Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: lookout on July 19, 2022, 07:15:AM
-
CCRC have no intention of reviewing the case. Debate over ?
-
It sounds like he has written letters in a fit of pique. On one hand you cannot blame him. On the other hand, Newby's silence leaves a void that ends up being filled-in in this manner. It is Newby who should be occasionally and sparsely commenting, using the right language.
-
CCRC have no intention of reviewing the case. Debate over ?
Is there some news? I have not seen anything.
-
CCRC have no intention of reviewing the case. Debate over ?
It's a piece of propaganda by Jeremy Bamber.
He's trying to keep it in the news.
It's nothing to do with being frustrated. But his story generally is dying a death, and Bamber knows it. To be honest the 2002 CoA was his last hurrah, and all subsequent appeals are just a vanity project for himself.
So this is just Bamber trying to manipulate the media to get a bit of free publicity, and to connect with a handful of supporters, who love an excuse to accuse our institutions of corruption/incompetence/not caring, or whatever.
The fact is the CCRC are bending over backwards to serve Bamber. The reason why they are taking so long is because they are taking it seriously.
The CCRC may quote an average length of time that each appeal application takes. And Bamber may say why doesn't that timescale apply to him. But those average timescales that the CCRC may quote don't apply to Bamber because he makes multiple submissions per submission. And I don't think many if any other people do that.
The CCRC have to investigate every single piece of 'new evidence'. Each investigation into a piece of 'new evidence' will be a separate investigation. And they'll almost certainly be investigated sequentially, rather than concurrently.
It will take months to review each piece of 'new evidence'
And let's say for the sake of argument, that it takes 3 months per piece of evidence, and he's submitted 12 pieces of 'new evidence', then that on its own will be 3 years.
However, the CCRC make it clear that they take into account all previously submitted material from all previously submitted appeals. So everything that has gone before, from the failed 1989 appeal attempt, up until the present day, will have to be reviewed and crossed referenced with everything from Bamber s current submissions.
And that will take time.
So 12 pieces of evidence will take significantly longer than 3 years, maybe 4 or 5 years.
I'm not sure how many pieces of 'new evidence' he has made in this latest appeal attempt, but it took him 10 years to collect the evidence and make his application.
He is fully aware that his application will take years. This public 'complaint' that he's made is nothing to do with the CCRC, and is not a complaint.
One clue as to Jeremy Bambers true motives lies in the quote that he has made in this latest press release..
In the Daily Mirror...
Bamber said the independent body had been sent new evidence which is “100% proof” he did not murder his family in 1985.
So the press release comes with the usual Bamber hyperbole. The absolute proof of innocence and the guaranteed release from prison that it will immediately demand. Blah blah blah, yawn, yawn, yawn.
Bamber is not frustrated, and he knows the processes as well as anyone, including timescales for investigations. This is just a calculated press release to keep him in the news.
-
Is there some news? I have not seen anything.
No news, just Mirror and Mail articles based on letter communication between JB and A N Other.
-
It's a piece of propaganda by Jeremy Bamber.
He's trying to keep it in the news.
It's nothing to do with being frustrated. But his story generally is dying a death, and Bamber knows it. To be honest the 2002 CoA was his last hurrah, and all subsequent appeals are just a vanity project for himself.
So this is just Bamber trying to manipulate the media to get a bit of free publicity, and to connect with a handful of supporters, who love an excuse to accuse our institutions of corruption/incompetence/not caring, or whatever.
The fact is the CCRC are bending over backwards to serve Bamber. The reason why they are taking so long is because they are taking it seriously.
The CCRC may quote an average length of time that each appeal application takes. And Bamber may say why doesn't that timescale apply to him. But those average timescales that the CCRC may quote don't apply to Bamber because he makes multiple submissions per submission. And I don't think many if any other people do that.
The CCRC have to investigate every single piece of 'new evidence'. Each investigation into a piece of 'new evidence' will be a separate investigation. And they'll almost certainly be investigated sequentially, rather than concurrently.
It will take months to review each piece of 'new evidence'
And let's say for the sake of argument, that it takes 3 months per piece of evidence, and he's submitted 12 pieces of 'new evidence', then that on its own will be 3 years.
However, the CCRC make it clear that they take into account all previously submitted material from all previously submitted appeals. So everything that has gone before, from the failed 1989 appeal attempt, up until the present day, will have to be reviewed and crossed referenced with everything from Bamber s current submissions.
And that will take time.
So 12 pieces of evidence will take significantly longer than 3 years, maybe 4 or 5 years.
I'm not sure how many pieces of 'new evidence' he has made in this latest appeal attempt, but it took him 10 years to collect the evidence and make his application.
He is fully aware that his application will take years. This public 'complaint' that he's made is nothing to do with the CCRC, and is not a complaint.
One clue as to Jeremy Bambers true motives lies in the quote that he has made in this latest press release..
In the Daily Mirror...
Bamber said the independent body had been sent new evidence which is “100% proof” he did not murder his family in 1985.
So the press release comes with the usual Bamber hyperbole. The absolute proof of innocence and the guaranteed release from prison that it will immediately demand. Blah blah blah, yawn, yawn, yawn.
Bamber is not frustrated, and he knows the processes as well as anyone, including timescales for investigations. This is just a calculated press release to keep him in the news.
The ballistics and burns reports from a decade ago haven't even been challenged. Scientifically, they still stand.
In other words, there are some cases where you can deliberately place blood in to a sound moderator and that evidence can simply be regarded as sound, even when science and expertise makes a mockery of it.
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of CCRC due diligence.
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/murderer-jeremy-bamber-claims-investigators-27512631
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/white-house-farm-murderer-jeremy-7349792
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11025861/White-House-Farm-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-claims-100-proof-did-not-murder-family.html
-
It sounds like he has written letters in a fit of pique. On one hand you cannot blame him. On the other hand, Newby's silence leaves a void that ends up being filled-in in this manner. It is Newby who should be occasionally and sparsely commenting, using the right language.
I think I'd be a tad more than " in a fit of pique " being that nobody's either sounded JB out or even spoken up for him. I'd be more than cracking the whip at this stage. It's frustrating when your hands are tied as in JB's case.
-
I think I'd be a tad more than " in a fit of pique " being that nobody's either sounded JB out or even spoken up for him. I'd be more than cracking the whip at this stage. It's frustrating when your hands are tied as in JB's case.
Lookout, from what he says regarding his treatment by case managers "over the last 20 years", it sounds very much like, that at some point, they stopped believing in his innocence.
-
Lookout, from what he says regarding his treatment by case managers "over the last 20 years", it sounds very much like, that at some point, they stopped believing in his innocence.
They should be evidence driven, not belief driven. And they should have an understanding of the indicators of MOJs. Their role shouldn't be to take police answers at face value. Their role should be to probe and challenge police answers. Their role should be facilitating further exploration.
I'm going to be frank here - guilters hide behind an ineffective CCRC. A CCRC that fails to properly hold other agencies to account and fails to do enough digging, effectively acts as a protective shield to guilters, who would otherwise rely only upon their own pretty poor arguments.
-
They should be evidence driven, not belief driven. And they should have an understanding of the indicators of MOJs. Their role shouldn't be to take police answers at face value. Their role should be to probe and challenge police answers. Their role should be facilitating further exploration.
I'm going to be frank here - guilters hide behind an ineffective CCRC. A CCRC that fails to properly hold other agencies to account and fails to do enough digging, effectively acts as a protective shield to guilters, who would otherwise rely only upon their own pretty poor arguments.
Well Roch, as one of those you're accusing of "hiding", I'm going to suggest that for some of those on the 'other' side, there's more interest in showing how ineffective is the CCRC than JB being innocent. That he's not innocent in the strictest terms appears secondary.
-
Bamber's submission had a lot points. If he found out things were not going well, he may add more points. Hoping something works. Which will take more time.
These articles are properganda statement updates for supporters.
-
Bamber's submission had a lot points. If he found out things were not going well, he may add more points. Hoping something works. Which will take more time.
These articles are properganda statement updates for supporters.
This view doesn't really tie in with Mark Newby's statement from March 2021. The statement was fairly clear in what it was claiming. Bamber is merely repeating sentiments that tie in with Newby's assessment of the case.
(Regarding his innocence and regarding wrongdoing on the part of police).
-
Nobody's going to admit defeat are they ? CCRC are bloody spineless cowards.
-
It's a piece of propaganda by Jeremy Bamber.
He's trying to keep it in the news.
It's nothing to do with being frustrated. But his story generally is dying a death, and Bamber knows it. To be honest the 2002 CoA was his last hurrah, and all subsequent appeals are just a vanity project for himself.
So this is just Bamber trying to manipulate the media to get a bit of free publicity, and to connect with a handful of supporters, who love an excuse to accuse our institutions of corruption/incompetence/not caring, or whatever.
The fact is the CCRC are bending over backwards to serve Bamber. The reason why they are taking so long is because they are taking it seriously.
The CCRC may quote an average length of time that each appeal application takes. And Bamber may say why doesn't that timescale apply to him. But those average timescales that the CCRC may quote don't apply to Bamber because he makes multiple submissions per submission. And I don't think many if any other people do that.
The CCRC have to investigate every single piece of 'new evidence'. Each investigation into a piece of 'new evidence' will be a separate investigation. And they'll almost certainly be investigated sequentially, rather than concurrently.
It will take months to review each piece of 'new evidence'
And let's say for the sake of argument, that it takes 3 months per piece of evidence, and he's submitted 12 pieces of 'new evidence', then that on its own will be 3 years.
However, the CCRC make it clear that they take into account all previously submitted material from all previously submitted appeals. So everything that has gone before, from the failed 1989 appeal attempt, up until the present day, will have to be reviewed and crossed referenced with everything from Bamber s current submissions.
And that will take time.
So 12 pieces of evidence will take significantly longer than 3 years, maybe 4 or 5 years.
I'm not sure how many pieces of 'new evidence' he has made in this latest appeal attempt, but it took him 10 years to collect the evidence and make his application.
He is fully aware that his application will take years. This public 'complaint' that he's made is nothing to do with the CCRC, and is not a complaint.
One clue as to Jeremy Bambers true motives lies in the quote that he has made in this latest press release..
In the Daily Mirror...
Bamber said the independent body had been sent new evidence which is “100% proof” he did not murder his family in 1985.
So the press release comes with the usual Bamber hyperbole. The absolute proof of innocence and the guaranteed release from prison that it will immediately demand. Blah blah blah, yawn, yawn, yawn.
Bamber is not frustrated, and he knows the processes as well as anyone, including timescales for investigations. This is just a calculated press release to keep him in the news.
Are we allowed to know the substance of this 100% proof?
-
I have come to the conclusion over the years that Bamber may have started to lose the plot reference the blog posts. If it is indeed direct from Jeremy
Such posts as " my imminent freedom" " I expect to be out by the end of the year"
Jeremy is an old school at jail. And to be fair the whole British judicial process. He isn't thick. He knows the process. The court process is long and drawn. Jeremy knows this. He has been battling 37 years to prove his innocence. He had the 2002 appeal knockback. His case has sat in the legal wilderness for years
I have always been of the opinion that the blog posts are not maintained directly by Jeremy.
Someone said it is from Jeremy who is trying to keep his case in the public eye. It's bollocks I'm sorry. The most Novice legal eye could tell this
-
Are we allowed to know the substance of this 100% proof?
It must be linked to forensic report/s which enabled one of or both of two further grounds that were submitted in Dec 2021.
-
I have come to the conclusion over the years that Bamber may have started to lose the plot reference the blog posts. If it is indeed direct from Jeremy
Such posts as " my imminent freedom" " I expect to be out by the end of the year"
Jeremy is an old school at jail. And to be fair the whole British judicial process. He isn't thick. He knows the process. The court process is long and drawn. Jeremy knows this. He has been battling 37 years to prove his innocence. He had the 2002 appeal knockback. His case has sat in the legal wilderness for years
I have always been of the opinion that the blog posts are not maintained directly by Jeremy.
