About five minutes latter all three came running back from the direction of the farmhouse and Pc Bews contacted Information room and requested armed assistance and gave a situation report"
Where is the situation report I would like to see it?
But how does any of this lend to the idea Bamber might be a miscarriage of justice let alone factually innocent?
To my mind it was obvious there was a problem: Bamber's claim of a phone call sowing the seed Sheila had gone mad with a gun, then mentioining mental illness, firearms, ammunition; dogs barking; some lights on and as PS Bewes said "No sign of life".
The offices took the most appropriate action which was calling for back up because it was obvious something was amiss.
-
Your memory's going already ;D
Not really, though Bobby Charlton doesn't play football like he used to, does he?
-
Yvonne Fletcher was the police officer killed during the Libyan embassy siege. Yvonne Hartley was a voiceover artist on The Flumps. She is also the main face of the CT these days.
Yes sorry it was a slip (not a Freudian slip I hope).
-
Not really, though Bobby Charlton doesn't play football like he used to, does he?
I hope not.
-
But how does any of this lend to the idea Bamber might be a miscarriage of justice let alone factually innocent?
To my mind it was obvious there was a problem: Bamber's claim of a phone call sowing the seed Sheila had gone mad with a gun, then mentioining mental illness, firearms, ammunition; dogs barking; some lights on and as PS Bewes said "No sign of life".
The offices took the most appropriate action which was calling for back up because it was obvious something was amiss.
Why does Bews lie about this incident, he claims that he called for armed backup before returning to the car. In three interviews I have seen it was first Myall, then JB then in the last interview it was himself who saw the reflection / movement.
Why no mention in Bews and Myall statements? it was the moment armed police were called so an important moment that night, were the statements latter re-written?
Look also at the times they left Witham in the statements???
Factually innocent or factually guilty? I don't know but if I find police officers lying he is innocent.
-
Why does Bews lie about this incident, he claims that he called for armed backup before returning to the car. In three interviews I have seen it was first Myall, then JB then in the last interview it was himself who saw the reflection / movement.
Why no mention in Bews and Myall statements? it was the moment armed police were called so an important moment that night, were the statements latter re-written?
Look also at the times they left Witham in the statements???
Factually innocent or factually guilty? I don't know but if I find police officers lying he is innocent.
I'm not sure he did lie. He might have forgotten the order of events when he wrote the statement much the same way Bamber did with regards to whether he called Julie before the police or vice-versa.
-
I'm not sure he did lie. He might have forgotten the order of events when he wrote the statement much the same way Bamber did with regards to whether he called Julie before the police or vice-versa.
That is a good point.
At least Bews has been interviewed & spoken about the 'trick of the light'. Although it was so trivial at the time it seems he can't remember who saw it.
Bamber has never given his version of who first mentioned it & has been forgetful or refused to discuss lots of things.
The only confirmed thing is that they all looked at the window together & saw nothing else.
-
JB wasn't the only one who " couldn't remember things ! ". Remember ? No, perhaps you don't, or don't want to.
-
I'm not sure he did lie. He might have forgotten the order of events when he wrote the statement much the same way Bamber did with regards to whether he called Julie before the police or vice-versa.
You are being very kind to him, of course if we could see Bews situation report this could all be cleared up.
I bet there was no mention of a reflection in it!
-
You are being very kind to him, of course if we could see Bews situation report this could all be cleared up.
I bet there was no mention of a reflection in it!
Certainly no mention of a reflection in Bamber's witness statement dated 7th Aug 1985. In fact he makes no mention whatsover of the incident
Maybe lots could be cleared up if Bamber would agree to disclose his statement of reasons doc issued by the commission in 2012 unless you're part of his inner circle and privy to such information. 100 pages of why it didn't refer.
-
JB wasn't the only one who " couldn't remember things ! ". Remember ? No, perhaps you don't, or don't want to.
Its a pity he didn't think to take a pocket book with him.
-
Its a pity he didn't think to take a pocket book with him.
Why would he when he had nothing to put in it ? If you've done nothing what can you write about ?
-
Why would he when he had nothing to put in it ? If you've done nothing what can you write about ?
Of course he had lots to put in it. 'Trick of the light, curtains opening/closing, lights on/off, conversations with police officers, time he called Julie from the call box etc, etc. Today he would have a smart phone to take images and videos.
-
Of course he had lots to put in it. 'Trick of the light, curtains opening/closing, lights on/off, conversations with police officers, time he called Julie from the call box etc, etc. Today he would have a smart phone to take images and videos.
I thought he told police " that's for you to decide ". The more you put words into someone's mouth, the more they can twist them when they're that way inclined----a bit like here !
-
Jeremy and I discussed the figure at the window some 30 yrs ago.
He has always claimed both he and the police witnessed what they thought was a figure at the window.
-
AA, unfortunately the initial reporting of this by Bews to HQ was unknown because that particular page of what had been written had been missing ( destroyed ? ) Jeremy had asked for there to be an ESDA test on the page beneath-----and the test had been refused, even though payment had been offered.
This ESDA test was used in the Bridgewater 4 case when a forged paper had been found. Their convictions were overturned 20 years later, thanks to Michael Mansfield.
Would you ask for such a test if you were guilty ?
-
I thought he told police " that's for you to decide ". The more you put words into someone's mouth, the more they can twist them when they're that way inclined----a bit like here !
I think you might be getting mixed up with the prosecutor who put it to Bamber he murdered his family. Bamber replied "That's for you to prove". Prove it he did! This was the opportunity Lookout for Bamber to set out his stall for the jury about movement at the window etc. No one put any words into his mouth. He probably sealed his own fate with a stupid comment!
-
Jeremy and I discussed the figure at the window some 30 yrs ago.
He has always claimed both he and the police witnessed what they thought was a figure at the window.
May I ask were you his lawyer?
-
AA, unfortunately the initial reporting of this by Bews to HQ was unknown because that particular page of what had been written had been missing ( destroyed ? ) Jeremy had asked for there to be an ESDA test on the page beneath-----and the test had been refused, even though payment had been offered.
This ESDA test was used in the Bridgewater 4 case when a forged paper had been found. Their convictions were overturned 20 years later, thanks to Michael Mansfield.
Would you ask for such a test if you were guilty ?
If this is so I am surprised Michael Turner QC did not raise at Bamber's 2002 appeal but not a word about the whole incident. He was also involved in the Bridgewater 4 case.
We are really wasting time even discussing this as it will never go anywhere at this stage. All it could ever have done was sow a seed of doubt in the mind of jurors at trial but after hearing about the silencer and Julie Mugford's evidence I doubt it featured at all.
-
We are really wasting time even discussing this as it will never go anywhere at this stage. All it could ever have done was sow a seed of doubt in the mind of jurors at trial but after hearing about the silencer and Julie Mugford's evidence I doubt it featured at all.
That depends on whether any further documentation has come to light. I doubt any has come to light. It doesn't matter regarding whether it wasn't in Bamber's statement. Where is the sound moderator in relatives' statements concurrent with its discovery? If something comes to light that shows force arms were drawn after there was movement noticed in the house, then that blows out of the water any trick of the light claims.
-
You are being very kind to him, of course if we could see Bews situation report this could all be cleared up.
I bet there was no mention of a reflection in it!
I bet there was no mention of a reflection in it!
----------
Agree with that.
-
I think you might be getting mixed up with the prosecutor who put it to Bamber he murdered his family. Bamber replied "That's for you to prove". Prove it he did! This was the opportunity Lookout for Bamber to set out his stall for the jury about movement at the window etc. No one put any words into his mouth. He probably sealed his own fate with a stupid comment!
Bamber said 'that is what you have to establish'.
The court transcript is here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10797.msg497675.html#msg497675
-
If this is so I am surprised Michael Turner QC did not raise at Bamber's 2002 appeal but not a word about the whole incident. He was also involved in the Bridgewater 4 case.
We are really wasting time even discussing this as it will never go anywhere at this stage. All it could ever have done was sow a seed of doubt in the mind of jurors at trial but after hearing about the silencer and Julie Mugford's evidence I doubt it featured at all.
I think Michael Turner is somewhere in the background of this case. He seems to have kept his ear to the ground. Withheld docs/ photo's prevented the 2002 appeal's success which MC now says that photo's will show the extent of Sheila's psychiatric illness since being " unearthed ".
Thousands of documents had been removed prior to the 2002 appeal, were not used at trial and still remain to be " missing ". These were from the Holmes computer system at the time. Michael Turner had only been given 340,000 documents from the 4 million that should have been available.
-
That depends on whether any further documentation has come to light. I doubt any has come to light. It doesn't matter regarding whether it wasn't in Bamber's statement. Where is the sound moderator in relatives' statements concurrent with its discovery? If something comes to light that shows force arms were drawn after there was movement noticed in the house, then that blows out of the water any trick of the light claims.
I doubt any has come to light too! And I doubt any ever will!
I think it rather does matter. If it is had the sort of importance to it that Bamber/supporters are trying to attach today then why didn't he mention it in his witness statement, interviews, trial?
How would anything blow the 'trick of the light' out of the water? No one can be sure what it was and the system will simply write it off as a 'trick of the light' falling back on the silencer and Julie Mugford plus all the other evidence for good measure.
-
Bamber said 'that is what you have to establish'.
The court transcript is here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10797.msg497675.html#msg497675
Thanks. I knew I hadn't got the precise words but couldn't be bothered to check. It has the same meaning and shows Bamber as arrogant and cocky.
-
I think Michael Turner is somewhere in the background of this case. He seems to have kept his ear to the ground. Withheld docs/ photo's prevented the 2002 appeal's success which MC now says that photo's will show the extent of Sheila's psychiatric illness since being " unearthed ".
Thousands of documents had been removed prior to the 2002 appeal, were not used at trial and still remain to be " missing ". These were from the Holmes computer system at the time. Michael Turner had only been given 340,000 documents from the 4 million that should have been available.
The case was referred to the court of appeal based on the DNA evidence (silencer). This was demolished by the scientists and hence the other points fell way short of trumping the good old silencer! Julie Mugford was on standby to reiterate her trial testimony but in the event she wasn't called as it was deemed unnecessary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm
-
Bamber said 'that is what you have to establish'.
The court transcript is here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10797.msg497675.html#msg497675
I'll bet JB's well learned his lesson by saying that ! Little did he think that neither police nor anyone else was ever on his side and that any help or assistance from his end would fall on deaf ears.
It was a biased trial if ever there was one and those responsible deserve everything damning that hopefully comes their way !
JB innocently thought that police would do their job-----how wrong he was !
-
The case was referred to the court of appeal based on the DNA evidence (silencer). This was demolished by the scientists and hence the other points fell way short of trumping the good old silencer! Julie Mugford was on standby to reiterate her trial testimony but in the event she wasn't called as it was deemed unnecessary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm
You can read the entire appeal hearing here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4276.msg174390.html#msg174390)
-
I'll bet JB's well learned his lesson by saying that ! Little did he think that neither police nor anyone else was ever on his side and that any help or assistance from his end would fall on deaf ears.