Someone said it is from Jeremy who is trying to keep his case in the public eye. It's bollocks I'm sorry. The most Novice legal eye could tell this
I feel certain there is truth in what you say of JB, but I can't help wondering how much of the old JB still exists? The one who was very conscious of his position in life. The one in which it was he who gave the orders and he who was in control. With this in mind, and given that, these days, his ability to control will have its limits, I feel perfectly certain it is he who directs these blogs. We all need confidence boosters from time to time. Perhaps these are JB's?
-
I feel certain there is truth in what you say of JB, but I can't help wondering how much of the old JB still exists? The one who was very conscious of his position in life. The one in which it was he who gave the orders and he who was in control. With this in mind, and given that, these days, his ability to control will have its limits, I feel perfectly certain it is he who directs these blogs. We all need confidence boosters from time to time. Perhaps these are JB's?
Did he give the orders in his previous life so to speak though?
He relied heavily on his parents for cash. And in relation to the farm he did what ever he did at the discretion of Nevill. Who was the gaffer.
I agree about confidence boosters. But even if there was compelling evidence of his innocence which was sure to set him free. The whole process is long mammoth task. Especially when dealing with a vastly understaffed establishment like the CCRC. Jeremy is fully aware of this. It can take years for a referral. It took him 13 years to get to the court of appeal from the first appeal knockback back in. 1989
-
Did he give the orders in his previous life so to speak though?
He relied heavily on his parents for cash. And in relation to the farm he did what ever he did at the discretion of Nevill. Who was the gaffer.
I agree about confidence boosters. But even if there was compelling evidence of his innocence which was sure to set him free. The whole process is long mammoth task. Especially when dealing with a vastly understaffed establishment like the CCRC. Jeremy is fully aware of this. It can take years for a referral. It took him 13 years to get to the court of appeal from the first appeal knockback back in. 1989
ILB, I'm referring more to how he liked to see himself as being, ie the funeral suit which he proudly displayed as bearing the legend "Boss", and declaring it was now him, as opposed to the actuality. I think it entirely possible that Nevill had held him back -possibly thinking he was trying to run before he could walk, and partly because he wasn't certain if he could be trusted- and he saw the "Boss moment" as being "The king is dead. Long live the King".
I have no knowledge of how the CCRC works, but I don't question anything you say of it and I agree that JB has had long enough to know as much as you, about it.
-
I think he would have ran the farm into the ground personally.
And that is of an opinion regardless of showing an interest in farming or not. He was inexperienced. And I don't think particularly business minded. People would have seen him coming. People would have taken advantage of him
-
I think he would have ran the farm into the ground personally.
And that is of an opinion regardless of showing an interest in farming or not. He was inexperienced. And I don't think particularly business minded. People would have seen him coming. People would have taken advantage of him
I entirely agree. The irony is that, because of his arrogance, he'd never have known he was being taken for a ride. I imagine that the wider family would have been more than aware of this.
-
Bamber would have sold everything he could. He wouldn't want to be head of the farm or caravan site. That involved work.
He had already started either throwing/giving stuff away & taking stuff from WHF for himself or to be sold.
He wanted to travel, which he had started doing in the month between the massacre & his arrest.
Was going to say he may have kept Sheila's London flat as a base between holidays. However Wilkes says he was planning to rent that out. Maybe his cottage would be that base.
-
All assumptions as usual. How long is it going to take you to come up with something worth debating, like where would JM have stood as a prosecution witness if she herself had been prosecuted for her past dealings in drugs and the cheque fraud ?
-
Oh, and keeping nicks while JB robbed the caravan site ?
-
All assumptions as usual. How long is it going to take you to come up with something worth debating, like where would JM have stood as a prosecution witness if she herself had been prosecuted for her past dealings in drugs and the cheque fraud ?
Oh, and keeping nicks while JB robbed the caravan site ?
I suppose it might be argued that, had it not been for her association with JB, who they all revert back to, she wouldn't have become involved with any of the above?
-
I suppose it might be argued that, had it not been for her association with JB, who they all revert back to, she wouldn't have become involved with any of the above?
A few offences took place prior to her association with JB ?
-
A few offences took place prior to her association with JB ?
Certain things have been mooted, but given that, at 21, she'd already completed a three year degree course and had embarked on a second, she had to have gone straight from school to college, and was having to do casual work to fund herself. As absolutely nothing has been proved -and she's still free to come to England to see her family whenever she chooses- I suspect none of what's been suggested to be true. I'm guessing that had it been, at this stage of the game, there's nothing which would have stopped it from being revealed?
-
Certain things have been mooted, but given that, at 21, she'd already completed a three year degree course and had embarked on a second, she had to have gone straight from school to college, and was having to do casual work to fund herself. As absolutely nothing has been proved -and she's still free to come to England to see her family whenever she chooses- I suspect none of what's been suggested to be true. I'm guessing that had it been, at this stage of the game, there's nothing which would have stopped it from being revealed?
Lookout has no knowledge of the case. She supports Bamber because of a gut feeling in 1985.
The police knew nothing about Julie's other minor crimes before she approached them.
-
Are we allowed to know the substance of this 100% proof?
It's properganda.
-
Lookout has no knowledge of the case. She supports Bamber because of a gut feeling in 1985.
The police knew nothing about Julie's other minor crimes before she approached them.
Can't answer so you come out with insults !! You're pathetic !
-
Police knew about JM's crimes, but turned a blind eye. By law, you're supposed to disclose previous wrongdoings before being a witness for the prosecution, so both JM and EP were TOTALLY in the WRONG about not disclosing her previous crimes !!
By not disclosing is tantamount to having a grudge against the defendent thus creating a fraudulent trial.
-
Police knew about JM's crimes, but turned a blind eye. By law, you're supposed to disclose previous wrongdoings before being a witness for the prosecution, so both JM and EP were TOTALLY in the WRONG about not disclosing her previous crimes !!
By not disclosing is tantamount to having a grudge against the defendent thus creating a fraudulent trial.
But she did disclose them, Lookout, or we wouldn't know that it had been decided not to prosecute her. Thing is, had they prosecuted, it would have become known that all her crimes were linked to JB and that, on top of the murder charge, would have given further insight to his character and wouldn't have looked good.
-
Police knew about JM's crimes, but turned a blind eye. By law, you're supposed to disclose previous wrongdoings before being a witness for the prosecution, so both JM and EP were TOTALLY in the WRONG about not disclosing her previous crimes !!
By not disclosing is tantamount to having a grudge against the defendent thus creating a fraudulent trial.
Wasn't aware that witnesses in a trial have to disclose a crime that was nothing to do with the massacre. Which she had not been prosecuted for.
-
But she did disclose them, Lookout, or we wouldn't know that it had been decided not to prosecute her. Thing is, had they prosecuted, it would have become known that all her crimes were linked to JB and that, on top of the murder charge, would have given further insight to his character and wouldn't have looked good.
Jane she may have told EP, but the court didn't know and whether Arlidge knew we don't know, but I know one thing that past crimes have to be divulged before you can become a prosecution witness and seemingly the jurors never knew, so therefore it wasn't mentioned.
Some of her crimes were before she met JB.
-
All assumptions as usual. How long is it going to take you to come up with something worth debating, like where would JM have stood as a prosecution witness if she herself had been prosecuted for her past dealings in drugs and the cheque fraud ?
You don't need Julie Mugford to find Jeremy Bamber guilty. Her statement to police was important in getting the case turned around. But the case shouldn't have needed turning around in the first place.
You don't actually need Julie Mugfords statement/testimony to find Jeremy Bamber guilty. There is plenty of other evidence that does that.
And maybe Julie Mulford's testimony did convince the jury that Jeremy Bamber was guilty, and so she was important in that regard, but it still doesn't change the facts, which is that there is plenty of evidence that proves that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If it went to court today, there would be even more evidence that could be considered, that wasn't presented to the jury in 1986, that points to Jeremy Bambers guilt.
And there is insurmountable proof that Sheila was murdered. And that proof automatically makes Jeremy Bamber guilty, on account of his absolute refusal to allow his defence team to suggest the possible involvement of a third party.
His defence team, have been unable to introduce reasonable doubt into the equation, because Jeremy Bamber insists that it was Sheila who committed the crime.
His 37 year campaign to prove Sheila's guilt, makes no sense whatsoever, given that he says he wasn't there and that he was asleep in his bed when it all kicked off. So how does he know that Sheila is guilty? An innocent person wouldn't know this. So why the 37 year long campaign?
But it does make sense if you are guilty, and you are trying to frame your sister.
But as everything stands right now, Julie Mugford is an irrelevance. Relevant then, but irrelevant now.
-
JM had a £25,000 sweetener to find JB guilty. A very good reason don't you think ?
-
Jane she may have told EP, but the court didn't know and whether Arlidge knew we don't know, but I know one thing that past crimes have to be divulged before you can become a prosecution witness and seemingly the jurors never knew, so therefore it wasn't mentioned.
Some of her crimes were before she met JB.
Whilst I know that it's been claimed that she'd committed crimes previously, it's something I'd totally refute, because other than something like riding a bike without lights, and the simple fact that there wasn't the time, she'd never have been allowed into Canada with a criminal record, and in order to attain the position she's achieved there, a full and thorough search of her past would have been carried out. As you're inclined to believe in JB's total innocence, I'm inclined to give Julie the benefit of doubt when it comes to past crimes and had her current misdemeanours been bought up in court, I imagine the prosecution would have had a field day linking them to JB's influence on her.
-
It's properganda.
But if it is meant to be propaganda. It's ludicrous. To be honest the case is miniscule in the public eye. When we think high profile defendants in the UK we think of the Stephen Lawrence case, Ian Huntley. Bamber happened in the 80s. The WHF drama upped the profile. Before that ( and I have asked many over the years) do you remember Jeremy Bamber and the vast majority don't. Ask if they remember Huntley it's a different story
Nobody would take an interest in the case until a headline read. " Bamber referred to the court of appeal " or " Bambers convictions overturned"
He has a small following. I don't mean in believing in his innocence. People such as myself and you. Me having met him in prison and being on the fence. You adamant of his guilt other forum posters.
He has his hopes on a vastly understaffed body the CCRC. He knows even with the most compelling evidence this will take a while if ever.
-
JM had a £25,000 sweetener to find JB guilty. A very good reason don't you think ?
But it has nothing to do with any past crimes you claim she committed. It must also be remembered that Julie wasn't on trial.
-
The CCRC were never fit for purpose when you read about the many MOJ's that were missed and also those which are stock-piled due to the incompetence of whoever remains there. The former manager should never have taken on the job. It would appear that it has quite a turnover of staff which is never a good omen.
-
And there is insurmountable proof that Sheila was murdered.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
-
But wasn't Julies crimes quashed and rescinded,How could there be any record of them to hold her career back?
-
JM had a £25,000 sweetener to find JB guilty. A very good reason don't you think ?
Lookout you must accept Bamber is guilty.
Or come up with reasons for his innocence.
-
But if it is meant to be propaganda. It's ludicrous. To be honest the case is miniscule in the public eye. When we think high profile defendants in the UK we think of the Stephen Lawrence case, Ian Huntley. Bamber happened in the 80s. The WHF drama upped the profile. Before that ( and I have asked many over the years) do you remember Jeremy Bamber and the vast majority don't. Ask if they remember Huntley it's a different story
Nobody would take an interest in the case until a headline read. " Bamber referred to the court of appeal " or " Bambers convictions overturned"
He has a small following. I don't mean in believing in his innocence. People such as myself and you. Me having met him in prison and being on the fence. You adamant of his guilt other forum posters.
He has his hopes on a vastly understaffed body the CCRC. He knows even with the most compelling evidence this will take a while if ever.
Can you post a transcript of the letter you sent Bamber for the forum. Forth request.
Thank you.
-
But it has nothing to do with any past crimes you claim she committed. It must also be remembered that Julie wasn't on trial.
When questioned by Rivlin, you'd have thought JM was on trial when she began blubbering.
-
When questioned by Rivlin, you'd have thought JM was on trial when she began blubbering.
I can't imagine it to have been a bed of roses for her!!! ;D
-
I can't imagine it to have been a bed of roses for her!!! ;D
Well she was fine when on the side of the prosecution. Felt more at home whilst ridding herself of her spite.
-
I can't imagine it to have been a bed of roses for her!!! ;D
Lookout really needs to change stance.
She has never come up with any evidence points to support her aledged stance.
-
Lookout really needs to change stance.
She has never come up with any evidence points to support her aledged stance.
Just sod off you, you're not right in the head !
-
Can you post a transcript of the letter you sent Bamber for the forum. Forth request.
Thank you.
Dear Mr Bamber.
I have been following the case for a long time. I am not going to start the machinations of your innocence or guilt. From my own personal opinion I am undecided. But I hope you can find it in yourself to answer a question that I am interested in finding out.
How did you wake and became alerted to a call from your father nevill at 3am approx on August 7th 1985?. It is said you had an AM. A person I am in contact with says that your father's phonecall was futile in that you had an AM and could not awake in time due to you being " asleep like a log
I just want to hear your opinion on this matter. You say it happened. I want to hear the words from the horses mouth ( Jeremy Bamber himsel) I have enclosed a first class stamped letter enclosed for you to reply with. I am completely aware that due to you being CAT A it may take time for you to reply.
Again I do not cast doubt on the claim of your innocence. I am not trying to trip you up. I am open minded. I just wish for your opinion.
( I also included personal details that I will not divulge on an internet forum) such as my real name. Our time in long lartin was referenced.
When a reply if it does come through from Jeremy Bamber himself I will duly post
-
Dear Mr Bamber.
I have been following the case for a long time. I am not going to start the machinations of your innocence or guilt. From my own personal opinion I am undecided. But I hope you can find it in yourself to answer a question that I am interested in finding out.
How did you wake and became alerted to a call from your father nevill at 3am approx on August 7th 1985?. It is said you had an AM. A person I am in contact with says that your father's phonecall was futile in that you had an AM and could not awake in time due to you being " asleep like a log
I just want to hear your opinion on this matter. You say it happened. I want to hear the words from the horses mouth ( Jeremy Bamber himsel) I have enclosed a first class stamped letter enclosed for you to reply with. I am completely aware that due to you being CAT A it may take time for you to reply.
Again I do not cast doubt on the claim of your innocence. I am not trying to trip you up. I am open minded. I just wish for your opinion.
( I also included personal details that I will not divulge on an internet forum) such as my real name. Our time in long lartin was referenced.
When a reply if it does come through from Jeremy Bamber himself I will duly post
Thanks. Obviously Bamber will give a reply which will benefit him.
I can only think that will be he turned his AM off when he got in.
-
Dear Mr Bamber.
I have been following the case for a long time. I am not going to start the machinations of your innocence or guilt. From my own personal opinion I am undecided. But I hope you can find it in yourself to answer a question that I am interested in finding out.
How did you wake and became alerted to a call from your father nevill at 3am approx on August 7th 1985?. It is said you had an AM. A person I am in contact with says that your father's phonecall was futile in that you had an AM and could not awake in time due to you being " asleep like a log
I just want to hear your opinion on this matter. You say it happened. I want to hear the words from the horses mouth ( Jeremy Bamber himsel) I have enclosed a first class stamped letter enclosed for you to reply with. I am completely aware that due to you being CAT A it may take time for you to reply.
Again I do not cast doubt on the claim of your innocence. I am not trying to trip you up. I am open minded. I just wish for your opinion.
( I also included personal details that I will not divulge on an internet forum) such as my real name. Our time in long lartin was referenced.
When a reply if it does come through from Jeremy Bamber himself I will duly post
Well done ILB ,that is a very sensible letter.
-
Thanks. Obviously Bamber will give a reply which will benefit him.
I can only think that will be he turned his AM off when he got in.
Then if he gives the former reply which you state I will respond in kind. I believe that response is suspicious. Not direct wise. But circumstancial wise.
Ownership of an AM means as a rule it would be left on 24 7. If Jeremy says he switched it off on the night his family were killed. I will take inference from that. If he says he switched it a week prior. I will balance it providing a proof answer.
To be honest I am expecting an explanation along the lines I have given
-
Did JB say he was in bed when the phone rang? Maybe he had been up for a pee and just happened to be beside the phone when Nevill called.Couldn't he claim this?
-
Did JB say he was in bed when the phone rang? Maybe he had been up for a pee and just happened to be beside the phone when Nevill called.Couldn't he claim this?
Snow, we need to hear from the main man himself
Mr Jeremy Bamber
-
Snow, we need to hear from the main man himself
Mr Jeremy Bamber
Yes,of course,understood ILB.
-
Then if he gives the former reply which you state I will respond in kind. I believe that response is suspicious. Not direct wise. But circumstancial wise.
Ownership of an AM means as a rule it would be left on 24 7. If Jeremy says he switched it off on the night his family were killed. I will take inference from that. If he says he switched it a week prior. I will balance it providing a proof answer.
To be honest I am expecting an explanation along the lines I have given
Why would he switch it off a week earlier. Or on the night?
You are the only person who has ever suggested Nevill would repeatedly ring Bamber's AM. Will be surprised if Bamber says that.
-
Why would he switch it off a week earlier. Or on the night?
You are the only person who has ever suggested Nevill would repeatedly ring Bamber's AM. Will be surprised if Bamber says that.
You know the timeframe that I have given you between calls to reaching an AM. And with a redial facility ( as an example ) to create a fresh call )I am not going to keep going over it. It's boring
I also never said he would phone Bambers AM repeatedly. I said nevill could make two calls. The first may get the the AM. But if nevill terminated and made a fresh call Bamber could wake and answer on the second call. The first call may have already awoke him. There is ample time to have reached his phone from bourtree cottage. It is tiny
Let's here from the main man himself. Jeremy Nevill Bamber. He is adamant he woke up and answered a call. The entire defence case is built on a phonecall from nevill.
-
Dear Mr Bamber.
I have been following the case for a long time. I am not going to start the machinations of your innocence or guilt. From my own personal opinion I am undecided. But I hope you can find it in yourself to answer a question that I am interested in finding out.
How did you wake and became alerted to a call from your father nevill at 3am approx on August 7th 1985?. It is said you had an AM. A person I am in contact with says that your father's phonecall was futile in that you had an AM and could not awake in time due to you being " asleep like a log
I just want to hear your opinion on this matter. You say it happened. I want to hear the words from the horses mouth ( Jeremy Bamber himsel) I have enclosed a first class stamped letter enclosed for you to reply with. I am completely aware that due to you being CAT A it may take time for you to reply.
Again I do not cast doubt on the claim of your innocence. I am not trying to trip you up. I am open minded. I just wish for your opinion.
( I also included personal details that I will not divulge on an internet forum) such as my real name. Our time in long lartin was referenced.
When a reply if it does come through from Jeremy Bamber himself I will duly post
Brilliant letter, ILB. Entirely non judgemental. I'd certainly reply to such.
-
Very well done ILB. It can take about 6 weeks for a reply so don't despair.
-
It's properganda.
Do you mean that the information is not 100% proof of innocence? Propaganda only works if enough people believe it. Given the amount of JB detractors (hugely increased by CAL, and others), as a piece of propaganda, JB saying that the CCRC has had 100% proof of innocence since December 2021 doesn't really work.
It could be that it's factual or it could be that he is exaggerating the importance. However, whatever it was depended upon forensics; the results of which were sufficient to be submitted as separate ground/s, a full nine months after the original submissions. It is unlikely to be something minor.
-
JM had a £25,000 sweetener to find JB guilty. A very good reason don't you think ?
I think Julie Mugford was and could still be a nasty piece of work. Her behaviour then was inexcusable and I wouldn't even acknowledge her existence if she came to me for employment. Then or now.
And she knew how to look after herself, and make sure that number one was properly catered for. And I think she was always number one in her relationship with Bamber, despite Bamber being highly manipulative.
But,
It was the silencer that that the jury came back for more information on, so the Jury were not entirely swayed by her testimony. Then they went back for another 2.5 hours of deliberation.
There was enough truth in her statement/testimony to be able to trust overall what she said. The bits that can be corroborated, like the existence of the phonecalls, are important facts in the case.
But with a friend like Julie, you don't need enemies. And I would guess that that still applies today.
-
I think Julie Mugford was and could still be a nasty piece of work. Her behaviour then was inexcusable and I wouldn't even acknowledge her existence if she came to me for employment. Then or now.
And she knew how to look after herself, and make sure that number one was properly catered for. And I think she was always number one in her relationship with Bamber, despite Bamber being highly manipulative.
But,
It was the silencer that that the jury came back for more information on, so the Jury were not entirely swayed by her testimony. Then they went back for another 2.5 hours of deliberation.
There was enough truth in her statement/testimony to be able to trust overall what she said. The bits that can be corroborated, like the existence of the phonecalls, are important facts in the case.
But with a friend like Julie, you don't need enemies. And I would guess that that still applies today.
Very insightful, Ke. I concur, although I'm not fully on board with how you see her standing with JB. He was, after all, used to the "top dog" position. Perhaps theirs was a war of attrition?
-
There is just something of the " hidden fervour " about Julie. I won't judge her just on a gut feeling or just for Bambers benefit. But there is something off about it to me.
On paper it looks compelling to a degree. That she was in turmoil and couldn't keep the secret any longer. But if you look at the evidence closer from her own mouth Bamber had been referencing his plans since 1984 at the earliest. I don't think it's a case of her being in disbelief as such. But by her own words she had the night crystal clear admissions that Bamber had committed the crime. He practically gave her a running commentary.
With what Bamber has been supposed to have mentioned from 1984 at the earliest. She must have known. Yet she stays with him for a significant period.
This was not a naive teenager. She was an educated woman. A trainee teacher. Logically I can't believe if what she says is true she would have wanted to be in the same vicinity as Bamber for any time scale period. Given his horrific admissions
-
There is just something of the " hidden fervour " about Julie. I won't judge her just on a gut feeling or just for Bambers benefit. But there is something off about it to me.
On paper it looks compelling to a degree. That she was in turmoil and couldn't keep the secret any longer. But if you look at the evidence closer from her own mouth Bamber had been referencing his plans since 1984 at the earliest. I don't think it's a case of her being in disbelief as such. But by her own words she had the night crystal clear admissions that Bamber had committed the crime. He practically gave her a running commentary.
With what Bamber has been supposed to have mentioned from 1984 at the earliest. She must have known. Yet she stays with him for a significant period.
This was not a naive teenager. She was an educated woman. A trainee teacher. Logically I can't believe if what she says is true she would have wanted to be in the same vicinity as Bamber for any time scale period. Given his horrific admissions
There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?
Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
As the assumed murderer I think Sheila would have not inherited anything ...
A strong principle in UK law is that no person can benefit in any way from a crime they commit ...
So it would be assumed that as the youngest the twins died last and Colin would have inherited a big slice ...
This principle also explains why it was so important for Robert to see Jeremy convicted of the murders ...
Jeremy's conviction stopped him from inheriting in line with this legal principle ...
So to Robert (a known will fraudster) it was important that Jeremy was convicted and that there was some evidence (Julie's "remembered" statement) that the twins died first ...
It makes no sense (other than to a deranged Sheila perhaps) for anyone to shoot the twins before Nevill ...
Julie did not "remember" Jeremy telling her the twins died first during 4 days with Police ...
Julie was telling lies that Robert Boutflour asked her to tell ...
The truth is easy to see when looking at these details ...
Robert was a known liar (he lied in court about the money and lied to grandma Speakman about Jeremy having died)
Robert was a known will fraudster (his lies to grandma Speakman about Jeremy dying)
Robert was behind the planting of the silencer ...
Robert was behind Julie's lies to the Police ...
His motive was very simple - money ....
-
David thank you very interesting.
-
RWB also refused to do a DNA test.
-
RWB also refused to do a DNA test.
Stop being an arse & provide the source.
-
There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?
Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.
Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.
What is the issue?
-
This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
----------
Why would Julie want that?
-
Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.
Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.
What is the issue?
Why was it necessary for Julie to know such details as whether, or not, MM had been to the farm previously? Why would it have occurred to her to ask? Clearly, he found out, even if he'd never previously been there, if, as JB claimed, it was he who'd killed them.
-
Julie knew who MM was but barely knew him. She had no way of contacting him. She may have neen aware of the myth of MM being a mercenary.
In other words the perfect proxy.
-
Stop being an arse & provide the source.