It was a biased trial if ever there was one and those responsible deserve everything damning that hopefully comes their way !
JB innocently thought that police would do their job-----how wrong he was !
Why was the trial biased?
-
Why was the trial biased?
Because even the defence barrister was a prosecution barrister.
-
AA, unfortunately the initial reporting of this by Bews to HQ was unknown because that particular page of what had been written had been missing ( destroyed ? ) Jeremy had asked for there to be an ESDA test on the page beneath-----and the test had been refused, even though payment had been offered.
This ESDA test was used in the Bridgewater 4 case when a forged paper had been found. Their convictions were overturned 20 years later, thanks to Michael Mansfield.
Would you ask for such a test if you were guilty ?
Precisely!
He spoke to me about the movements, lights, the dog constantly barking.. he did ask for it to be mentioned in court too but his defence let it go as a trick of the light.
-
Precisely!
He spoke to me about the movements, lights, the dog constantly barking.. he did ask for it to be mentioned in court too but his defence let it go as a trick of the light.
May I ask what your relationship is with Bamber? I thought you were part of his defence team based on an earlier post but it seems not?
-
Precisely!
He spoke to me about the movements, lights, the dog constantly barking.. he did ask for it to be mentioned in court too but his defence let it go as a trick of the light.
Who did Bamber say saw the 'trick of the light'?
-
May I ask what your relationship is with Bamber? I thought you were part of his defence team based on an earlier post but it seems not?
Cambridge you have to recognize features of certain members here. They could belong to the same genotype and there are at least four of them:
Bill Robertson
Aunt Agatha
Jack o' Lantern
Will o' the Wisp
-
Who did Bamber say saw the 'trick of the light'?
When Rivkin questioned the copper about the figure at the window, Rivkin himself suggested it was maybe a trick of the light. The moon.
-
Cambridge you have to recognize features of certain members here. They could belong to the same genotype and there are at least four of them:
Bill Robertson
Aunt Agatha
Jack o' Lantern
Will o' the Wisp
What are you on about??
-
What are you on about??
You post every Preston Guild, then scarper like several others here. Maybe I've shamed you tonight into answering a few members' questions for once, before you disappear once again into the night.
-
You post every Preston Guild, then scarper like several others here. Maybe I've shamed you tonight into answering a few members' questions for once, before you disappear once again into the night.
I don’t scarper into the night however I do get on with my life outside these forums.
I occasionally pop in and then pop out for a while. If a question posed to me has not been answered then it is for the sole reason I have moved on, until the next time.
Occasionally, I read posts and at the moment there are no outstanding questions, even from months ago.
I answer when I can if I can answer that particular question directed at me.
-
You post every Preston Guild, then scarper like several others here. Maybe I've shamed you tonight into answering a few members' questions for once, before you disappear once again into the night.
Is there really any need for you to be quite so rude to another member? AA has not directed any posts towards you.
-
Is there really any need for you to be quite so rude to another member? AA has not directed any posts towards you.
Your not beyond a bit of popping in and out yourself I have noticed. Keep it civil.
-
Your not beyond a bit of popping in and out yourself I have noticed. Keep it civil.
What on earth are you talking about? If you cannot say something constructive keep quiet.
-
When Rivkin questioned the copper about the figure at the window, Rivkin himself suggested it was maybe a trick of the light. The moon.
Who thought they had seen something on the night. Bamber, Bews or Myall?
-
What on earth are you talking about? If you cannot say something constructive keep quiet.
Sorry NGB it was not aimed at you but SteveUK. Being a regular reader I have noticed that he sometimes vacates the forum for extended periods and thought it unfair and rude to address AA in that manner. I should have used the correct quote I was referring to. Sorry. You should know I would never aim such a comment at you.
-
What on earth are you talking about? If you cannot say something constructive keep quiet.
NGB1066, are you able to outline for me please claims of a second silencer? As I understand it there was only 1 firearm at the farmhouse compatible with the silencer. But I have also read Mr Bamber's nephew kept his firearms at the farmhouse and I think one of them might have been compatible with the Bamber owned silencer. Therefore its possible he may have kept his own silencer at the farmhouse although I haven't read anything to this effect. If I am barking up the wrong tree with the nephew then I guess the claim centres around the same model silencer being introduced from elsewhere eg the local relatives who I believe owned numerous firearms and no doubt accessories eg silencers. In fact thinking about it now I think I recall reading something about David Boutflour owning a Parker Hale silencer but presumably these things are commonplace for owners of .22 rifles?
-
" The CPS have not disclosed material about a second silencer which is said to have been found at WHF "---as stated by JB's lawyers in 2020. There are/ were ? 27 documents which have been blocked from being accessed which Joe Stone had said would undermine the prosecution if there'd been two silencers.
My thoughts are that when Ainsley was busy destroying evidence in 2010, that nothing will remain which will prove JB's innocence. It's the easiest thing in the world to burn evidence, especially when you know that a case is on-going :o
-
Ballistic evidence was thrown out last year wasn't it ? :(
-
" The CPS have not disclosed material about a second silencer which is said to have been found at WHF "---as stated by JB's lawyers in 2020. There are/ were ? 27 documents which have been blocked from being accessed which Joe Stone had said would undermine the prosecution if there'd been two silencers.
My thoughts are that when Ainsley was busy destroying evidence in 2010, that nothing will remain which will prove JB's innocence. It's the easiest thing in the world to burn evidence, especially when you know that a case is on-going :o
All Jeremy has to prove, as he has continually tried to do, is prove it wasn’t him.
He does not have to prove it was Sheila only because a Masonic Judge directed the jury to believe that.
-
All Jeremy has to prove, as he has continually tried to do, is prove it wasn’t him.
He does not have to prove it was Sheila only because a Masonic Judge directed the jury to believe that.
Hi AA, how difficult it is to try and speak the truth when all those around you don't know the meaning of the word ! They all stuck together in their own cess-pit of lies behind their ranks of law and brotherhood !
-
Hi AA, how difficult it is to try and speak the truth when all those around you don't know the meaning of the word ! They all stuck together in their own cess-pit of lies behind their ranks of law and brotherhood !
I concur!
One only has to follow the money. The rest is distraction.
-
Sorry NGB it was not aimed at you but SteveUK. Being a regular reader I have noticed that he sometimes vacates the forum for extended periods and thought it unfair and rude to address AA in that manner. I should have used the correct quote I was referring to. Sorry. You should know I would never aim such a comment at you.
Thanks for the clarification BB. I thought the post seemed a bit strange but I understand now.
-
NGB1066, are you able to outline for me please claims of a second silencer? As I understand it there was only 1 firearm at the farmhouse compatible with the silencer. But I have also read Mr Bamber's nephew kept his firearms at the farmhouse and I think one of them might have been compatible with the Bamber owned silencer. Therefore its possible he may have kept his own silencer at the farmhouse although I haven't read anything to this effect. If I am barking up the wrong tree with the nephew then I guess the claim centres around the same model silencer being introduced from elsewhere eg the local relatives who I believe owned numerous firearms and no doubt accessories eg silencers. In fact thinking about it now I think I recall reading something about David Boutflour owning a Parker Hale silencer but presumably these things are commonplace for owners of .22 rifles?
There are several questions here and I will do my best to answer them. The Parker Hale sound moderator was by far the most common make for use with rimfire rifles and provided that a rifle barrel is threaded to accept a sound moderator the Parker Hale will fit as it is a very standard thread. Certainly the one owned by Nevill Bamber would fit the Pargeter Brno .22 rifle just as well as the Anschutz. Anthony Pargeter owned an identical sound moderator and that was also kept at WHF (Pargeter has given conflicting accounts about this at different times but that does not matter for this answer). Both Robert and David Boutflour also each owned a Parker Hale sound moderator and at some stage I understand these were also collected and examined by police. That makes four sound moderators. Finally, the FSS at Huntingdon had a Parker Hale moderator in stock and this was also used for some of their work on the case. There were therefore at different times a total of five identical Parker Hale sound moderators which featured in the case.
-
All Jeremy has to prove, as he has continually tried to do, is prove it wasn’t him.
He does not have to prove it was Sheila only because a Masonic Judge directed the jury to believe that.
But if it wasn't Sheila or Jeremy the purported telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy which was the start of this whole tragedy was a work of fiction on the part of Jeremy, which comes as no surprise to those of us who believe a large part of his statements to police and court testimony was a pack of lies.
-
But if it wasn't Sheila or Jeremy the purported telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy which was the start of this whole tragedy was a work of fiction on the part of Jeremy, which comes as no surprise to those of us who believe a large part of his statements to police and court testimony was a pack of lies.
Not necessarily!
I think that Jeremy had to be brought to the house as he too was supposed to be a victim in this massacre.
N was directed to get his son over by stating , your sister has gone mad,!’
He took this one opportunity to alert Jeremy in the hope of saving his life by adding ‘She’s got a gun!!’
Something for which he took a heavy beating.
-
Not necessarily!
I think that Jeremy had to be brought to the house as he too was supposed to be a victim in this massacre.
N was directed to get his son over by stating , your sister has gone mad,!’
He took this one opportunity to alert Jeremy in the hope of saving his life by adding ‘She’s got a gun!!’
Something for which he took a heavy beating.
Nevill never took orders from anyone.
-
Nevill never took orders from anyone.
And he never took direct orders in this instance either.
-
And he never took direct orders in this instance either.
So what does "directed to get his son over" mean exactly? I'm beginning to think you should remain a spasmodic poster.
-
So what does "directed to get his son over" mean exactly? I'm beginning to think you should remain a spasmodic poster.
Again you are being gratuitously rude. Why do you consider that necessary?
-
So what does "directed to get his son over" mean exactly? I'm beginning to think you should remain a spasmodic poster.
I was not there and neither was Jeremy.
We know what was said during the call.
No father would willingly invite his son over to a blood massacre. He more than likely knew he was going to be killed anyway and therefore took the opportunity, the only opportunity, to save his own son.
Jeremy called the good as a result, which was not in the planning.
Why do I have to keep feeding you?
Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done under the circumstances?
-
I was not there and neither was Jeremy.
We know what was said during the call.
No father would willingly invite his son over to a blood massacre. He more than likely knew he was going to be killed anyway and therefore took the opportunity, the only opportunity, to save his own son.
Jeremy called the good as a result, which was not in the planning.
Why do I have to keep feeding you?
Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done under the circumstances?
No father would willingly invite his son over to a blood massacre
----------
Agree with that.
-
There are several questions here and I will do my best to answer them. The Parker Hale sound moderator was by far the most common make for use with rimfire rifles and provided that a rifle barrel is threaded to accept a sound moderator the Parker Hale will fit as it is a very standard thread. Certainly the one owned by Nevill Bamber would fit the Pargeter Brno .22 rifle just as well as the Anschutz. Anthony Pargeter owned an identical sound moderator and that was also kept at WHF (Pargeter has given conflicting accounts about this at different times but that does not matter for this answer). Both Robert and David Boutflour also each owned a Parker Hale sound moderator and at some stage I understand these were also collected and examined by police. That makes four sound moderators. Finally, the FSS at Huntingdon had a Parker Hale moderator in stock and this was also used for some of their work on the case. There were therefore at different times a total of five identical Parker Hale sound moderators which featured in the case.