Source/proof that all you can do is copy what others have said without using that pea of a brain you've got.
-
This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
----------
Why would Julie want that?
Hopefully David will answer.
-
Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.
Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.
What is the issue?
Hopefully David will answer.
-
JM DID know that MM had been to WHF. He fixed a plumbing problem.
-
Are we allowed to know the substance of this 100% proof?
One of the new pieces of evidence is to do with the silencer, that was published on the CT website some time ago.
This article from the Guardian is from 2018 (link below), when Bamber was trying it on with the CPS. It's about there being more than one silencer (Yawn, yawn).
And yes, it is all propaganda.
Below is my unpicking of the article, and I suspect this same 'evidence' has been submitted to the CCRC
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence
The important bits in the article are...
The confidential report, which has been seen by the Guardian, casts doubt on the validity of evidence relating to a rifle sound moderator, or silencer, that was pivotal to Bamber’s conviction in 1986
This is misleading, as the report was commissioned by Bamber.Tthe Govt has no control over it whatsoever. This paragraph implies that the Govt are preventing its release, which is not true.
If Bamber wants to publish it, he can, it doesn't have to be 'confidential' if he doesn't want it to be.
If it's 'confidential' because he's going to use it for his CCRC appeal, then the Guardian should make it clear. They don't.
I can't see why Bamber can't publish the report.
A week before Bamber’s trial started, the head of biology at Huntingdon Science Laboratories wrote a letter to Essex Police, seen by the Guardian, saying that the results of the blood tests would show that the blood “could have come from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour”.
This is somewhere somewhere between misleading, and outright lie.
Technically the blood could have come from anyone in the world who has the same blood group as Sheila Caffell. And that includes Robert Boutflour.
The prosecution Counsel had access to this information, because under cross examination at the actual trial, Robert Boutflour was asked if it was possible that he accidentally dripped his blood into the silencer.
So there was no secret or withheld information about Robert Boutflours blood group, and it was all presented to the jury in exactly the same open and transparent way that it would be today.
Bamber has claimed for many years that evidence was not disclosed to the defence by Essex police showing that two silencers had been examined by forensic scientists.
In the new report, the senior forensic scientist and leading firearms expert concluded that separate silencers were being examined by the police at the same time in different departments, based on “serious discrepancies” in how the devices were described and the fact that there was no record of any item being transferred from one section to the other.
Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour.
They even admit that both silencers have blood from the same people in it. This is a very strong clue to even us lay people that it was the same silencer.
The Guardian article then continues...
Although the CPS stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, they added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.
So after all of that, this 'forensic evidence' that Jeremy Bamber says 'proves' there was more than one silencer, gets handed over to the CPS, and the CPS come back and say...
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
And that 'evidence' will probably be very similar if not identical to the silencer 'evidence' that Jeremy Bamber has submitted to the CCRC.
But it has already been publicly rejected by the CPS.
But hey, its 100% proof of his innocence.
And that, is propaganda. Guardian style.
-
One of the new pieces of evidence is to do with the silencer, that was published on the CT website some time ago.
This article from the Guardian is from 2018 (link below), when Bamber was trying it on with the CPS. It's about there being more than one silencer (Yawn, yawn).
And yes, it is all propaganda.
Below is my unpicking of the article, and I suspect this same 'evidence' has been submitted to the CCRC
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence
The important bits in the article are...
The confidential report, which has been seen by the Guardian, casts doubt on the validity of evidence relating to a rifle sound moderator, or silencer, that was pivotal to Bamber’s conviction in 1986
This is misleading, as the report was commissioned by Bamber.Tthe Govt has no control over it whatsoever. This paragraph implies that the Govt are preventing its release, which is not true.
If Bamber wants to publish it, he can, it doesn't have to be 'confidential' if he doesn't want it to be.
If it's 'confidential' because he's going to use it for his CCRC appeal, then the Guardian should make it clear. They don't.
I can't see why Bamber can't publish the report.
A week before Bamber’s trial started, the head of biology at Huntingdon Science Laboratories wrote a letter to Essex Police, seen by the Guardian, saying that the results of the blood tests would show that the blood “could have come from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour”.
This is somewhere somewhere between misleading, and outright lie.
Technically the blood could have come from anyone in the world who has the same blood group as Sheila Caffell. And that includes Robert Boutflour.
The prosecution Counsel had access to this information, because under cross examination at the actual trial, Robert Boutflour was asked if it was possible that he accidentally dripped his blood into the silencer.
So there was no secret or withheld information about Robert Boutflours blood group, and it was all presented to the jury in exactly the same open and transparent way that it would be today.
Bamber has claimed for many years that evidence was not disclosed to the defence by Essex police showing that two silencers had been examined by forensic scientists.
In the new report, the senior forensic scientist and leading firearms expert concluded that separate silencers were being examined by the police at the same time in different departments, based on “serious discrepancies” in how the devices were described and the fact that there was no record of any item being transferred from one section to the other.
Both silencers are believed to contain blood that could belong to either Caffell or Boutflour.
They even admit that both silencers have blood from the same people in it. This is a very strong clue to even us lay people that it was the same silencer.
The Guardian article then continues...
Although the CPS stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, they added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.
So after all of that, this 'forensic evidence' that Jeremy Bamber says 'proves' there was more than one silencer, gets handed over to the CPS, and the CPS come back and say...
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
And that 'evidence' will probably be very similar if not identical to the silencer 'evidence' that Jeremy Bamber has submitted to the CCRC.
But it has already been publicly rejected by the CPS.
But hey, its 100% proof of his innocence.
And that, is propaganda. Guardian style.
This article deals with the sound moderator/s. It is perhaps some contrast for your opinions expressed above.
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/is-the-ccrc-implicated-in-36-years-of-deception-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber
-
JM DID know that MM had been to WHF. He fixed a plumbing problem.
So why didn't she say?
-
Stop being an arse & provide the source.
Hi Adam,you can find referrence to this on Bill's silencer essay that Roch has just re-posted above.
-
Many thanks for that Roch, even though some of the findings are truly sickening from these people.
Nothing like kicking a man when he's down !
-
Hi Adam,you can find referrence to this on Bill's silencer essay that Roch has just re-posted above.
He won't read that,snow. Adam's not looking for the truth.
-
He won't read that,snow. Adam's not looking for the truth.
I think he is under the impression that he has already found it Lookout,poor kid! :))
-
Hi Adam,you can find referrence to this on Bill's silencer essay that Roch has just re-posted above.
Bill. That is all I need to know.
DNA did not exist in 1985/6.
-
Bill. That is all I need to know.
DNA did not exist in 1985/6.
If you read Bill's essay,I think you will find he is talking about Martyn Ismail for the 2002 appeal Adam.
-
If you read Bill's essay,I think you will find he is talking about Martyn Ismail for the 2002 appeal Adam.
The silencer had been destroyed by then. Or had no blood left to test. NGB can confirm.
RB cannot refuse to give a blood sample if ordered by the courts.
-
This article deals with the sound moderator/s. It is perhaps some contrast for your opinions expressed above.
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/is-the-ccrc-implicated-in-36-years-of-deception-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber
The important thing to note with the Guardian article is that they say they've obtained forensic evidence showing that there were two silencers. And they say that this evidence undermines the prosecution case.
Jeremy Bamber's lawyers then submitted the evidence to the CPS
The CPS studied the evidence that shows that there were two silencers.
The CPS then make a public statement quoted as follows:
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
In the same article Jeremy Bamber makes this quote:
Bamber said: “The report in the hands of the CPS proves with absolute certainty that this case featured two silencers. And now the CPS must act. There are moments in life when the truth can no longer be suppressed and this is one of those times.”
And let's just remind ourselves how the CPS reacted after studying this so-called 'proof':
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
And this is almost certainly what he's submitted to the CCRC. And it has already been rejected.
Hyperbole. Propaganda. Fantasy.
-
A week before Bamber’s trial started, the head of biology at Huntingdon Science Laboratories wrote a letter to Essex Police, seen by the Guardian, saying that the results of the blood tests would show that the blood “could have come from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour”.
This is somewhere somewhere between misleading, and outright lie.
No. That is what is stated in the letter.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9070.0;attach=50765)
-
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
----------
Have you got a link to that quote?
-
The important thing to note with the Guardian article is that they say they've obtained forensic evidence showing that there were two silencers. And they say that this evidence undermines the prosecution case.
Jeremy Bamber's lawyers then submitted the evidence to the CPS
The CPS studied the evidence that shows that there were two silencers.
The CPS then make a public statement quoted as follows:
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
In the same article Jeremy Bamber makes this quote:
Bamber said: “The report in the hands of the CPS proves with absolute certainty that this case featured two silencers. And now the CPS must act. There are moments in life when the truth can no longer be suppressed and this is one of those times.”
And let's just remind ourselves how the CPS reacted after studying this so-called 'proof':
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
And this is almost certainly what he's submitted to the CCRC. And it has already been rejected.
Hyperbole. Propaganda. Fantasy.
How do we know the CPS are not just simply closing ranks? If you have documentary evidence that sound moderators were recorded as having different lengths, grooves, patterns, condition etc; and located on different dates, then it is the CPS who are peddling propaganda by trying to brush this off.
-
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
Let's just remind ourselves of this alleged no documentary evidence that supports there having been a second silencer..
This sound moderator is alleged by the police and Bamber’s relatives at various times to have been:
(a) scratched;[v]
(b) not scratched;[vi]
(c) covered in a jam-like substance;[vii]
(d) not covered in a jam-like substance;[viii]
(e) had a grey hair attached to it;[ix]
(f) did not have a grey hair attached to it;
(g) had a flake of blood outside it;[xi]
(h) had a flake of blood inside it;[xii]
(i) measured 7 inches and had 17 baffle plates inside;[xiii]
(j) measured 6.5 inches and had 15 baffle plates inside;[xiv]
(k) had a lot of blood inside;[xv]
(l) had just one flake of blood inside;[xvi]
(m) had Sheila’s blood inside;[xvii]
(n) didn’t have Sheila’s blood inside;[xviii]
(o) had June’s DNA inside;[xix]
(p) didn’t have Sheila’s DNA inside;[xx]
(q) had unidentified male DNA inside;[xxi]
(r) had 250 red paint flakes on the outside;[xxii][xxiii]
(s) didn’t have any paint on the outside;[xxiv]
(t) had a flake of blood between baffle plates 1 and 2;[xxv]
(u) had a single flake of blood on baffle plate 5;[xxvi]
(v) had blood on baffle plates 1-5;[xxvii]
(w) had three lowered rings along the length, one at each end and one in the middle;[xxviii]
(x) had no rings along the length;[xxix]
(y) had a film of white residue on it from superglue fumes used for fingerprinting purposes;[xxx] and,
(z) had no white residue from superglue fumes[xxxi].
All of the above 26 assertions were made by various witnesses. Is it possible that they could have been describing more than one silencer?
-
How do we know the CPS are not just simply closing ranks? If you have documentary evidence that sound moderators were recorded as having different lengths, grooves, patterns, condition etc; and located on different dates, then it is the CPS who are peddling propaganda by trying to brush this off.
What you are referring to is very similar to Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.
He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken.
But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless.
Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.
Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work. And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.
All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's. Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.
We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.
And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.
As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong. You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.
The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it, or keep it a secret.
As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret. Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.
And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.
Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.
-
Using Photoshop. That sounds about right.
-
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
----------
Have you got a link to that quote?
The quote is made by Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS.
It was published in an article by the Guardian below.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence
The article is written by Eric Allison who is a Jeremy Bamber supporter, and that one quote completely obliterates the whole point of the article, which is to say that there is evidence that there were two silencers, when in fact there isn't.
I am guessing that Eric Allisons bosses told him to add that, in order to create some balance, but it completely wipes out his argument.
The article contains the usual lies and misinformation about the case that Eric Allison cuts and pastes into many of his pro Bamber articles.
-
Nothing but sour grapes at every turn.
-
What you are referring to is very similar to Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.
He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken.
But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless.
Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.
Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work. And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.
All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's. Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.
We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.
And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.
As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong. You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.
The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it, or keep it a secret.
As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret. Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.
And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.
Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.
I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.