Many thanks NGB1066.
The support group are claiming more than one sound moderator featured and contamination. If this is so it is difficult to see how they intend to go about proving it. They highlight the fact that Robert Boutflour shared the same blood groupings as Sheila but it seems to me
a) this was something known to the defence at trial. Rivlin argued the blood groupings represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood groupings (with their blood entering the sound moderator during the murders and Sheila returning it to the cupboard before taking her own life).
b) I guess Rivlin could have pointed out how commonplace the groupings are by highlighting the fact Robert Boutflour shared Sheila's groupings but he didn't he relied entirely on the 'intimate mix' argument. The commission/appeal courts could rightly argue now this was something that could have been adjudicated on at trial. Even if some leeway is given it is realistically idifficult to see how Robert Boutflour's blood ended up deep within the sound moderator especially when considered alongside the other evidence against Bamber.
-
It wasn't impossible for RWB's blood to have entered the silencer. This item was dismantled at DB's house and this is how I think RWB cut his finger. When re-assembling, the blood from his finger got on the baffles which obviously weren't put back in the order in which they were removed.
I don't know at that point whether it was known that RWB's grouping matched that of Sheila's.
-
It wasn't impossible for RWB's blood to have entered the silencer. This item was dismantled at DB's house and this is how I think RWB cut his finger. When re-assembling, the blood from his finger got on the baffles which obviously weren't put back in the order in which they were removed.
I don't know at that point whether it was known that RWB's grouping matched that of Sheila's.
Do you have any evidence that the silencer was dismanted at David Boutflour's house and Robert Boutflour cut his finger when reassembling it?
-
Do you have any evidence that the silencer was dismanted at David Boutflour's house and Robert Boutflour cut his finger when reassembling it?
There is a thread somewhere which is dedicated to the time when the silencer was taken apart.
I have no proof of how RWB cut his finger as I'd surmised it was at that time seeing it was after that particular event of dismantling the silencer, which I'd been suspicious about.
Little attention had been paid to the " covered wound " so I drew my own conclusions.
-
There is a thread somewhere which is dedicated to the time when the silencer was taken apart.
I have no proof of how RWB cut his finger as I'd surmised it was at that time seeing it was after that particular event of dismantling the silencer, which I'd been suspicious about.
Little attention had been paid to the " covered wound " so I drew my own conclusions.
Surely you appreicate "a thread somewhere" isn't evidence of anything?
If some hard evidence exists that the relatives dismantled the silencer and Robert Boutflour's blood ended up on the baffle plates that would be a slam dunk piece of evidence! But I doubt any such evidence exists.
-
Surely you appreicate "a thread somewhere" isn't evidence of anything?
If some hard evidence exists that the relatives dismantled the silencer and Robert Boutflour's blood ended up on the baffle plates that would be a slam dunk piece of evidence! But I doubt any such evidence exists.
So far as I can remember it was DB who's started the dismantling and if my memory serves me right it was a police officer who finally dismantled it and surprise surprise he didn't see any blood. I rather think this was something that Mike had written from notes he has. It's on this forum somewhere.
Strange how JB was scrutinised for injuries/ cuts/ bruises etc, yet here was RWB with an unknown wound to his index finger, Sheila with a covered wound in the iliac fossa area ( lower left groin ) June with a black eye------yet no mention of how these things came about.
-
So far as I can remember it was DB who's started the dismantling and if my memory serves me right it was a police officer who finally dismantled it and surprise surprise he didn't see any blood. I rather think this was something that Mike had written from notes he has. It's on this forum somewhere.
Strange how JB was scrutinised for injuries/ cuts/ bruises etc, yet here was RWB with an unknown wound to his index finger, Sheila with a covered wound in the iliac fossa area ( lower left groin ) June with a black eye------yet no mention of how these things came about.
Your first para is not evidence of anything.
The prosecution has never argued Bamber had cuts to his hand. From the Court of Appeal hearing 2002
449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings.
The defence had access to details of Sheila's wound as it was stated on the post mortem report.
There is zero evidence June had a black eye. If you disagree please find the evidence.
The defence instructed its own pathologist. He fact checked the findings of the Home Office pathologist. Nothing untoward was found.
-
In JB's statement he mentions his mother's black eye, so it was obviously done before the murders. Her answer had been that she'd " walked into something " ( Sheila's fist, probably )
-
In JB's statement he mentions his mother's black eye, so it was obviously done before the murders. Her answer had been that she'd " walked into something " ( Sheila's fist, probably )
If you read the trial testimony of the Home Office pathologist you will discover the extent of June's injuries. Bearing in mind this was fact checked by a pathologist instructed by the defence.
There's no evidence whatsover that June sustained a black eye from a fist.
You actually do Bamber more harm than good by flooding the board with misinformation.
-
If you read the trial testimony of the Home Office pathologist you will discover the extent of June's injuries. Bearing in mind this was fact checked by a pathologist instructed by the defence.
There's no evidence whatsover that June sustained a black eye from a fist.
You actually do Bamber more harm than good by flooding the board with misinformation.
The problem is though, that Vanezis omitted to mention a large number of injuries. At least 10 suffered by June, including a large cut on her chin and a dramatic black eye. I have photos of them, but unfortunately I can’t release them. I assume that they will be released after the CCRC submission process is completed.
-
If you read the trial testimony of the Home Office pathologist you will discover the extent of June's injuries. Bearing in mind this was fact checked by a pathologist instructed by the defence.
There's no evidence whatsover that June sustained a black eye from a fist.
You actually do Bamber more harm than good by flooding the board with misinformation.
It's also a disservice not to mention how certain injuries were sustained. What's left to say after thousands of documents are withheld in our archaic justice system ?
-
In JB's statement he mentions his mother's black eye
No, he doesn't.
-
The problem is though, that Vanezis omitted to mention a large number of injuries.
No, he didn't.
-
No, he doesn't.
I was reading it the other day and this is what it says.
-
June had missed her Bible class at church because of it.
-
I was reading it the other day and this is what it says.
In which case perhaps you could retrieve so we call all learn from it?
-
Meaning that it happened prior to the murders and not during.
-
The problem is though, that Vanezis omitted to mention a large number of injuries. At least 10 suffered by June, including a large cut on her chin and a dramatic black eye. I have photos of them, but unfortunately I can’t release them. I assume that they will be released after the CCRC submission process is completed.
I dont believe he did omit anything. Bearing in mind all material, including images, was fact checked by the pathologist for the defence.
-
I was reading it the other day and this is what it says.
It's not in his statement, read it again.
-
Meaning that it happened prior to the murders and not during.
May I suggest you read the trial testimony from the two pathologists.
-
June had missed her Bible class at church because of it.
Evidence?
-
I dont believe he did omit anything. Bearing in mind all material, including images, was fact checked by the pathologist for the defence.
Yes, it will come as a great shock to many people to see the extent of Vanezis’ deception. All I can say about the defence is that their work must have been shockingly inept and negligent. Hopefully it won’t be long now until doubters can confront the truth
-
If you read the trial testimony of the Home Office pathologist you will discover the extent of June's injuries. Bearing in mind this was fact checked by a pathologist instructed by the defence.
There's no evidence whatsover that June sustained a black eye from a fist.
You actually do Bamber more harm than good by flooding the board with misinformation.
The pathologist has omitted a number of wounds on both Sheila and June. Other people do not accept this to be the case. I understand that they disagree. However, I disagree with them.
-
The Home Office pathologist put June's black eye down to bruising caused by gunshot injuries.
A police officer, DS Jones I believe, told Anne Eaton that June sustained a black eye and that is how the rumour began in terms of either Jeremy or Sheila causing it directly.
-
Yes, it will come as a great shock to many people to see the extent of Vanezis’ deception. All I can say about the defence is that their work must have been shockingly inept and negligent. Hopefully it won’t be long now until doubters can confront the truth
I would be surprised to learn that two pathologists of the calibre of Prof's Vanezis and Knight overlooked anything important in a case of this magnitude.
-
Please bear in mind that there are possibly doctored images floating around after certain individuals have been through files. I am thinking particularly of fake lawyer Giovanni De Stefano.
-
CT do you remember the Ian Tomlinson case, when, besides being unlawfully killed by police ,a police pathologist went on to lie about the injuries during a post-mortem. Thankfully the said pathologist was struck off. His behaviour was classed as having an " attidudinal problem " of which there's a lot of it about among those who think they know everything and know nothing !
Years of service doesn't cut it for me.
-
Please bear in mind that there are possibly doctored images floating around after certain individuals have been through files. I am thinking particularly of fake lawyer Giovanni De Stefano.
The images that I analyzed were provided by the CCRC. They are 100% genuine. Let’s just wait and see.
-
Yes, it will come as a great shock to many people to see the extent of Vanezis’ deception. All I can say about the defence is that their work must have been shockingly inept and negligent. Hopefully it won’t be long now until doubters can confront the truth
You said that almost six years ago..
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 was not there and neither was Jeremy.
We know what was said during the call.
No father would willingly invite his son over to a blood massacre. He more than likely knew he was going to be killed anyway and therefore took the opportunity, the only opportunity, to save his own son.
Jeremy called the good as a result, which was not in the planning.
Why do I have to keep feeding you?
Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done under the circumstances?
I don’t believe any of your ideas ? Jeremy never discussed the Mason theory with me. I believe everything was much more simpler involving the relatives and Julie Mugford
All these conspiracy theories do more harm than good
-
The images that I analyzed were provided by the CCRC. They are 100% genuine. Let’s just wait and see.
So you do on ocassions think the review commission is reliable?
Unless you are a qualified pathologist with a lot of experience what makes you think you have uncovered something overlooked by the pathologist who carried out the post-mortems and a pathologist that fact-checked the Home Office pathologist and testified at trial?
-
CT do you remember the Ian Tomlinson case, when, besides being unlawfully killed by police ,a police pathologist went on to lie about the injuries during a post-mortem. Thankfully the said pathologist was struck off. His behaviour was classed as having an " attidudinal problem " of which there's a lot of it about among those who think they know everything and know nothing !
Years of service doesn't cut it for me.
It was rectified by other pathologists.
-
It was rectified by other pathologists.
I know that, but it isn't the point is it, much as you'd rather sweep these things under the carpet.
-
I know that, but it isn't the point is it, much as you'd rather sweep these things under the carpet.
What is the point then?
How can you compare the Tomlinson case with Bamber's?
-
What is the point then?
How can you compare the Tomlinson case with Bamber's?
That there are some dodgy " professionals " around who are only too willing to " do as they're told " under certain circumstances.
-
If all you can do is to pick holes in posts then there's nothing down for you either . Don't expect me to dance to your tune.
-
That there are some dodgy " professionals " around who are only too willing to " do as they're told " under certain circumstances.
But is there any evidence that either pathologists are anything other than reliable experts?