-
Let's just remind ourselves of this alleged no documentary evidence that supports there having been a second silencer..
A lot of those claims are BS. The ones that are accurate are simply explained. One relative had seen the silencer before the other relative had scratched and contaminated it. Some police and witnesses had seen and described the silencer prior to it being superglue tested for prints. Likewise other witnesses had examined the silencer after the blood was removed from it for testing.
-
The Boutflour/Eaton conspiracy against Bamber is a possibility.
To me though personally, I think there has been an incident preluding the massacre that has soiled the bad blood.
None of us are aware of the most inner dealings within the families. We rely on statements.
This has to cover a lot of ground (years perhaps) before 7.8
85
-
It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.
I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close
-
What you are referring to is very similar to Peter Sutherst's evidence, where he used something like Photoshop to stitch 3 images together, in order to create a panorama of the whole of the mantelshelf in the kitchen.
He then said that it proved that the scratches photographed underneath the mantelshelf weren't there when the original crime scene photos were taken.
But his evidence was massively flawed, unscientific and completely meaningless.
Standard stitching techniques like that employed by Sutherst using Photoshop or similar, distorts all original measurements, so that you end up with something that looks okay to a viewer, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
He needed to use photogrammetry software, and ideally Bamber should have employed someone with expertise in matching crime scene photos in this way.
Peter Sutherst was woefully unqualified to carry out the work. And the totally inaccurate results reflected that.
All of Bamber's scientific offerings end up going the same way as Peter Sutherst's. Under scientific scrutiny, It all proves to be woefully inadequate and unscientific.
We know that Jeremy Bamber lies about evidence, like creating fiction from individual pieces of paper, that are taken out of context.
And we know that The Guardian newspaper lies about, and distorts, the facts when they write about Jeremy Bamber.
As for the CPS, there is no evidence that the CPS have done anything wrong. You have to have evidence to make the accusation that you have, and you have none.
The CPS will have handed their findings regarding the silencer over to Bamber's legal team, and Bamber can then do what he wants with it, he can publish it so that we can all see it, or keep it a secret.
As far as I'm aware, he's chosen to keep it a secret. Which suggests that the CPS are correct, and implies that Bamber's legal team accept the findings of the CPS.
And now they've dumped it onto the poor old CCRC.
Resorting to the 'everyone is corrupt' mantra is great for preaching to the converted, but doesn't have any meaning because there is no evidence at all that it is true.
Please elaborate on why photogrammetry software, or even stitching would be needed? a scratch is a scratch just two photos of the same area one taken at the crime scene and one after would be sufficient.
Your post sounds very clever and technical but to create a 3d model needs many high quality images with a minimum of 50% overlap and each point appearing in at least two photos. Just not possible with the very poor quality and very few images in this case, and in my view totally unnecessary anyway.
-
The quote is made by Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS.
It was published in an article by the Guardian below.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence
The article is written by Eric Allison who is a Jeremy Bamber supporter, and that one quote completely obliterates the whole point of the article, which is to say that there is evidence that there were two silencers, when in fact there isn't.
I am guessing that Eric Allisons bosses told him to add that, in order to create some balance, but it completely wipes out his argument.
The article contains the usual lies and misinformation about the case that Eric Allison cuts and pastes into many of his pro Bamber articles.
Yes Eric Allison is a long term supporter.
Unlike Bob Woffindon he hasn't changed stance & unlike Trudie & Andrew Hunter he still comes out to play.
-
Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.
Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.
What is the issue?
Hopefully David will answer today.
-
This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
----------
Why would Julie want that?
Hopefully David will answer today.
Third request.
-
It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.
I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close
You need proof.
Not sure what any dispute between the Boutflours & Nevill has to do with the massacre.
-
I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.
He doesn't say what he uses. He does know the existence of photogrammetry, but he doesn't employ it. Or at least he doesn't employ it properly.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise he's just physically lining up images, and drawing a conclusion from that. But doing that would be hopeless, because there would be no accuracy.
But he must have known about the lack of accuracy in his work.
The CCRC's response to his report (or whoever it was who commissioned the analysis of his work) was that the measurements of the same objects but in the different photographs don't match. That meant that there was no value whatsoever in the 'evidence'.
The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing. As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations. Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.
Which makes me wonder what Bambers approach to Peter Sutherst was. Was he employed to create a propaganda piece that could be used for things like the Guardian newspaper video.
Because this evidence was never going to pass muster when scrutinised more scientifically.
And the overall point that I'm making is that whenever Jeremy Bamber provides 'proof', as he says he has with Peter Sutherst's report, the 'proof' always crumbles when studied more scientifically.
And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.
-
Please elaborate on why photogrammetry software, or even stitching would be needed? a scratch is a scratch just two photos of the same area one taken at the crime scene and one after would be sufficient.
Your post sounds very clever and technical but to create a 3d model needs many high quality images with a minimum of 50% overlap and each point appearing in at least two photos. Just not possible with the very poor quality and very few images in this case, and in my view totally unnecessary anyway.
I personally have no experience with photogrammetry.
But here is the CCRC's response to Peter Sutherst's report
Paragraph 2 from The CCRC response to Peter Sutherst's report.
In Broad terms, Mr Sutherst's work is flawed.
He has made attempts at photogrammetry that take no account of perspective and, in my view, are generally inappropriate and unsafe.
He has also made inappropriate comparisons of shape, size and colour.
Paragraph 46 from The CCRC response to Peter Sutherst's report.
The photogrammetry conducted by Mr Sutherst is at best of questionable accuracy; the composite image he has provided in Appendix G to his 2nd Supplement report is unsafe and has no interpretative value.
Full report can be read here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw88d1ygw8gc2wz/2011%20Report%20-%20CCRC-%20Undermining%20Peter%20Suthurst.pdf?dl=0
Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 provide the most comprehensive assessment of Sutherst's attempt at photogrammetry.
-
I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.
David's got a copy of everything.
They must have given it to him when he cycled to a meeting with Jeremy's legal team.
-
Jealousy will get you nowhere. As has been proven by most of your posts.
-
You need proof.
Not sure what any dispute between the Boutflours & Nevill has to do with the massacre.
Potentially it could have lot. It's not a wide conspiracy theory either.
You forget this a family. It's not a TV show
You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions
-
Potentially it could have lot. It's not a wide conspiracy theory either.
You forget this a family. It's not a TV show
You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions
I do not need that as there is the 75 pieces of forensic evidence. In the COA.
Nice try.
-
Only 75 ? It was 200 the other day. Get real and follow the case properly instead of plucking figures from the air.
I'm sure there's great relief that you're not attached to the law.
-
You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions
There is proof that Nevill didn't call Bamber. At least it reaches the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.
As long as it's proven scientifically that Sheila was murdered, then Bambers claim that Nevill called him must be false.
You can't get around that. Legally you can't get around that. It's fixed until somebody can disprove paragraph 518.
None of Bamber's lawyers have ever been able to disprove that evidence. The Judges at the 2002 CoA actually state that Jeremy Bamber's Defence team must have also found the evidence so compelling that they made no effort to disprove it.
And Jeremy Bamber's defence counsel in the 2002 CoA was Michael Turner QC, a superstar barrister, famous for representing murderers and other criminals. He even freely admits to getting murderers set free, who then go on to murder again.
If paragraph 518 was somehow disproved because of an incorrect interpretation of the evidence, then it still stands that Sheila was murdered, because collectively all the circumstantial evidence makes it so unlikely that she committed the crime. You end up quite quickly reaching a conclusion of Sheila was murdered 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
We also have 37 years of Bamber telling lies, manipulating the evidence, creating fiction. All of it very easy to disprove. An innocent person wouldn't behave like that.
All the smaller pieces of evidence that swirl around and tell a story all supports Sheila not killing her family. Nothing supports a Sheila suicide. Nothing. Not even her illness.
The nearest you get in evidential terms to Sheila committing suicide is the gun on the body, and the ballistics expert and pathologist both agree that the gun positioned on the body is 100 percent inconclusive.
the gun on the body could be suicide or it could be murder, therefore it's 50/50 either way, therefore its 100 percent inconclusive.
So, there you have it. Nevill didn't call Bamber.
Link here to 2002 CoA (paragraph 518)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
There is proof that Nevill didn't call Bamber. At least it reaches the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.
As long as it's proven scientifically that Sheila was murdered, then Bambers claim that Nevill called him must be false.
You can't get around that. Legally you can't get around that. It's fixed until somebody can disprove paragraph 518.
None of Bamber's lawyers have ever been able to disprove that evidence. The Judges at the 2002 CoA actually state that Jeremy Bamber's Defence team must have also found the evidence so compelling that they made no effort to disprove it.
And Jeremy Bamber's defence counsel in the 2002 CoA was Michael Turner QC, a superstar barrister, famous for representing murderers and other criminals. He even freely admits to getting murderers set free, who then go on to murder again.
If paragraph 518 was somehow disproved because of an incorrect interpretation of the evidence, then it still stands that Sheila was murdered, because collectively all the circumstantial evidence makes it so unlikely that she committed the crime. You end up quite quickly reaching a conclusion of Sheila was murdered 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
We also have 37 years of Bamber telling lies, manipulating the evidence, creating fiction. All of it very easy to disprove. An innocent person wouldn't behave like that.
All the smaller pieces of evidence that swirl around and tell a story all supports Sheila not killing her family. Nothing supports a Sheila suicide. Nothing. Not even her illness.
The nearest you get in evidential terms to Sheila committing suicide is the gun on the body, and the ballistics expert and pathologist both agree that the gun positioned on the body is 100 percent inconclusive.
the gun on the body could be suicide or it could be murder, therefore it's 50/50 either way, therefore its 100 percent inconclusive.
So, there you have it. Nevill didn't call Bamber.
Link here to 2002 CoA (paragraph 518)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
I am still waiting for you to produce a convincing rebuttal to the evidence I presented on this particular issue. At present your reply of "nice try no cigar" is far from convincing.
-
I do not need that as there is the 75 pieces of forensic evidence. In the COA.
Nice try.
You can't prove shit. Reference the phonecall
Nice try
-
I am still waiting for you to produce a convincing rebuttal to the evidence I presented on this particular issue. At present your reply of "nice try no cigar" is far from convincing.
You will have to repost. My original reply was in response to your own one sentence dismissals, that are worthless. Narrative answers are the only way to explain the evidence.
Pieces of paper taken out of context, mean nothing. You only get a true picture when you look at the evidence in its totality. And that only happens (for us) when the relevant evidence is publicly available.
Jeremy Bamber takes a sheet of paper with some writing on it, removes all context, and presents it to the public along with some fiction, a made up story.
But evidence has to be looked at alongside all the other evidence. In other words, in its totality. If that cannot be done, then on its own, a single piece of paper has no value.
-
I dont think anyone gives much credence to paragraph 518 ,not even Adam.
-
He doesn't say what he uses. He does know the existence of photogrammetry, but he doesn't employ it. Or at least he doesn't employ it properly.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise he's just physically lining up images, and drawing a conclusion from that. But doing that would be hopeless, because there would be no accuracy.
But he must have known about the lack of accuracy in his work.
The CCRC's response to his report (or whoever it was who commissioned the analysis of his work) was that the measurements of the same objects but in the different photographs don't match. That meant that there was no value whatsoever in the 'evidence'.
The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing. As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations. Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.
Which makes me wonder what Bambers approach to Peter Sutherst was. Was he employed to create a propaganda piece that could be used for things like the Guardian newspaper video.
Because this evidence was never going to pass muster when scrutinised more scientifically.
And the overall point that I'm making is that whenever Jeremy Bamber provides 'proof', as he says he has with Peter Sutherst's report, the 'proof' always crumbles when studied more scientifically.
And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.
Using photogrammetry with the few very poor quality photos Sutherst had would be next to impossible in my opinion anyway, no matter how expert the person was.
I have not read Sutherst's report but there are two main ways of stitching photos: one is where there is no foreground or nothing close to the camera, and the second where there is. Where there are close foreground objects in several images then it's vital the camera is rotated about the optical centre or perspective point, this will need the camera to be mounted on a panoramic head.
All Sutherst was trying to show was that there was overlap of the crime scene photos onto areas where scratches should have been, he was not trying to create a perfect 3d model for the Crown to pick over. Of course objects in different photos will appear to be different sizes as it depends what control points were used it's just physics.
The question we should really be asking is how the scratches occurred behind the clothing hanging in front of the Aga? would they not all have landed in a heap on the floor?
-
The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing. As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations. Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.
I don't know what he done as I have not read his report, but especially if flash was used in both photographs and the images were carefully colour balanced maybe not?
Again these questions could be answered if the images of Sheila's feet were available not just the clean one ;)
-
And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.
You mean like when they debunked the evidence of Ljubisa Dragovic, David Fowler, and Daniel Caruso...
by simply not debunking it.
I think you are getting 'debunked' and 'not contested' mixed up. Not contesting expert evidence does not equate to debunking expert evidence.
The way they got around this awkward evidence was
[1] Completely refuse to consider deliberate contamination (i.e. the elephant in the room)
[2] Use the statement of John Manlove as a mechanism to place the defence in an unwinnable position. They demanded more tests take place, within a certain time limit, within which the defence were unable fund further tests that were being asked for.
Hardly a model for discerning the truth of the matter.
Also, further up, you have claimed that the topic I was posting about (i.e. documentary evidence that there were two sound moderators) is akin to the Suthurst rebuttal. I don't think it necessarily is. It's probably a more complex topic on several levels. But with regard to Sutherst (who passed away in 2019). He was indeed a photographic expert who provided the defence with certain helpful information on a number of matters. However, he seemed to have got out of his depth on the scratch marks issue. Fair enough, you have to hold your hands up. The expert provided by the CCRC was able to contest and was effective in doing so.
-
I dont think anyone gives much credence to paragraph 518 ,not even Adam.
I give a lot of credence to it. Equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.
-
I give a lot of credence to it. Equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.
You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!
-
You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!
There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.
-
There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.
Yes,I think it even includes the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet,Dosen't it?
-
There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?
Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.
She was evidently talking about two separate occasions. As for the wills, it would depend on whether Daniel and Nicholas were mentioned therein. https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/commorientes-rule/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20commorientes,the%20title%20to%20any%20real
-
She was evidently talking about two separate occasions. As for the wills, it would depend on whether Daniel and Nicholas were mentioned therein. https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/commorientes-rule/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20commorientes,the%20title%20to%20any%20real
I have asked David several times -
What the issue of Julie being told MM committed the massacre & not knowing whether he had been to WHF.
Why Julie would want CC to not inherit.
----------
David has refused to answer.
-
You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!
Don't become ignorant & try to pretend the COA evidence does not exist.
Take a similar stance to QC, David or Lookout -
99.5% guilty.
Guilty but Bamber sent me a Christmas card.
Guilty but I changed stance to goad two women.
-
Don't become ignorant & try to pretend the COA evidence does not exist.
Take a similar stance to QC, David or Lookout -
99.5% guilty.
Guilty but Bamber sent me a Christmas card.
Guilty but I changed stance to goad two women.
Well you left yourself wide open Adam :)).Anyway Lookout is 99.5% innocent regardless of christmas cards,as for Dave,I am not sure if he is reasonable doubt or innocent.Which two women do you keep referring to ? Anyway if you still REALLY think that paragraph 518 means anything,I am afraid I will have to go over it again.
-
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”
The forensic scientists listed below carried out experiments regarding blood grouping, DNA and ballistics. The results of these tests were presented at trial and at the 2002 Appeal as having come from one sound moderator. Different examinations yielded different measurements for the sound moderator examined at different times by different scientists:
1. Parker Hale 175 mm
2. Brian Elliott’s examination 176 mm
3. Malcolm Fletcher 175.2 mm
4. Malcolm Fletcher O.L 165.1mm [ Overall Length]
M.T 165.1mm [ Muzzle to trigger]
B 165 mm [Barrel]
5. Glynis Howard 166.1 mm
6. Malcolm Fletcher 177.8 mm
7. Martyn Ismail 177 mm
8. DI Cook 180 mm
9. Malcolm Fletcher 165.1 mm
There are 5 measurements of the length of the silencer at 165/166 mm or 6 ½ inches and there are 6 measurements of the length of the silencer of 175/180 mm or 7 inches.
Courtesy of BR's article: https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/is-the-ccrc-implicated-in-36-years-of-deception-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber
There is a difference of 14.9 mm from Malcolm Fletcher's overall length measurement, to Ron Cook's measurement. How can the same sound moderator have an overall length that is virtually 1.5 cm less than Ron Cook's measurement? Have you seen 1.5 cm on a ruler?
What was Ron Cook using to measure the sound moderator.. the span of his own fingers?
-
What was Ron Cook using to measure the sound moderator.. the span of his own fingers? [/b]
Some of the dimensions are to the nearest .1 of a mm so I assume a vernier was used to take some of the measurements? I don't think the guilters can say this was just yet another mistake!
Your post is pretty damming for the prosecution and hard to easily explain away.
-
Let us take another quick look at Ismails evidence in paragraph 518.The leg pulling of Sheila.OK,Ismail states that after the first shot Sheila had slipped down and the back of her head was against the cabinet,and that she remained in that same position after the second shot,that is until someone pulled her by the legs away from the cabinet and her head fell down flat on the floor.
Ismail said she had to be pulled because her head didn't have the weight to push her body along the floor.But if you study the photos of Sheila you will see that her body has not BEEN pulled away from the cabinet.The photos show the exact position that Sheila slipped down into after the first shot,and there it remained.
The only part of her body that moved after the second shot was her head which simply fell off the edge of the cabinet and hit the floor.There was no need for any weight to move her body,because her body WAS NOT moved.
For heavens sake,if it is true what Ismail said ,and Sheilas body was pulled away from the cabinet to lower her head ,her whole body including her head and shoulders would be well clear of the cabinet,yet this is not so.If you straightened up Sheilas head it would simply be back resting against the cabinet.
Sheila has not been pulled away from the cabinet by the legs or anything else,that is impossible as the photos show.Sheila must have been sitting at an angle to the cabinet,leaning to the right,prpbably with only her left shoulder against the middle of the cabinet.After the first shot she simply slipped down to the position we see her in,BUT with her head against the outer edge of the cabinet,which INSTANTLY fell to the side after the second shot and hit the floor.
The photos clearly show what must have happened,it is simple and irrefutable.NO ONE PULLED SHEILA AWAY FROM THE CABINET.And as for the rifle being stage managed,I dont see this at all.Sheila would have held onto the rifle after she slipped down following the first shot,then because she was flat on her back after the second shot the rifle would simply stay in position across her body.Nothing suspicious there.
So,thats that,paragraph 518 is nonsensical.just some rubbish to try and upset and put to an end JBs appeal attempt,nothing more.Now move along people,nothing to see here.........
-
Some of the dimensions are to the nearest .1 of a mm so I assume a vernier was used to take some of the measurements? I don't think the guilters can say this was just yet another mistake!
Your post is pretty damming for the prosecution and hard to easily explain away.
Yes Rob, but apparently the authorities have said..
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”.
So, what should we make of that?
-
There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.
You can't 'gish gallop' on a forum, you can only really do it in conversation.
On a forum there is plenty of time to go through all the points someone makes, pick out the ones you want, and then answer them with a full narrative answer, in your own time.
'Gish galloping' is a technique to stop that from happening, but only works in a verbal discussion.
If anything, Adam is giving you all the ammunition you need to shoot his arguments down in your own rime, and yet you don't. Instead you just accuse him of things like 'gish galloping', and chuck in a few insults.
The only thing that matters is facts, information, and explanation.
Responding with one sentence answers declaring someone wrong, or firing off an insult, isn't going to convince the casual passer by, who genuinely wants to know about the case. And that will water down your point of view in the eyes of that person.
-
You can't 'gish gallop' on a forum, you can only really do it in conversation.
On a forum there is plenty of time to go through all the points someone makes, pick out the ones you want, and then answer them with a full narrative answer, in your own time.
'Gish galloping' is a technique to stop that from happening, but only works in a verbal discussion.
If anything, Adam is giving you all the ammunition you need to shoot his arguments down in your own rime, and yet you don't. Instead you just accuse him of things like 'gish galloping', and chuck in a few insults.
The only thing that matters is facts, information, and explanation.
Responding with one sentence answers declaring someone wrong, or firing off an insult, isn't going to convince the casual passer by, who genuinely wants to know about the case. And that will water down your point of view in the eyes of that person.
David is a guilter. He attempted a secret stance change so he could goad two female posters. Eventually giving two reasons for changing stance when outed.
He will be openly changing stance again this week. When I look at his second reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter. His first reason has already been dismissed.
-
It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.
I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close
Well done for highlighting something I believe to have been glaringly obvious. I've been pushing those thoughts for a long time. Those murders weren't just about one family member killing others on the spur of the moment. 'Stuff' -jealousies, rivalries- had been smouldering for years, exacerbated, I suspect, by the realization that Nevill's 'heir apparent' didn't have the same love of working the land as did the rest of the family.
-
Yes Rob, but apparently the authorities have said..
“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”.
So, what should we make of that?
Well Roch I wonder if there is a silencer in production or once was in production that matches the dimensions of the second silencer? If there is then it's game over for the prosecution.
-
You can't 'gish gallop' on a forum, you can only really do it in conversation.
On a forum there is plenty of time to go through all the points someone makes, pick out the ones you want, and then answer them with a full narrative answer, in your own time.
'Gish galloping' is a technique to stop that from happening, but only works in a verbal discussion.
If anything, Adam is giving you all the ammunition you need to shoot his arguments down in your own rime, and yet you don't. Instead you just accuse him of things like 'gish galloping', and chuck in a few insults.
The only thing that matters is facts, information, and explanation.
Responding with one sentence answers declaring someone wrong, or firing off an insult, isn't going to convince the casual passer by, who genuinely wants to know about the case. And that will water down your point of view in the eyes of that person.
Adam does 'gish gallop' I am afraid for example he must have posted a million times it 'was a silent massacre' despite MF saying the silencer made hardly any difference.
-
" A silent massacre"---yes,I can just imagine everyone talking in whispers " don't shoot me ". ::) The dogs weren't Basenji's either, which don't bark. What an idiot !
-
Adam does 'gish gallop' I am afraid for example he must have posted a million times it 'was a silent massacre' despite MF saying the silencer made hardly any difference.
It was a silent massacre attempt. The silencer ensured all shots were silent.
Obviously there would have been some noise downstairs during the unexpected kitchen struggle.
-
It certainly wasn't silent in Rob's Sheila scenario. More noise that Piccadilly Circus.
But June, Daniel & Nicholas remained in bed sleeping.
-
" A silent massacre"---yes,I can just imagine everyone talking in whispers " don't shoot me ". ::) The dogs weren't Basenji's either, which don't bark. What an idiot !
Daniel, Nicholas & June were shot 13 times in bed while they slept.
So didn't say 'don't shoot me'.
Don't rush with your Sheila scenario. It's only been 36 years.
-
It certainly wasn't silent in Rob's Sheila scenario. More noise that Piccadilly Circus.
But June, Daniel & Nicholas remained in bed sleeping.
Perhaps if you read JM's WS you might see where she says the dogs made a lot of noise whenever anyone approached the house. Are you saying she must be lying because they were not guard dogs ;) and you have posted many times only guard dogs bark ::)
-
Perhaps if you read JM's WS you might see where she says the dogs made a lot of noise whenever anyone approached the house. Are you saying she must be lying because they were not guard dogs ;) and you have posted many times only guard dogs bark ::)
I don't recall reading it in her WS. Or that Julie ever tried sneeking into WHF at 2am.
-
I don't recall reading it in her WS. Or that Julie ever tried sneeking into WHF at 2am.
To me the dogs are a major problem to JB although I understand you cannot admit that Adam.
Perhaps after you have read the Dickinson report you can read JM's WS and start catching up ;)
-
To me the dogs are a major problem to JB although I understand you cannot admit that Adam.
Perhaps after you have read the Dickinson report you can read JM's WS and start catching up ;)
Why would Julie mention the dogs in her WS?
What page does she do this?
-
Why would Julie mention the dogs in her WS?
What page does she do this?