Thnk about if for a moment? Length of careers...claims over any sort of wrongdoing?
If you have pathologists that have practiced for decades without any sort of disciplinary procedures bought to bear then why would they suddenly deviate from the norm with regard to the Bamber case? And why hasn't any other pathologist countered their evidence?
-
But is there any evidence that either pathologists are anything other than reliable experts?
Thnk about if for a moment? Length of careers...claims over any sort of wrongdoing?
If you have pathologists that have practiced for decades without any sort of disciplinary procedures bought to bear then why would they suddenly deviate from the norm with regard to the Bamber case? And why hasn't any other pathologist countered their evidence?
Have you not heard of Spilsbury his evidence is now thought to be well .... His word alone meant you were doomed to meet the hangman.
-
But is there any evidence that either pathologists are anything other than reliable experts?
Thnk about if for a moment? Length of careers...claims over any sort of wrongdoing?
If you have pathologists that have practiced for decades without any sort of disciplinary procedures bought to bear then why would they suddenly deviate from the norm with regard to the Bamber case? And why hasn't any other pathologist countered their evidence?
You've obviously never read the papers at all ! Not to worry, carry on in your own tin-pot way and continue to tail Adam, he's bound to be right because of all the evidence he's got.
-
But is there any evidence that either pathologists are anything other than reliable experts?
Thnk about if for a moment? Length of careers...claims over any sort of wrongdoing?
If you have pathologists that have practiced for decades without any sort of disciplinary procedures bought to bear then why would they suddenly deviate from the norm with regard to the Bamber case? And why hasn't any other pathologist countered their evidence?
As a wider issue...
Do you think that UK security services (who are enmeshed within 'the state' ie 'Great Britain' etc.) are unable to call upon assistance from within the realms of judiciary; pathology; police; military; press / media?
Why would assume that all is well and as it should be or as it appears on the surface?
Criminals are able to bribe, compromise and control police officers, jury members etc. It is no different for the state. 'The state' are essentially criminals par excellence.
-
Have you not heard of Spilsbury his evidence is now thought to be well .... His word alone meant you were doomed to meet the hangman.
The Bamber trial involved 2 pathologist both of whom pretty much agreed on everything. No pathologist has contested findings in the last 35 years.
-
It must be wonderful to live in an Ivory Tower within Shangri-La.
-
As a wider issue...
Do you think that UK security services (who are enmeshed within 'the state' ie 'Great Britain' etc.) are unable to call upon assistance from within the realms of judiciary; pathology; police; military; press / media?
Why would assume that all is well and as it should be or as it appears on the surface?
Criminals are able to bribe, compromise and control police officers, jury members etc. It is no different for the state. 'The state' are essentially criminals par excellence.
If you are going to be a conspiratard Roch. Save it for the Mair thread please.
-
As a wider issue...
Do you think that UK security services (who are enmeshed within 'the state' ie 'Great Britain' etc.) are unable to call upon assistance from within the realms of judiciary; pathology; police; military; press / media?
Why would assume that all is well and as it should be or as it appears on the surface?
Criminals are able to bribe, compromise and control police officers, jury members etc. It is no different for the state. 'The state' are essentially criminals par excellence.
Why wound the state want to conspire against a 24 year old lad who was basically a farm hand on his father's farm? He wasn't an investigative journalist or a political activist causing problems for the establishment.
I came here thinking I might get my eyes opened but it seems I have to believe two pathologists conspired against Bamber; hitmen/freemason were involved; the relatives dismantled the silencer and tipped Robert Boutfflour's blood in and so it goes on. To make matters worse you seem to take great offence when others, such as myself, dont share your views. And when the submission quite rightly rejects Bamber's claims you lot will cry 'Oh the State have conspired against him'! Honestly you could not make it up!
-
It must be wonderful to live in an Ivory Tower within Shangri-La.
I live on planet earth but I do wonder about some of the folk here.
-
Why wound the state want to conspire against a 24 year old lad who was basically a farm hand on his father's farm? He wasn't an investigative journalist or a political activist causing problems for the establishment.
I came here thinking I might get my eyes opened but it seems I have to believe two pathologists conspired against Bamber; hitmen/freemason were involved; the relatives dismantled the silencer and tipped Robert Boutfflour's blood in and so it goes on. To make matters worse you seem to take great offence when others, such as myself, dont share your views. And when the submission quite rightly rejects Bamber's claims you lot will cry 'Oh the State have conspired against him'! Honestly you could not make it up!
You don't have to believe the looney conspiracy theories put forward by Roch, BR, AA, BB and MT to believe JB is innocent. I don't. But you comment above makes a point how they do more harm than good and put reasonable people off commenting about the case.
-
Why wound the state want to conspire against a 24 year old lad who was basically a farm hand on his father's farm? He wasn't an investigative journalist or a political activist causing problems for the establishment.
I came here thinking I might get my eyes opened but it seems I have to believe two pathologists conspired against Bamber; hitmen/freemason were involved; the relatives dismantled the silencer and tipped Robert Boutfflour's blood in and so it goes on. To make matters worse you seem to take great offence when others, such as myself, dont share your views. And when the submission quite rightly rejects Bamber's claims you lot will cry 'Oh the State have conspired against him'! Honestly you could not make it up!
Maybe you and David can explain how mafia and organised crime works, regarding control of officials across police / judciary etc.
I said as a wider issue. But if you think the state can't 'conspire to put somebody away' then you are incredibly naive. As is David.
-
You don't have to believe the looney conspiracy theories put forward by Roch, BR, AA, BB and MT to believe JB is innocent. I don't. But you comment above makes a point how they do more harm than good and put reasonable people off commenting about the case.
I have read through NBG1066's posts and he seems to make some good points that Bamber's case might be a misarriage of justice so all is not lost.
Adam also makes some good points to support the case against Bamber.
I haven't read many of your posts David. Can you say briefly why you believe Bamber is innocent?
-
Maybe you and David can explain how mafia and organised crime works, regarding control of officials across police / judciary etc.
I said as a wider issue. But if you think the state can't 'conspire to put somebody away' then you are incredibly naive. As is David.
Can you explain why the state would want to conspire against a farm hand? Do you include all the defence lawyers in this?
-
I have read through NBG1066's posts and he seems to make some good points that Bamber's case might be a misarriage of justice so all is not lost.
Adam also makes some good points to support the case against Bamber.
I haven't read many of your posts David. Can you say briefly why you believe Bamber is innocent?
David was a hardcore guilter.
He attempted a quiet stance change after Caroline & JaneJ openly changed stance to guilty. So he could quote their 5 year old posts.
He eventually gave two reasons for a 360 degree U turn - no blood in the rifle barrel, no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
-
Can you explain why the state would want to conspire against a farm hand? Do you include all the defence lawyers in this?
You would do well to read more of what supporters have written. You are a lazy poster who mostly spouts the Crown case. I have said it before but to really understand the fine detail of this case you need to absorb what others say. You are only testing the patience of posters with your lack of case knowledge which stands out like a sore thumb. If you spent more time reading than spouting you might come to understand the case a little bit better.
-
Can you explain why the state would want to conspire against a farm hand? Do you include all the defence lawyers in this?
Try reading my posts.
-
Can you explain why the state would want to conspire against a farm hand? Do you include all the defence lawyers in this?
The state, if it so chooses, can conspire against anybody it wants. The state conspired to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from progressing any further than a temporary leader of the opposition.
It's silly to suggest that every single person involved in a particular case is a conspirator. This has already been explained to you - but you choose to deliberately ignore it. You're not fooling anyone.
If I go to work and my boss says, send this feedback form out to these certain customers - but don't send the same feedback form out to this other list of customers; and provides no more info than that - does that make me a fully fledged, fully knowledgeable co-conspirator regarding rigging my company's customer feedback? Or have I simply just followed instructions?
-
The whole conspiracy theory falls apart with the call to Jeremy. Jeremy rang the police which was normal practice. Ringing the local police would also have been normal behaviour trying to keep Sheilas behaviour confidential
It is obvious police did all they could to get Jeremy convicted (noble cause corruption)
POLICE OFFICERS
The most prevalent type of corruption is the so- called 'noble-cause' corruption. Noble-cause corruption is where an officer will simply lie, exaggerate or invent evidence in order to convict a suspect he 'knows' is 'well at it' - of course there is nothing at all 'noble' about that sort of conduct.
With the pushing from the relatives and Mugford, Jeremy was easy pickings
The whole thing is unbelievable
-
You would do well to read more of what supporters have written. You are a lazy poster who mostly spouts the Crown case. I have said it before but to really understand the fine detail of this case you need to absorb what others say. You are only testing the patience of posters with your lack of case knowledge which stands out like a sore thumb. If you spent more time reading than spouting you might come to understand the case a little bit better.
And you would do well to re-read my posts and you will find, contrary to your assertion that I'm a lazy poster with a lack of case knowledge, that unlike others here today I have provided evidence to support my posts namely Bamber's hands and June's black eye. Evidence from a pathologist and the 2002 appeal hearing.
As William Clegg QC said in a recent video he starts by looking at what the prosecution (Crown) are arguing and that's what I am doing!
-
The state, if it so chooses, can conspire against anybody it wants. The state conspired to prevent Jeremy Corbyn from progressing any further than a temporary leader of the opposition.
It's silly to suggest that every single person involved in a particular case is a conspirator. This has already been explained to you - but you choose to deliberately ignore it. You're not fooling anyone.
If I go to work and my boss says, send this feedback form out to these certain customers - but don't send the same feedback form out to this other list of customers; and provides no more info than that - does that make me a fully fledged, fully knowledgeable co-conspirator regarding rigging my company's customer feedback? Or have I simply just followed instructions?
Roch I don't think that is true. Students became motivated to vote Labour at the 2017 General Election when it was rumoured he would abolish tuition fees, and no doubt this fed up the chain to many parents, who realized they may well have otherwise ended up subsidizing their offspring. In reality it was the closest General Election between the two main parties since February 1974.
-
Try reading my posts.
My mind isn't closed to the fact a handful of people may have conspired against Bamber but what I am not prepared to accept is that this extends to pathologists, review commissioners, appeal court judges etc. Some might be wrong but that doesn't make them conspirators it just makes them incompetent.
-
My mind isn't closed to the fact a handful of people may have conspired against Bamber but what I am not prepared to accept is that this extends to pathologists, review commissioners, appeal court judges etc. Some might be wrong but that doesn't make them conspirators it just makes them incompetent.
It's so often cock-up rather than conspiracy.
-
It's so often cock-up rather than conspiracy.
At last something I agree with. It started as a cock-up and ended in a conspiracy because they tried to cover up the accidental shooting of June. Jeremy was an easy target for the blame because the only support that was available to him was the family and they had plenty of reasons to turn their backs on him for their own gain.
-
At last something I agree with. It started as a cock-up and ended in a conspiracy because they tried to cover up the accidental shooting of June. Jeremy was an easy target for the blame because the only support that was available to him was the family and they had plenty of reasons to turn their backs on him for their own gain.
Agreed, Bubo.