I cannot remember exactly where Adam, to be honest I don't take much notice of what she says, but if you are really stuck I will dig it out. Is it really surprising that dogs would kick up a racket when someone approaches the house it's quite common you know.
-
I cannot remember exactly where Adam, to be honest I don't take much notice of what she says, but if you are really stuck I will dig it out. Is it really surprising that dogs would kick up a racket when someone approaches the house it's quite common you know.
Look forward to reading it.
-
Look forward to reading it.
Why don't you go for a walk in pitch darkness in the country, see how well you can see and how many dogs you set off, you will get a surprise!
-
Why would Julie mention the dogs in her WS?
What page does she do this?
The dogs..18th November 1985: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4952.0.html
-
The dogs..18th November 1985: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4952.0.html
Thank you.
That is interesting -
'The dog would yap until it recognised you or you called it's name'.
So likely no or minimal yapping. Impossible for anyone to hear upstairs, asleep behind closed doors.
-
Where was the other dog in relation to the bathroom window?
-
The dogs..18th November 1985: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4952.0.html
Thanks Steve you saved me a job, Adam was about to call me a liar!
-
Thank you.
That is interesting -
'The dog would yap until it recognised you or you called it's name'.
So likely no or minimal yapping. Impossible for anyone to hear upstairs, asleep behind closed doors.
So likely a lot of noise you mean, burglars hate dogs because of the noise they make, and for someone about to commit a massacre any noise is a major problem.
-
So likely a lot of noise you mean, burglars hate dogs because of the noise they make, and for someone about to commit a massacre any noise is a major problem.
Had dogs most of my life.
A dog will bark at any interruption in his home . Or personal space. My Labrador runs down my driveway barking at me when I reverse my van up my drive every night
The dog can be the owner or a stranger
-
Had dogs most of my life.
A dog will bark at any interruption in his home . Or personal space. My Labrador runs down my driveway barking at me when I reverse my van up my drive every night
The dog can be the owner or a stranger
When I go on country walks I set them off from miles away sometimes, to me the dogs would have been a major problem for JB.
-
Thanks Steve you saved me a job, Adam was about to call me a liar!
I was. But will just call you lazy.
-
So likely a lot of noise you mean, burglars hate dogs because of the noise they make, and for someone about to commit a massacre any noise is a major problem.
Not enough of a possible problem to deter Bamber.
-
I was. But will just call you lazy.
Hark at the pot calling !! Better than being work-shy !!
-
Hark at the pot calling !! Better than being work-shy !!
I work full time thanks.
-
Scunner Campbell.
-
I was. But will just call you lazy.
I do my own research thanks, don't want to do yours as well, you only pick out the bits that suit your limited point of view anyway such as only guard dogs bark ;D
-
I do my own research thanks, don't want to do yours as well, you only pick out the bits that suit your limited point of view anyway such as only guard dogs bark ;D
Well I said Crispy was not a guard dog.
As it happened Crispy would bark until reorgnising you or hearing his name.
So doubtful any barking was long term or would travel upstairs through doors & wake people. If Crispy actually woke.
-
Well I said Crispy was not a guard dog.
As it happened Crispy would bark until reorgnising you or hearing his name.
So doubtful any barking was long term or would travel upstairs through doors & wake people. If Crispy actually woke.
WHF must be a strange house in that Bews and co could hear Crispy wining and barking from outside the house but people inside the house could not hear him?
-
WHF must be a strange house in that Bews and co could hear Crispy wining and barking from outside the house but people inside the house could not hear him?
Thought it was the phone operative who could only hear Crispy. Once the phone line had been cleared.
Anyway Crispy wasn't considered a deterrant by Bamber. He never mentioned Crispy in his massacre plans to Julie.
-
Thought it was the phone operative who could only hear Crispy. Once the phone line had been cleared.
Anyway Crispy wasn't considered a deterrant by Bamber. He never mentioned Crispy in his massacre plans to Julie.
You are getting very forgetful Adam you have been told several times in other posts that Bews and co could hear Crispy whining / barking as they approached.
He never mentioned Crispy in his massacre plans to Julie? strange I am sure he would have been concerned about the dogs. But everything in her WS could have been obtained elsewhere anyway.
-
You are getting very forgetful Adam you have been told several times in other posts that Bews and co could hear Crispy whining / barking as they approached.
He never mentioned Crispy in his massacre plans to Julie? strange I am sure he would have been concerned about the dogs. But everything in her WS could have been obtained elsewhere anyway.
Not at all. There was no mention of the hitman, nor a glove coming off in the fight with Nevill. There were no biographical details of their relationship, which gives the motive and the justification for the crimes.
-
You are getting very forgetful Adam you have been told several times in other posts that Bews and co could hear Crispy whining / barking as they approached.
He never mentioned Crispy in his massacre plans to Julie? strange I am sure he would have been concerned about the dogs. But everything in her WS could have been obtained elsewhere anyway.
Please direct me. Thank you.
Obviously Julie wouldn't create a false 32 page WS. In such a serious crime. Because she had split up with Bamber. Hence Bamber's own lawyers saying 'ring of truth'.
-
Please direct me. Thank you.
Obviously Julie wouldn't create a false 32 page WS. In such a serious crime. Because she had split up with Bamber. Hence Bamber's own lawyers saying 'ring of truth'.
Sorry you have lost me? Direct you? If it's in relation to Bews hearing Crispy as they approached you know this.
-
Please direct me. Thank you.
Obviously Julie wouldn't create a false 32 page WS. In such a serious crime. Because she had split up with Bamber. Hence Bamber's own lawyers saying 'ring of truth'.
Obviously I don't believe anyone who does not immediately go to the police on hearing of the killings including two children.
-
Obviously I don't believe anyone who does not immediately go to the police on hearing of the killings including two children.
You think Julie should have abandoned Bamber & started talking within minutes?
-
You think Julie should have abandoned Bamber & started talking within minutes?
Of course
-
Obviously I don't believe anyone who does not immediately go to the police on hearing of the killings including two children.
Obviously she should have done, though too late to save five lives, and obviously the fact that this course was not taken is the threnody of the human condition.
-
Of course
Wow.
Abandon her boyfriend & accuse him of murdering his family. While the police & family were there.
Now that is decisive.
-
Wow.
Abandon her boyfriend & accuse him of murdering his family. While the police & family were there.
Now that is decisive.
She could and should have saved everyone that night, no if's no but's.
-
Obviously she should have done, though too late to save five lives, and obviously the fact that this course was not taken is the threnody of the human condition.
I do understand this, but at what point does she know for sure JB is going to kill everyone? It has to be the 3.15 call at the very latest. I think she was very lucky she was not also charged.
-
She could and should have saved everyone that night, no if's no but's.
Wow.
Appreciate supporters will automatically say Julie should have done the opposite to anything she did or didn't do. Although none have been in her position.
-
Wow.
Appreciate supporters will automatically say Julie should have done the opposite to anything she did or didn't do. Although none have been in her position.
I can only say Adam she did not know initially it was JB and her WS was very juiced up.
-
I can only say Adam she did not know initially it was JB and her WS was very juiced up.
You can say that again, 32 pages of it.
Why did she introduce MM if she was trying to get him convicted?
-
You can say that again, 32 pages of it.
Why did she introduce MM if she was trying to get him convicted?
I take little notice of what she says Adam, she needed 32 interviews with the police before trial, were they coaching her what to say and not say at trial?
-
I take little notice of what she says Adam, she needed 32 interviews with the police before trial, were they coaching her what to say and not say at trial?
Of course she was being coached. She was the prosecution main witness.
Why did Julie introduce MM if she wanted Bamber convicted?
-
Of course she was being coached. She was the prosecution main witness.
Why did Julie introduce MM if she wanted Bamber convicted?
Did not think you would admit it Adam, I guess there is no other conclusion?
She introduced MM as she did not believe JB was capable of the crime.
-
Did not think you would admit it Adam, I guess there is no other conclusion?
She introduced MM as she did not believe JB was capable of the crime.
It's all making sense.
-
It's all making sense.
It also helps her case to some degree, but I have read nothing that suggests JB was capable of carrying out the crime? He was a expert shooter but no skill was needed at close quarters with most victims initially asleep. The crime was a act of blind rage in my view, it was Sheila.
-
It also helps her case to some degree, but I have read nothing that suggests JB was capable of carrying out the crime? He was a expert shooter but no skill was needed at close quarters with most victims initially asleep. The crime was a act of blind rage in my view, it was Sheila.
Why was Sheila in a 'blind rage' at 3am?
-
You can say that again, 32 pages of it.
Why did she introduce MM if she was trying to get him convicted?
It was the same thing Adam,you know if you hire a hitman ,that is conspiracy to commit murder.Both the hitman and the person who hires them get the same sentence,Julie must have known this.
-
It was the same thing Adam,you know if you hire a hitman ,that is conspiracy to commit murder.Both the hitman and the person who hires them get the same sentence,Julie must have known this.
But MM may have an alibi.
In fact, he did.
-
Why was Sheila in a 'blind rage' at 3am?
No but she was getting worse, enough for Nevil to call JB for help. PS episodes can last quite a while.
-
No but she was getting worse, enough for Nevil to call JB for help. PS episodes can last quite a while.
Oh. So Nevill called Jeremy & said 'please come over'.
A pity he didn't.
-
Wow.
Appreciate supporters will automatically say Julie should have done the opposite to anything she did or didn't do. Although none have been in her position.
You see Adam,people speak about making up excuses for many of JBs actions,this is where the guilters have to make up excuses for Julies bizzare behaviour .
-
This is a case where a person with PS killed three people:
Alexander Lewis-Ranwell killed three pensioners while on bail for a saw attack
Lewis-Ranwell bludgeoned one to death with hammer and others with spade
Court heard that he believed he was tackling a paedophile ring when he struck
He admitted the killings but pleaded not guilty to murder on basis of insanity
-
But MM may have an alibi.
In fact, he did.
Yes,so it was still JB who was going to take the rap,her evidence is very strange and contrived.
-
You see Adam,people speak about making up excuses for many of JBs actions,this is where the guilters have to make up excuses for Julies bizzare behaviour .
Julie is not on trial.
All in her 32 page WS.
-
Yes,so it was still JB who was going to take the rap,her evidence is very strange and contrived.
It's lucky MM did have an alibi. Otherwise Julie could have convicted two innocent people.
-
Julie is not on trial.
All in her 32 page WS.
Not sure why not? When the 3.15 call came in she must have known what was going to happen or had happened, her actions don't match her WS.
-
Julie is not on trial.
All in her 32 page WS.
My god Adam,her statements are all over the place.She states that she told Bamber to STOP talking about killing his family which made her break down and cry at one point.Yet we are supposed to believe that JB was so sure that Julie would accept what he had done and keep quiet,that he stopped her going to work and join him at his cottage with the cops present.
Another thing,she states that through time she realized that JB had carried out the murders himself,and that he addmitted to her that he needed help,yet she STILL told police about Matthew.There are many things that dont make sense in her statements Adam,except for her first one that is.
-
My god Adam,her statements are all over the place.She states that she told Bamber to STOP talking about killing his family which made her break down and cry at one point.Yet we are supposed to believe that JB was so sure that Julie would accept what he had done and keep quiet,that he stopped her going to work and join him at his cottage with the cops present.
Another thing,she states that through time she realized that JB had carried out the murders himself,and that he addmitted to her that he needed help,yet she STILL told police about Matthew.There are many things that dont make sense in her statements Adam,except for her first one that is.
Her statements are perfectly in order. You know this.
Even Bamber's defence lawyers said it had a 'ring of truth'.
But appreciate supporters have to refuse to accept this.
-
Bamber's defence did look for something that would bring Julie's evidence 'crashing down'.
They didn't find it.
-
My god Adam,her statements are all over the place.She states that she told Bamber to STOP talking about killing his family which made her break down and cry at one point.Yet we are supposed to believe that JB was so sure that Julie would accept what he had done and keep quiet,that he stopped her going to work and join him at his cottage with the cops present.
Another thing,she states that through time she realized that JB had carried out the murders himself,and that he addmitted to her that he needed help,yet she STILL told police about Matthew.There are many things that dont make sense in her statements Adam,except for her first one that is.