-
And you would do well to re-read my posts and you will find, contrary to your assertion that I'm a lazy poster with a lack of case knowledge, that unlike others here today I have provided evidence to support my posts namely Bamber's hands and June's black eye. Evidence from a pathologist and the 2002 appeal hearing.
As William Clegg QC said in a recent video he starts by looking at what the prosecution (Crown) are arguing and that's what I am doing!
I understand your posts but if there was a cover-up you would expect the documentation to reflect the Crown case. The problem is once the case was examined in great detail issues emerged that suggest that the whole truth was not the truth. If you read my posts on Peter Vanezis you will see that the establishment had to close ranks because what the EP had done was totally outrageous.
That is why they held back evidence and did not give full disclosure. It is why PII was invoked over many documents including the raid teams statements.
It was not in the Public interest that what EP had done was in the public domain.
-
I understand your posts but if there was a cover-up you would expect the documentation to reflect the Crown case. The problem is once the case was examined in great detail issues emerged that suggest that the whole truth was not the truth. If you read my posts on Peter Vanezis you will see that the establishment had to close ranks because what the EP had done was totally outrageous.
That is why they held back evidence and did not give full disclosure. It is why PII was invoked over many documents including the raid teams statements.
It was not in the Public interest that what EP had done was in the public domain.
Is there a diagram to prove the trajectory regarding the black eye claim?
-
At last something I agree with. It started as a cock-up and ended in a conspiracy because they tried to cover up the accidental shooting of June. Jeremy was an easy target for the blame because the only support that was available to him was the family and they had plenty of reasons to turn their backs on him for their own gain.
I'm glad we finally agree on something, but do tell me who accidentally shot June.
-
I'm glad we finally agree on something, but do tell me who accidentally shot June.
Read my post 'Could this have happened'. Answer a member of the TFG.
-
Read my post 'Could this have happened'. Answer a member of the TFG.
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean a thread entitled "Could this have happened?". Where am I supposed to be looking?
-
I don't know what you mean. Do you mean a thread entitled "Could this have happened?". Where am I supposed to be looking?
I am surprised that a long standing member cannot find another members posts. Click on search for members. Enter Bubo bubo. A more discerning access can be obtained using the search function. Enter the thread title and use Bubo bubo in the 'by poster' field. Happy hunting.
-
It's so often cock-up rather than conspiracy.
Says the expert ??
Pointless post
-
I am surprised that a long standing member cannot find another members posts. Click on search for members. Enter Bubo bubo. A more discerning access can be obtained using the search function. Enter the thread title and use Bubo bubo in the 'by poster' field. Happy hunting.
I'm not doing that. It was bad enough trawling through Mr. Q C Chevalier's posts to find the Sheila scenarios for Adam's thread. This is typical behaviour of the Jeremy supporters: you claim something preposterous, which you cannot possibly substantiate and whilst new members or casual browsers are fooled thereby I am not.
-
Says the expert ??
Pointless post
..and you would know about both.
-
I'm not doing that. It was bad enough trawling through Mr. Q C Chevalier's posts to find the Sheila scenarios for Adam's thread. This is typical behaviour of the Jeremy supporters: you claim something preposterous, which you cannot possibly substantiate and whilst new members or casual browsers are fooled thereby I am not.
It's easy to find Steve, I just re-read the post again, I think it was the second post to appear in the search.
-
I'm not doing that. It was bad enough trawling through Mr. Q C Chevalier's posts to find the Sheila scenarios for Adam's thread. This is typical behaviour of the Jeremy supporters: you claim something preposterous, which you cannot possibly substantiate and whilst new members or casual browsers are fooled thereby I am not.
Pleading ignorance and lack of willingness to read what others post is not acceptable.
-
I'm not doing that. It was bad enough trawling through Mr. Q C Chevalier's posts to find the Sheila scenarios for Adam's thread. This is typical behaviour of the Jeremy supporters: you claim something preposterous, which you cannot possibly substantiate and whilst new members or casual browsers are fooled thereby I am not.
How can you make a statement like that when it is clear you do not read what others are saying without a detailed examination and response. This case does not lend it self to a rough guide to the case of JB. There is a lot of detail to consume, understand and evaluate before coming to a conclusion. You it seems want the idiots guide to the Bamber case for those who do not have the time or inclination to perform a rigorous examination of ALL the facts.
-
I've waded through enough drivel in almost 10 years. When did you arrive?
-
How can you make a statement like that when it is clear you do not read what others are saying without a detailed examination and response. This case does not lend it self to a rough guide to the case of JB. There is a lot of detail to consume, understand and evaluate before coming to a conclusion. You it seems want the idiots guide to the Bamber case for those who do not have the time or inclination to perform a rigorous examination of ALL the facts.
If we read what every crank had to say on the internet we would never leave home!
The facts are simple. Its the likes of you who wish to over complicate with theories that do not stand up to scrutiny such as the police shooting June. First it was Sheila now June ::)
Either Sheila shot her parents and sons and took her own life or far more likely her brother murdered all 5.
-
If we read what every crank had to say on the internet we would never leave home!
The facts are simple. Its the likes of you who wish to over complicate with theories that do not stand up to scrutiny such as the police shooting June. First it was Sheila now June ::)
Either Sheila shot her parents and sons and took her own life or far more likely her brother murdered all 5.
False answer you are not being asked to do anything of the sort. You are only being asked to read what people who believe in a MOJ say on one forum out of millions. I have never argued that the police killed SC. You can choose which posters to read or ignore.
-
Has anyone listened to the latest podcast? I haven't yet. It's a long one, regarding claimed factual errors in the Theroux programme. Normally QC would have posted up a link.
-
I'll listen to it now while I'm having my lunch. Thanks for the reminder as I may have unconsciously been waiting for QC to put it on the forum too.
-
I enjoyed this long podcast and can't wait for the day that questions are going to be asked.
-
Has anyone listened to the latest podcast? I haven't yet. It's a long one, regarding claimed factual errors in the Theroux programme. Normally QC would have posted up a link.
I had it on in the background this morning whilst I was doing other things. According to Yvonne the prog makers wanted her to sit on a bed to take a call from Bamber. ;D
She was trying to take the moral high ground about not wanting to get involved because scene of crime images were going to be used but at the end said the next episode would involve "how Sheila could have and had hurt her children". Seems rather contradictory!
-
Is there any evidence Sheila hurt her children?
-
Is there any evidence Sheila hurt her children?
Yes---she shot them.
-
Yes---she shot them.
Most will disagree with you there including the judiciary hence Bamber has been been bars for some 36 years for murdering his nephews.
Anyway I will ask again. Is there any evidence Sheila hurt her children?
-
Most will disagree with you there including the judiciary hence Bamber has been been bars for some 36 years for murdering his nephews.
Anyway I will ask again. Is there any evidence Sheila hurt her children?
The very fact that Colin was going to approach the Bambers with a view to giving 100% care to the twins has to tell you something ? Sheila was their mother !!
-
The very fact that Colin was going to approach the Bambers with a view to giving 100% care to the twins has to tell you something ? Sheila was their mother !!
It tells me that Sheila was suffering a mental illness and unable to care for her children. But it doesn't tell me whether she ever actually hurt them as claimed by yvonne.
-
It tells me that Sheila was suffering a mental illness and unable to care for her children. But it doesn't tell me whether she ever actually hurt them as claimed by yvonne.
If she had hurt her children they would have told Colin.
-
It tells me that Sheila was suffering a mental illness and unable to care for her children. But it doesn't tell me whether she ever actually hurt them as claimed by yvonne.
Yvonne Hartley has made a claim?
About time to. It's been at least a day since her last one.
-
Is there any evidence Sheila hurt her children?
There is no evidence at all. There is a malicious rumour that she pushed Nicholas out of a taxi. Jeremy also testified under oath that his sister had punched one of the twins in the face during a car journey with Nevill, whilst Jeremy was a passenger.
-
Yvonne Hartley has made a claim?
About time to. It's been at least a day since her last one.
She is making a bigger fool of herself than the other woman at the graveside of Mr and Mrs Bamber.
These people have no idea how lucky they are to be living in a country like the UK where they can get away with all of this. :o
-
There is no evidence at all. There is a malicious rumour that she pushed Nicholas out of a taxi. Jeremy also testified under oath that his sister had punched one of the twins in the face during a car journey with Nevill, whilst Jeremy was a passenger.
I think I recall reading about the taxi incident in Lee's book but this was accepted by all concerened as an accident albeit Sheila might have had a more watchful eye on what the boys were up to.
The latter is meaningless as its from Bamber.
It shows how desperate they are to resort to such measures.
-
She is making a bigger fool of herself than the other woman at the graveside of Mr and Mrs Bamber.
These people have no idea how lucky they are to be living in a country like the UK where they can get away with all of this. :o
She hasn't got the intellect of Trudi, who in my opinion realized what a fool she'd made of herself.
-
She hasn't got the intellect of Trudi, who in my opinion realized what a fool she'd made of herself.
When the submission is not referred the penny might drop.
-
She is making a bigger fool of herself than the other woman at the graveside of Mr and Mrs Bamber.
These people have no idea how lucky they are to be living in a country like the UK where they can get away with all of this. :o
Yvonne Hartley is planning to do another podcast apparently next week on Sheila allegedly hurting her twin boys.
New information must just fly through the air & arrive at Yvonne's doorstep.
-
The top and bottom of Sheila's thoughts latterly was that she'd known she was going to lose the twins either to Colin, foster carers or some other means and the way her mind must have been working by losing custody/ parental control to someone else was more than she could stand and in such situations there have been mothers who have killed their children for this reason alone who haven't necessarily had any known mental health issues.
Because Sheila did have issues, her thoughts would have spurred her on. Both her parents probably tried to tell her it was for the best for the twins as fostering had been discussed at suppertime and no doubt after JB had left, the discussion had become heated.
-
Yvonne Hartley is planning to do another podcast apparently next week on Sheila allegedly hurting her twin boys.
New information must just fly through the air & arrive at Yvonne's doorstep.
What Yvonne reads out is taken from documents. Why would she lie ?
-
What Yvonne reads out is taken from documents. Why would she lie ?
You & Yvonne are getting lots of new unsourced information.
Is there a police mole drip feeding information from the apparent unreleased documents?
-
The top and bottom of Sheila's thoughts latterly was that she'd known she was going to lose the twins either to Colin, foster carers or some other means and the way her mind must have been working by losing custody/ parental control to someone else was more than she could stand and in such situations there have been mothers who have killed their children for this reason alone who haven't necessarily had any known mental health issues.
Because Sheila did have issues, her thoughts would have spurred her on. Both her parents probably tried to tell her it was for the best for the twins as fostering had been discussed at suppertime and no doubt after JB had left, the discussion had become heated.
Julie says it was Jeremy who broached the subject of fostering to needle his sister. Nevill and June would never have countenanced the idea due to the stigma, and in any case it was Colin who had de facto care and control, which he wasn't about to relinquish.
-
What Yvonne reads out is taken from documents. Why would she lie ?
But the documents originate from people she condems or has placed in 'liars lobby'.
-
Julie says it was Jeremy who broached the subject of fostering to needle his sister. Nevill and June would never have countenanced the idea due to the stigma, and in any case it was Colin who had de facto care and control, which he wasn't about to relinquish.
The Sky prog featured the farm secretary saying Mr and Mrs Bamber were going to try and adopt the boys. Bamber said his parents were private people who never discussed anything personal outside the immediate family and gave an example of how as a boy he was reprimanded for doing so?
-
No way was June ever a suitable candidate to have adopted children in the first place. Her mental state before adopting was rather fragile after she'd had a spell in hospital herself and had been treated by using ECT.
The above treatment was given, IMO because she'd suffered depression since learning that she could no longer produce the family that she'd wanted. Sadly the depression returned after the adoption of Sheila and she had to be admitted once again for another session of ECT. Who looked after baby Sheila at the time is not known.
In Colin's book he wrote about Sheila's recollections as a child, told to him by Sheila herself, where at one time she'd been left in the garden, presumably in her pram, to cry for hours. Sheila had realised there'd been " something different " about her mother when attending primary school, looking at other children's mothers in jeans and casual clothes whereas June was in tweeds and brogues.
I've never read that either June or Sheila had a mother/ daughter relationship, nor Sheila's interest in her mother's cooking/ baking, unlike Jeremy who'd loved baking/ cake-making with his mother, and also the shared interests with Nevill too.
Many knew of the strained relationship that Sheila had with June, including Dr. Ferguson who wouldn't have shown too much surprise had he learned that Sheila had killed her mother.
Because of Sheila's miserable start to life and once she'd been told about her adoption she set about tracking down her birth mother, who she eventually found and as Colin had stated Sheila had been the happiest she'd ever been while sharing time with her birth mother and to Sheila there was no comparison between June and her real mother.
How sad that this meeting came too late to save Sheila.
-
No way was June ever a suitable candidate to have adopted children in the first place. Her mental state before adopting was rather fragile after she'd had a spell in hospital herself and had been treated by using ECT.
The above treatment was given, IMO because she'd suffered depression since learning that she could no longer produce the family that she'd wanted. Sadly the depression returned after the adoption of Sheila and she had to be admitted once again for another session of ECT. Who looked after baby Sheila at the time is not known.
In Colin's book he wrote about Sheila's recollections as a child, told to him by Sheila herself, where at one time she'd been left in the garden, presumably in her pram, to cry for hours. Sheila had realised there'd been " something different " about her mother when attending primary school, looking at other children's mothers in jeans and casual clothes whereas June was in tweeds and brogues.
I've never read that either June or Sheila had a mother/ daughter relationship, nor Sheila's interest in her mother's cooking/ baking, unlike Jeremy who'd loved baking/ cake-making with his mother, and also the shared interests with Nevill too.
Many knew of the strained relationship that Sheila had with June, including Dr. Ferguson who wouldn't have shown too much surprise had he learned that Sheila had killed her mother.
Because of Sheila's miserable start to life and once she'd been told about her adoption she set about tracking down her birth mother, who she eventually found and as Colin had stated Sheila had been the happiest she'd ever been while sharing time with her birth mother and to Sheila there was no comparison between June and her real mother.
How sad that this meeting came too late to save Sheila.
I thought Carol Ann Lee and Colin Caffell (recording from post trial) made good points when they referred to Sheila suffering mental illness and Bamber murdering his family and whether it was anything to do with their upbringing.
The family psychiatrist was heard via a recording (for Lee's book I think) saying Mrs Bamber's diagnosis of psychosis in the 80's was all bound up with her religiosity (or words to this effect) and yet according to Yvonne in the podcast Mrs Bamber used religion in a benign way to understand philosophical issues of life and guide her accordingly.
-
Of the two siblings it was Sheila who'd had the worst start in life as she'd been shunted to different carers/ friends of June etc. when June was unwell. The adult outcome from a beginning such as this is never good.
After Jeremy's adoption, au-pairs here hired to help out with the two children.
Both were sent to boarding school but only Jeremy lasted the course, with Sheila opting out of her own accord, then being expelled from a school that she'd joined until she settled down to complete her education.
As a young girl today I think a diagnosis of Autism would have been on the cards as she flitted from job to job and hadn't appeared to have settled in any way with her challenging behaviour as she got older.
Autism in girls has more of a subtlety about it than that of boys and can usually be picked up from an early age.
-
Of the two siblings it was Sheila who'd had the worst start in life as she'd been shunted to different carers/ friends of June etc. when June was unwell. The adult outcome from a beginning such as this is never good.
After Jeremy's adoption, au-pairs here hired to help out with the two children.
Both were sent to boarding school but only Jeremy lasted the course, with Sheila opting out of her own accord, then being expelled from a school that she'd joined until she settled down to complete her education.
As a young girl today I think a diagnosis of Autism would have been on the cards as she flitted from job to job and hadn't appeared to have settled in any way with her challenging behaviour as she got older.
Autism in girls has more of a subtlety about it than that of boys and can usually be picked up from an early age.
The description of Sheila by her friends (you know people who actually knew her) hardly sounded like someone on the autisitc spectrum.
If anyone sounds autistic its Bamber and Yvonne with their obsession with case documents and seizing on anomalies that only hold signficance in their minds. Most people can accept and deal with nuance but not Bamber and Yvonne.
-
The description of Sheila by her friends (you know people who actually knew her) hardly sounded like someone on the autisitc spectrum.
If anyone sounds autistic its Bamber and Yvonne with their obsession with case documents and seizing on anomalies that only hold signficance in their minds. Most people can accept and deal with nuance but not Bamber and Yvonne.
Jeremy was far from autistic. He was confident, a good mixer and always got on with things that had to be done on the farm----consistent. Whereas those who are autistic are usually shy, their interests jump from one thing to another ( not consistent ), easily frustrated and prone to meltdowns because they don't know any other way of explaining how they're feeling.
Generally disruptive both at home and at school ( as Sheila was ) Not good mixers because besides themselves not knowing what's wrong, neither does anyone else so friendships are thin on the ground.
After only a short time married, Colin didn't understand her either and least of all neither did her parents.
Jeremy, by all accounts was easy going.
-
Jeremy was far from autistic. He was confident, a good mixer and always got on with things that had to be done on the farm----consistent. Whereas those who are autistic are usually shy, their interests jump from one thing to another ( not consistent ), easily frustrated and prone to meltdowns because they don't know any other way of explaining how they're feeling.
Generally disruptive both at home and at school ( as Sheila was ) Not good mixers because besides themselves not knowing what's wrong, neither does anyone else so friendships are thin on the ground.
After only a short time married, Colin didn't understand her either and least of all neither did her parents.
Jeremy, by all accounts was easy going.
Is there any evidence that either Bamber or Sheila has been disgnosed as autistic? Yes or No?
-
Is there any evidence that either Bamber or Sheila has been disgnosed as autistic? Yes or No?
I didn't say that I had evidence ! What's wrong with you ?
-
I would personally have diagnosed Sheila with it but not Jeremy ::)
-
I didn't say that I had evidence ! What's wrong with you ?
What's wrong with me? Nothing as far as I know but I am sure you will find something to pin on me as you have Sheila with your claims she was autisitc.
-
I would personally have diagnosed Sheila with it but not Jeremy ::)
What makes you think you are qualified to diagnose anyone with anything?
-
What makes you think you are qualified to diagnose anyone with anything?
Something to do with being a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother-----plus having been a nurse in my working years.
-
Something to do with being a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother-----plus having been a nurse in my working years.
Many people are mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers but they do not attempt to label others with conditions such as autism.
Do you nursing qualifications make you an expert in such matters as autism to the extent you would meet the citeria of expert as laid out by the CPS?
-
Many people are mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers but they do not attempt to label others with conditions such as autism.
Do you nursing qualifications make you an expert in such matters as autism to the extent you would meet the citeria of expert as laid out by the CPS?
I probably have more sense than the CPS ! And yes, I'd have made a good " Vera ", my style of sleuthing
-
I probably have more sense than the CPS ! And yes, I'd have made a good " Vera ", my style of sleuthing
I somehow doubt that!
If your're such a great sleuth how come Bamber is still incacerated?
-
I somehow doubt that!
If your're such a great sleuth how come Bamber is still incacerated?
..because the best legal minds in the country still can't get him out.
-
..because the best legal minds in the country still can't get him out.
Perhaps because the evidence against Bamber is so compelling.
We will see how Yvonne fares with the commission. She is certainly the underdog.
-
..because the best legal minds in the country still can't get him out.
The best legal minds are all dead and buried I'm afraid. Nothing and nobody is as it/ they used to be.
-
The best legal minds are all dead and buried I'm afraid. Nothing and nobody is as it/ they used to be.
Now you really are being silly. The UK currently has some of the best legal minds in the world.
Do you realistically think Bamber will ever win an appeal?
-
Now you really are being silly. The UK currently has some of the best legal minds in the world.
Do you realistically think Bamber will ever win an appeal?
With one or two of these " best legal minds in the world "-----yes he should win his appeal.
-
With one or two of these " best legal minds in the world "-----yes he should win his appeal.
But he currently has the support group.
Lookout on a serious note do you anticipate a referral?
-
But he currently has the support group.
Lookout on a serious note do you anticipate a referral?
I do think he'll be referred this time, yes.
-
I do think he'll be referred this time, yes.
And if it isn't?
-
And if it isn't?
Well that'll be that won't it ?
-
The best legal minds are all dead and buried I'm afraid. Nothing and nobody is as it/ they used to be.
Nobody seems to want to do the spadework today lookout, whether in the legal or other fields. We are supposed to be moving to a high wage economy and restricting immigration, but it won't work unless the indigenous white working class shape up.
-
Nobody seems to want to do the spadework today lookout, whether in the legal or other fields. We are supposed to be moving to a high wage economy and restricting immigration, but it won't work unless the indigenous white working class shape up.
I agree with you Steve.
-
I found this podcast on youtube ie one in title. I didn't realise the support group has made a whole series of them on the 'official' site. Anyway I listened to the podcast again and I think Yvonne is utterly deluded if she really believes the police know Bamber is innocent.
In some respects she talks about the case as though it is recent instead of some 36 years ago. The pension age for police officers is 60. Therefore the vast majority, if not all serving officers, who had anything to do with the case pre trial are long retired and many are deceased.
If there is clear evidence one of the victims called the police why would Essex police in 2021 cover up knowing it could unravel and backfire? Why would current serving officers risk their livlihoods and liberty to cover up for retired/deceased officers who in all probability have never had any contact with officers who worked the case in 86/86.
-
I would hope that the subject of a highly paid prosecution witness, namely JM when she received £25,000, comes to the fore during this appeal.
I've spoken to a few people who've said you're lucky to get your train/ bus fare to the court, reimbursed. ?
Why was she paid this amount ?
-
I would hope that the subject of a highly paid prosecution witness, namely JM when she received £25,000, comes to the fore during this appeal.
I've spoken to a few people who've said you're lucky to get your train/ bus fare to the court, reimbursed. ?
Why was she paid this amount ?
You're getting ahead of yourself Lookout! It's only at submission stage and dependent on the commission to refer to Court of Appeal for an appeal! I think Yvonne is completely misguided and there will not be an appeal. I suspect Bamber knows this deep down.
Anyway re Julie Mugford and the 25k even if it can be shown there was some financial incentive which may make her testimony unreliable I think the commission/Court of Appeal will fall back on the silencer and other prosecution points.
-
You're getting ahead of yourself Lookout! It's only at submission stage and dependent on the commission to refer to Court of Appeal for an appeal! I think Yvonne is completely misguided and there will not be an appeal. I suspect Bamber knows this deep down.
Anyway re Julie Mugford and the 25k even if it can be shown there was some financial incentive which may make her testimony unreliable I think the commission/Court of Appeal will fall back on the silencer and other prosecution points.
What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.
-
I found this podcast on youtube ie one in title. I didn't realise the support group has made a whole series of them on the 'official' site. Anyway I listened to the podcast again and I think Yvonne is utterly deluded if she really believes the police know Bamber is innocent.
In some respects she talks about the case as though it is recent instead of some 36 years ago. The pension age for police officers is 60. Therefore the vast majority, if not all serving officers, who had anything to do with the case pre trial are long retired and many are deceased.
If there is clear evidence one of the victims called the police why would Essex police in 2021 cover up knowing it could unravel and backfire? Why would current serving officers risk their livlihoods and liberty to cover up for retired/deceased officers who in all probability have never had any contact with officers who worked the case in 86/86.
Is your sole purpose on this forum, to repeatedly imply that you are allied with the official version of events, regarding the prosecution etc. etc.?
If so, we are already able to grasp that. If it is not so, now is the time for you to educate us all, regarding where you do differ from the official case.
-
What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.
As I've said previously Yvonne made it clear that historicially lawyers will not agree to work with support grouops (she refers to campaign team but same thing) but with this firm of lawyers it is different. Unless the 'official' website is being deliberately misleading then I can tell from this alone the submission is on a hiding to nothing.
-
Is your sole purpose on this forum, to repeatedly imply that you are allied with the official version of events, regarding the prosecution etc. etc.?
If so, we are already able to grasp that. If it is not so, now is the time for you to educate us all, regarding where you do differ from the official case.
I'm not aware of an 'official version of events' exists? There are effectively 2 cases: defence and prosecution. There's no point wishing the prosecution would just simply disappear. It needs understanding.
When you ask how I differ from the 'official case' I've no idea which 'official case' you are referring to?
-
I'm not aware of an 'official version of events' exists? There are effectively 2 cases: defence and prosecution. There's no point wishing the prosecution would just simply disappear. It needs understanding.
When you ask how I differ from the 'official case' I've no idea which 'official case' you are referring to?
Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.
-
Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.
Roch stop badgering him. Cambridge is a breath of fresh air. If I had to put my Jeremy-is-innocent hat on for a moment your strongest card is Sheila's mental health, which is why her brother declared this to be the "perfect crime." Nobody can really diagnose schizophrenia accurately, despite Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's testimony.
-
Semantics, you know what I mean. You are purporting to ally yourself with any version that opposes any of the defence versions. That is self evident in your posting. This little game you're playing.. how long are you going to string it out? I think I would prefer if we all went back to playing knock door ginger instead.
It's not semantics. I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:
i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;
ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;
iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;
iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;
v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:
a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;
b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;
c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;
d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;
e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;
f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and
g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.
vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;
vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.
-
It's not semantics. I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:
i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;
ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;
iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;
iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;
v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:
a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;
b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;
c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;
d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;
e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;
f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and
g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.
vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;
vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.
One can see from this summary that the Prosecution case is far stronger than the Defence's.
-
It's not semantics. I refer once again to the 2002 appeal document that sets out the defence and prosecution cases
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
The defence case at trial 152. The defence answered the prosecution case in the following way:
i) The witnesses who spoke of the appellant's hatred and dislike of his family were either lying or had misinterpreted what he had said;
ii) Julie Mugford, the jilted girlfriend, had also lied to prevent anybody else being with the man she had loved;
iii) Nobody had seen the appellant cycling to and from the farm in the early hours of 7 August;
iv) Because the appellant had on a number of occasions before and after the killings entered the house by various ground floor windows there was no probative value in the finding of the hacksaw blade etc;
v) Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then taken her own life for the following reasons:
a) She had a very serious mental illness and it was known that even those with no previous history of violence had killed. She had expressed the morbid thought of an ability to kill her own children;
b) Those who carried out "altruistic" killings had been known to indulge in ritualistic behaviour before committing suicide. Sheila Caffell may have replaced the moderator, changed her clothes and washed herself before killing herself, thus explaining the absence of blood staining, the minimum traces of lead on her hands and absence of sugar on her feet;
c) Having lived on a farm and been present at shoots, the appellant's sister would have understood how to load and operate the rifle;
d) The gun, the magazine and the rounds of ammunition had been left close at hand by the appellant in the room where he had heard an argument about placing the children in foster care;
e) The defendant bore no obvious signs of injury;
f) No bloodstained clothing of his had been recovered by the police; and
g) Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and the first senior investigating officer had all proceeded on the basis that Sheila Caffell was responsible for the killings.
vi) There was a possibility that the blood in the moderator was not from Sheila Caffell, but represented a mixture of Nevill and June Bamber's blood;
vii) In respect of the telephone call from his father, the appellant had not initially appreciated the seriousness of the situation and then had become frightened to go to the farm alone.
Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this. Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.
-
What we must remember about Yvonne is that she's being guided by lawyers etc. working in the background, hence her " misguidance " as you call it. This mention of an appeal won't have been at her suggestion, personally. At least there are some who have faith in JB's word.
I think you will find its the other way round.
-
Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this. Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.
You need to bring more than this
----------
Feel free to bring more.
-
Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America;
Leif Erikson discovered America.
-
Leif Erikson discovered America.
In 2002, Justice Kay et al ruled it was Christopher Columbus, after an appeal based on the argument it was Leif Erikson was thrown out. In fact, the more the judge's looked at, the more it became apparent to them that it was Christopher Columbus. This has set a really high bar for any future referrals to the court of appeal, with the intention of overturning the original Christopher Columbus decision.
-
Who was with JB in NZ when they both committed armed robbery ?
Information courtesy of " LineFame ".
JB left NZ because his friend was into armed robbery, JB being into dealing heroin too.
" It was not until Jeremy Bamber's girlfriend Julie Mugford told the police that Jeremy confessed to the killing of the family after the breakup ".
" An indisputable fact that he killed his family was that a silencer was found downstairs while Sheila had been found upstairs ".
I suppose that's " Elementary my dear Watson ". ???
-
Bringing the 2002 appeal to the forum as a chapter and verse overview of the case will not engage members in debate. It's been done to death. You need to bring more than this. Are you going to tell us that Christopher Columbus discovered America; or that Guy Fawlkes was discovered by a pure stroke of luck when the cellars underneath the houses of parliament were checked.
No the Vikings did..https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vikings-discover-christopher-columbus-america-b1941786.html
-
In 2002, Justice Kay et al ruled it was Christopher Columbus, after an appeal based on the argument it was Leif Erikson was thrown out. In fact, the more the judge's looked at, the more it became apparent to them that it was Christopher Columbus. This has set a really high bar for any future referrals to the court of appeal, with the intention of overturning the original Christopher Columbus decision.
WTF? ???
-
Wow...I only just discovered that the submission thrown in Apr 2012 was originally submitted to the commission in Mar 2004. On this basis we will have to wait to learn the outcome of the Mar 2021 submission until around Apr 2029!
-
Wow...I only just discovered that the submission thrown in Apr 2012 was originally submitted to the commission in Mar 2004. On this basis we will have to wait to learn the outcome of the Mar 2021 submission until around Apr 2029!
Incorrect.
-
Incorrect.
Elaborate.
You have not got the gravitas to post a one word dismissal.
-
Incorrect.
Elucidate.
-
It looks like David is not going to elaborate.
Therefore his 'incorrect' is dismissed.
-
The legal representative behind all the 347,000 documents which had to be scrutinised from ground level, is Joe Stone QC and his junior council Matt Stanbury.
I'm sure that Joe Stone thought the case worthwhile to fight for or he wouldn't have touched it.
The submission isn't all about Jeremy's innocence, but a very detailed and focussed application based on material which has been uncovered since 2011.
"Press Note : We will only be commenting on Major events in the case that can be made public and otherwise will not be elaborating on the evidence before the commission at this stage ".
-
The legal representative behind all the 347,000 documents which had to be scrutinised from ground level, is Joe Stone QC and his junior council Matt Stanbury.
I'm sure that Joe Stone thought the case worthwhile to fight for or he wouldn't have touched it.
The submission isn't all about Jeremy's innocence, but a very detailed and focussed application based on material which has been uncovered since 2011.
"Press Note : We will only be commenting on Major events in the case that can be made public and otherwise will not be elaborating on the evidence before the commission at this stage ".
👏👏👏
-
Elucidate.
The legal work done in 2004 had nothing to do with the CCRC in 2012. A submission was made in 2010 and rejected in 2012.
-
The legal representative behind all the 347,000 documents which had to be scrutinised from ground level, is Joe Stone QC and his junior council Matt Stanbury.
I'm sure that Joe Stone thought the case worthwhile to fight for or he wouldn't have touched it.
The submission isn't all about Jeremy's innocence, but a very detailed and focussed application based on material which has been uncovered since 2011.
"Press Note : We will only be commenting on Major events in the case that can be made public and otherwise will not be elaborating on the evidence before the commission at this stage ".
Wrong as usual. Just more flooding the board with misinformation. Joe Stone QC was instructed by Bamber to launch a court challenge over CPS withholding evidence (Dec '19). He failed
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8392497/High-Court-rejects-Jeremy-Bamber-bid-release-evidence-claims-clear-murder.html
-
The legal work done in 2004 had nothing to do with the CCRC in 2012. A submission was made in 2010 and rejected in 2012.
I hope you're right. 2029 seems an awfully long time based on what I quoted. The thought of succumbing to 8 years of podcasts put out by the support group in moments of weakness is more than I could bear :'(
-
I don't know why David gives a one word dismissal. Then ekaborates with a short unsourced post the following day.
Maybe he wants attention.
-
The legal work done in 2004 had nothing to do with the CCRC in 2012. A submission was made in 2010 and rejected in 2012.
If right, 2 years is a long time.
-
I don't know why David gives a one word dismissal. Then ekaborates with a short unsourced post the following day.
Maybe he wants attention.
I give him slack. Lots of teenageers, especially boys in my experience, go through monosyllabic phases.
-
I give him slack. Lots of teenageers, especially boys in my experience, go through monosyllabic phases.
I'm 31
-
Wrong as usual. Just more flooding the board with misinformation. Joe Stone QC was instructed by Bamber to launch a court challenge over CPS withholding evidence (Dec '19). He failed
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8392497/High-Court-rejects-Jeremy-Bamber-bid-release-evidence-claims-clear-murder.html
Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?
Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'? Then the tax payers money could have been saved.
-
If right, 2 years is a long time.
Given the mountain of docs I guess its about right. The commission has no choice other than to do a belt and braces job in debunking Bamber's claims.
I say Bamber's claims but it is difficult to know who's in the driving seat - Bamber or the support group.
-
Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?
Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'? Then the tax payers money could have been saved.
Who said they did?
-
Who said they did?
I doubt the legal team for the CPS worked pro bono. You have to look at how long this wrangled on. The CPS first expressed that they would disclose documents etc. Then with a change of personnel, they reneged on that and decided to fight it. Why?
Why not just hand them over?
-
Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?
Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'? Then the tax payers money could have been saved.
How do we know what the material is/relates to? In any event as the learned judge said -
But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.
-
I doubt the legal team for the CPS worked pro bono. You have to look at how long this wrangled on. The CPS first expressed that they would disclose documents etc. Then with a change of personnel, they reneged on that and decided to fight it. Why?
Why not just hand them over?
You appear to be assuming that there is something that could assist Bamber in the material when it might be something completely irrelevant.
-
You appear to be assuming that there is something that could assist Bamber in the material when it might be something completely irrelevant.
You appear to be assuming that highly intelligent people would rather spend tens of thousands of pounds (if not more) than simply release a bunch of irrelevant documents of no use to the defence.
-
You appear to be assuming that highly intelligent people would rather spend tens of thousands of pounds (if not more) than simply release a bunch of irrelevant documents of no use to the defence.
The fact that the documents are irrelevant to the defence does not mean they should be in the public domain.
-
The fact that the documents are irrelevant to the defence does not mean they should be in the public domain.
I'm sure that the public will sleep easier now, in the knowledge that photographs of silencers and relevant accompanying documents have been kept out of their domain. I expect the public are relieved at the 'no expense spared' approach provided by the authorities, to ensure their domain remains free of such evidence.
-
I'm sure that the public will sleep easier now, in the knowledge that photographs of silencers and relevant accompanying documents have been kept out of their domain. I expect the public are relieved at the 'no expense spared' approach provided by the authorities, to ensure their domain remains free of such evidence.
You have no idea what's in the material. The public are not as daft as you sound they will appreciate in a case of this magnitude a lot of personal information, irrelevant to the case, might have been obtained.
I think I am right in stating that the defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background?
-
You have no idea what's in the material. The public are not as daft as you sound they will appreciate in a case of this magnitude a lot of personal information, irrelevant to the case, might have been obtained.
I think I am right in stating that the defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background?
The material requested were photographs and documents relating to silencers, as you well know. Please don't deflect. I think my taxes could have been spent better elsewhere. Also, it wasn't requested for release to the public. It was requested for disclosure to the defence.
-
If anyone's going to block this submission it'll be the CPS because of the of information they're hanging on to.
-
The material requested were photographs and documents relating to silencers, as you well know. Please don't deflect. I think my taxes could have been spent better elsewhere. Also, it wasn't requested for release to the public. It was requested for disclosure to the defence.
You seem to know more than Bamber's lawyer representing him in this matter:
Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing last week that 'it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator' - evidence he suggested could 'significantly undermine the prosecution case'.
-
You seem to know more than Bamber's lawyer representing him in this matter:
Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing last week that 'it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator' - evidence he suggested could 'significantly undermine the prosecution case'.
Your reply doesn't make sense in the context of my post.
-
Your reply doesn't make sense in the context of my post.
It might not to you but it does to me!
You are claiming there's knowledge of a second silencer whereas the lawyer is more circumspect 'it now seems almost certain'...
Most here seem to hold NGB1066 in high esteem and he has recently confirmed 5 silencers are connected to the case.
The judge in the recent disclosure case
But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.
-
It might not to you but it does to me!
You are claiming there's knowledge of a second silencer whereas the lawyer is more circumspect 'it now seems almost certain'...
Most here seem to hold NGB1066 in high esteem and he has recently confirmed 5 silencers are connected to the case.
The judge in the recent disclosure case
But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.
You are deflecting.
If the evidence in question was of no use to the defence, the monetary cost of releasing photographs and documents relating to the silencers would have been far less than the cost incurred trying to prevent their release.
Knowles probably didn't have the bottle to order the release of the evidence (because of the prevailing 'mood music' in the background, as alluded to by the CT in a recent podcast). He therefore 'passed the buck' to the CCRC. This would have been something that the authorities were happy with, as it simply obsfucates the defence futher and buys more time for the crown.
-
You are deflecting.
If the evidence in question was of no use to the defence, the monetary cost of releasing photographs and documents relating to the silencers would have been far less than the cost incurred trying to prevent their release.
Knowles probably didn't have the bottle to order the release of the evidence (because of the prevailing 'mood music' in the background, as alluded to by the CT in a recent podcast). He therefore 'passed the buck' to the CCRC. This would have been something that the authorities were happy with, as it simply obsfucates the defence futher and buys more time for the crown.
There you again 'evidence in question'. You have no idea what the material is! Then you resort to your get out of jail card and describe the whole thing being a massive conspiracy all to keep a half-witted Essex farmer labourer behind bars.
Maybe Bamber should lead by example and release the full commission doc from 2012. Karma that's what it is Roch Karma.
-
There you again 'evidence in question'. You have no idea what the material is! Then you resort to your get out of jail card and describe the whole thing being a massive conspiracy all to keep a half-witted Essex farmer labourer behind bars.
Maybe Bamber should lead by example and release the full commission doc from 2012. Karma that's what it is Roch Karma.
I know what it is because the defence have said what it is. It's not brain surgery. It's photographs and related documents regarding the silencer/s. This has been explained to you how many times now?
There doesn't need to be a 'conspiracy' in the context with which you infer. There just needs to be intervention behind the scenes with regards to people being told what the approach is going to be to a particular topic. Anybody who has worked for an employer in any kind of service industry can work that out.
Just out of interest - how many judicial reviews are won?
-
I know what it is because the defence have said what it is. It's not brain surgery. It's photographs and related documents regarding the silencer/s.This has been explained to you how many times now?
There doesn't need to be a 'conspiracy' in the context with which you infer. There just needs to be intervention behind the scenes with regards to people being told what the approach is going to be to a particular topic. Anybody who has worked for an employer in any kind of service industry can work that out.
Just out of interest - how many judicial reviews are won?
Source please.
-
Source please.
I am not your gofer. How do you think the whole approach to the CPS came about in the first place?
-
Source please.
There is an archive here on the forum---police documents/ statements etc. Take a look.
-
I am not your gofer. How do you think the whole approach to the CPS came about in the first place?
You need to provide sources if making a statement.
-
You need to provide sources if making a statement.
The defence became aware of the existence of the said docs / images being held by CPS. So they requested them. After initially being told disclosure was a possibility, it was eventually refused. They took it to judicial review. It was refused. Read the papers.
-
I think members should provide a link if they're making such claims.
-
I think members should provide a link if they're making such claims.
I think you should provide proof Julie Mugford never lied in her witness statements and she was a prolific liar and had committed numerous crimes
I look forward to you posting how you can tell when Mugford lied and when she told the truth
It is a fact that Mugford admitted to numerous crimes compared to Jeremy
-
I think you should provide proof Julie Mugford never lied in her witness statements and she was a prolific liar and had committed numerous crimes
I look forward to you posting how you can tell when Mugford lied and when she told the truth
It is a fact that Mugford admitted to numerous crimes compared to Jeremy
What need is there for Steve_uk to provide proof that Julie Mugford committed numerous crimes when as you have pointed out she admitted to numerous crimes? Are you referring to different crimes? :-\
-
I think members should provide a link if they're making such claims.
A link to what Steve? Have you not followed events?
-
I think you should provide proof Julie Mugford never lied in her witness statements and she was a prolific liar and had committed numerous crimes
I look forward to you posting how you can tell when Mugford lied and when she told the truth
It is a fact that Mugford admitted to numerous crimes compared to Jeremy
As usual Steve the silence is deafening. Please provide proof that you know Julie Mugford was telling the truth
when she told police and her friends Jeremy Bamber had told he was responsible for the murders
You can post it right now because everyone here in this forum is dying to see it
-
As usual Steve the silence is deafening. Please provide proof that you know Julie Mugford was telling the truth
when she told police and her friends Jeremy Bamber had told he was responsible for the murders
You can post it right now because everyone here in this forum is dying to see it
JackieD talking of silence is deafening I just wondered if you're aware of the 'Justice for Jeremy' ringtone? If you and/or other supporters would like to upload to your phones its here
https://www.zedge.net/find/justice4jeremy
-
A link to what Steve? Have you not followed events?
I was referring to the archives here, which are legion. The problem generally is that Jeremy's defence relies on withheld documents which they somehow seem privy to the content contained therein.
-
The latest podcast is Peter Tatchell. Quite enjoyed it. Not sure whether there was a Freudian slip by Philip of the CT. Tatchell advocates for picket type protests regarding non-disclosure, which in turn prompts Philip to suggest that such direct action could be an option, should the current submissions fail at the CCRC. I would expect the CT to remain positive until told otherwise - but this doesn't seem a very positive remark.
-
The latest podcast is Peter Tatchell. Quite enjoyed it. Not sure whether there was a Freudian slip by Philip of the CT. Tatchell advocates for picket type protests regarding non-disclosure, which in turn prompts Philip to suggest that such direct action could be an option, should the current submissions fail at the CCRC. I would expect the CT to remain positive until told otherwise - but this doesn't seem a very positive remark.
I think it’s very hard to be positive when we keep reminding ourselves of how many silencers there are floating about, the police helping out anti Jeremy dramas and the continued withholding of all case related evidence regarding Mugford
But everyone is aware of how much the public loves true crime documentaries and there is absolutely tons of information still to be disclosed to the public. It’s coming
David Boutflour was crying his eyes out for a reason. Not the cocky person he was in previous documentaries
-
The latest podcast is Peter Tatchell. Quite enjoyed it. Not sure whether there was a Freudian slip by Philip of the CT. Tatchell advocates for picket type protests regarding non-disclosure, which in turn prompts Philip to suggest that such direct action could be an option, should the current submissions fail at the CCRC. I would expect the CT to remain positive until told otherwise - but this doesn't seem a very positive remark.
What did you enjoy about it? He could have said what he did in less than half the time.
Does Peter Tatchell realise Bamber is withholding vital docs from the public eg his 2012 100 page doc from the commission giving a belt and braces why it was unable to refer?
Picket type protests? ;D Who is going to take part? JackieD, Lookout, yourself and the support group?
It is plainly obvious the submission is going nowhere. Will the support group make an announcement? And will they reveal the warts and all document?
-
I await to see what sort of a mess the CCRC make of this submission.
Is it possible that anyone can do the job they were appointed to do ? ::)
-
I await to see what sort of a mess the CCRC make of this submission.
Is it possible that anyone can do the job they were appointed to do ? ::)
Its unlikely we will ever know as I doubt Bamber will release the document.