I would rather have Julie where I can see her. Rather than hundreds of miles away.
-
My god Adam,her statements are all over the place.She states that she told Bamber to STOP talking about killing his family which made her break down and cry at one point.Yet we are supposed to believe that JB was so sure that Julie would accept what he had done and keep quiet,that he stopped her going to work and join him at his cottage with the cops present.
Another thing,she states that through time she realized that JB had carried out the murders himself,and that he addmitted to her that he needed help,yet she STILL told police about Matthew.There are many things that dont make sense in her statements Adam,except for her first one that is.
That is because that is what Bamber told her.
-
My god Adam,her statements are all over the place.She states that she told Bamber to STOP talking about killing his family which made her break down and cry at one point.Yet we are supposed to believe that JB was so sure that Julie would accept what he had done and keep quiet,that he stopped her going to work and join him at his cottage with the cops present.
Another thing,she states that through time she realized that JB had carried out the murders himself,and that he addmitted to her that he needed help,yet she STILL told police about Matthew.There are many things that dont make sense in her statements Adam,except for her first one that is.
What were Jeremy's experiences with women really? Any female role models spring to mind? Sex objects almost certainly. One night stands. An aloof, religious woman he couldn't relate to. A mentally-ill sister he couldn't understand. A barmaid who was married with three children. Then finally an intelligent woman who doted on him and whom he used as a doormat.
Shown in that light things do begin to make a little more sense.
-
What were Jeremy's experiences with women really? Any female role models spring to mind? Sex objects almost certainly. One night stands. An aloof, religious woman he couldn't relate to. A mentally-ill sister he couldn't understand. A barmaid who was married with three children. Then finally an intelligent woman who doted on him and whom he used as a doormat.
Shown in that light things do begin to make a little more sense.
Hi Steve,are you saying because JB was/is a psychopath with no feelings,that he did not know how others,ie Julie,could or would act? Or how does things make sense?
-
I would rather have Julie where I can see her. Rather than hundreds of miles away.
Why? Wasn't he sure if he could trust her to keep quiet?
-
Why was Sheila in a 'blind rage' at 3am?
I think its called a psychotic episode Adam,it happens now and again with schizophreniacs,
-
Hi Steve,are you saying because JB was/is a psychopath with no feelings,that he did not know how others,ie Julie,could or would act? Or how does things make sense?
I think that's coming close snow66!. Remember the first secret he divulged at Gresham's concerning his parenthood he was labelled "The Bastard", at a time when the school was an all-male environment. So he never really trusted male company thereafter.
-
I think its called a psychotic episode Adam,it happens now and again with schizophreniacs,
Yes but what had transpired in previous psychotic episodes? She banged her fists against the wall in frustration.
-
In a sense his schooling was no worse than many others.
I would love to have met John fielding. By all accounts he was close to Bamber at greshams
-
In a sense his schooling was no worse than many others.
I would love to have met John fielding. By all accounts he was close to Bamber at greshams
I doubt he would have anything useful to add after all this time. Didn't Bamber say it was easier to settle into Long Lartin than Gresham's? Strange how different individuals experience prison differently.
-
I doubt he would have anything useful to add after all this time. Didn't Bamber say it was easier to settle into Long Lartin than Gresham's? Strange how different individuals experience prison differently.
What I have noticed about Bamber that many of the company he kept close friends wise were people older than himself.
Brett Collins, Malcolm deckers, waters, sue ford.
I am not privy to Jeremy's friend group in 1985 but he doesn't seem to have any particular friends close to own age group
Reference prison. By the time I'd met him he had been in for eight years. So would have been an old hand in many respects. I think from what I have heard from people who I know who have served time with him before long lartin is that he took to prison like a duck out of water.
Take guilt or innocence out of the equation Jeremy Bamber is a strong character. No one can disagree with that.
-
I would rather have Julie where I can see her. Rather than hundreds of miles away.
To be honest if I had planned something of this magnitude I wouldn't have told nobody.
If gulity, this was his biggest downfall
-
I think that's coming close snow66!. Remember the first secret he divulged at Gresham's concerning his parenthood he was labelled "The Bastard", at a time when the school was an all-male environment. So he never really trusted male company thereafter.
Well,I am not sure about all that Steve,does teasing at school turn you into a homicidal maniac in the future? Haven't we all been teased and bullied a bit by the older boys at school? Most of us forgive and forget.As fot not trusting male company after the parenthood jibe,wasn't he accused of having many male friends,shall we say,What about Brett?
-
If psychiatrists/psychologists/ prison officers etc etc haven't admitted that JB is a psychopath then they're not fit to be in any employment !
-
In all the time in long lartin I never saw Jeremy Bamber lose his temper once.
I know a man with a temper. He doesn't have one. He isn't quick to anger.
I lost mine very often. It's a highly stressful environment
-
What I have noticed about Bamber that many of the company he kept close friends wise were people older than himself.
Brett Collins, Malcolm deckers, waters, sue ford.
I am not privy to Jeremy's friend group in 1985 but he doesn't seem to have any particular friends close to own age group
Reference prison. By the time I'd met him he had been in for eight years. So would have been an old hand in many respects. I think from what I have heard from people who I know who have served time with him before long lartin is that he took to prison like a duck out of water.
Take guilt or innocence out of the equation Jeremy Bamber is a strong character. No one can disagree with that.
That's an intersting observation about having older friends. Maybe he was more shaken up with the Julie rejection than he cared to admit. Re: incarceration. If you've been farming 200 acres of White House Farm you're unlikely to take to watering plants in the prison parterre.
-
In all the time in long lartin I never saw Jeremy Bamber lose his temper once.
I know a man with a temper. He doesn't have one. He isn't quick to anger.
I lost mine very often. It's a highly stressful environment
He had to psyche himself up by strangling rats. But it's unforgivable to shoot two six-year-old boys through the head whilst they are sleeping, not to mention their mother and grandparents. I'm really at a loss to know how to deal with such people, and whether rehabilitation can or should be attempted.
-
He had to psyche himself up by strangling rats. But it's unforgivable to shoot two six-year-old boys through the head whilst they are sleeping, not to mention their mother and grandparents. I'm really at a loss to know how to deal with such people, and whether rehabilitation can or should be attempted.
Steve, you would disbelieve me if I told you he always seemed happy. He was always smiling
If I was in his position I would have been driven to the brink of despair. And I'm not a wilting violet
It was not long after I met him he got informed he'd been upgraded to whole life as well
-
He had to psyche himself up by strangling rats. But it's unforgivable to shoot two six-year-old boys through the head whilst they are sleeping, not to mention their mother and grandparents. I'm really at a loss to know how to deal with such people, and whether rehabilitation can or should be attempted.
Thanks Steve this always makes me laugh.
-
Steve, you would disbelieve me if I told you he always seemed happy. He was always smiling
If I was in his position I would have been driven to the brink of despair. And I'm not a wilting violet
It was not long after I met him he got informed he'd been upgraded to whole life as well
This is because the stress is off him now, the stress of having to perform, to fulfil somebody else's ambitions. I was lucky in that I was able to live up to mine and didn't put so much pressure on myself at the time. I've just watched a YouTube video on the Kimberley Cates murder, instigated by teenage New Hampshire dropouts, who couldn't live up to parental expectations. Steven Spader was the ringleader and an adoptee.
-
This is because the stress is off him now, the stress of having to perform, to fulfil somebody else's ambitions. I was lucky in that I was able to live up to mine and didn't put so much pressure on myself at the time. I've just watched a YouTube video on the Kimberley Cates murder, instigated by teenage New Hampshire dropouts, who couldn't live up to parental expectations. Steven Spader was the ringleader and an adoptee.
To escape from the prison of White House Farm it was necessary to kill the prison guards.
-
This is because the stress is off him now, the stress of having to perform, to fulfil somebody else's ambitions. I was lucky in that I was able to live up to mine and didn't put so much pressure on myself at the time. I've just watched a YouTube video on the Kimberley Cates murder, instigated by teenage New Hampshire dropouts, who couldn't live up to parental expectations. Steven Spader was the ringleader and an adoptee.
Stress Steve? what stress did JB have compared to the average person? being in prison would I thought have been far more stressful?
-
This is because the stress is off him now, the stress of having to perform, to fulfil somebody else's ambitions. I was lucky in that I was able to live up to mine and didn't put so much pressure on myself at the time. I've just watched a YouTube video on the Kimberley Cates murder, instigated by teenage New Hampshire dropouts, who couldn't live up to parental expectations. Steven Spader was the ringleader and an adoptee.
I know the case Steve horrific. Gribble is a monster
-
This is because the stress is off him now, the stress of having to perform, to fulfil somebody else's ambitions. I was lucky in that I was able to live up to mine and didn't put so much pressure on myself at the time. I've just watched a YouTube video on the Kimberley Cates murder, instigated by teenage New Hampshire dropouts, who couldn't live up to parental expectations. Steven Spader was the ringleader and an adoptee.
Steve
Jeremy Bamber is a category A prisoner
He has a whole life tariff. An effective death sentence.
He isn't stress free trust me
-
There have been some of the most heinous of crimes committed over the years and to date are getting worse, with sentencing being reduced.
Only the death penalty will end it all and it's just tuff if it's the wrong person. This is how immune the public have become when we read about such crimes, one crime follows another without any sort of a deterrent that we're programmed to expect each crime to be worse than the previous one.
There have been some horror stories of late involving children/babies and you have to ask yourself will the murderers be missed. The answer SHOULD be NO, if you're an honest person. Never mind about human rights etc , they should be scrapped along with mental issues as both are abused in some way and an easy get out.
Would this case have been discussed if JB had had a lethal injection ? NO. So why is it being discussed ?
I'm sure the extended family wouldn't have missed him, in fact they'd have been delighted.
-
Steve
Jeremy Bamber is a category A prisoner
He has a whole life tariff. An effective death sentence.
He isn't stress free trust me
I don't know anything about prison life ILB. However I do know about adults setting high expectations for me, which fortunately I was able to fulfil. I still say he lived under the weight of expectation for so many years, given away at birth so a detachment disorder straightaway, then failing to bond with June, then being sent away at eight years old to company he felt inferior to. I'm not excusing his heinous crimes for one moment, just trying to understand why he was bent on the course his life took.
-
There have been some of the most heinous of crimes committed over the years and to date are getting worse, with sentencing being reduced.
Only the death penalty will end it all and it's just tuff if it's the wrong person. This is how immune the public have become when we read about such crimes, one crime follows another without any sort of a deterrent that we're programmed to expect each crime to be worse than the previous one.
There have been some horror stories of late involving children/babies and you have to ask yourself will the murderers be missed. The answer SHOULD be NO, if you're an honest person. Never mind about human rights etc , they should be scrapped along with mental issues as both are abused in some way and an easy get out.
Would this case have been discussed if JB had had a lethal injection ? NO. So why is it being discussed ?
I'm sure the extended family wouldn't have missed him, in fact they'd have been delighted.
I'm beginning to agree with you on the death penalty lookout. It seems the sixties generation and thereafter took their rights without considering the responsibilities which accompanied them.
-
I don't know anything about prison life ILB. However I do know about adults setting high expectations for me, which fortunately I was able to fulfil. I still say he lived under the weight of expectation for so many years, given away at birth so a detachment disorder straightaway, then failing to bond with June, then being sent away at eight years old to company he felt inferior to. I'm not excusing his heinous crimes for one moment, just trying to understand why he was bent on the course his life took.
I agree with you on this point Steve.
None of us are privy to the exact going on between the core family unit
Nevill June Shelia Jeremy
I believe Shelia had an easier ride. Jeremy was expected to do well. To be honest I think nevill wanted to self teach him. I don't see anything other that an agricultural degree is what he wanted for Jeremy. Maybe a business course. That would be needed for his career ( farmer)
I think nevill perhaps thought in time Jeremy would be mature enough to take over. He let him find his feet though. I'm guessing nevill funded the Australia NZ trips,
I have never seen anybody say a bad word about Mr Bamber senior.
-
I'm beginning to agree with you on the death penalty lookout. It seems the sixties generation and thereafter took their rights without considering the responsibilities which accompanied them.
If JB was facing the death penalty which would need a unanimous verdict he would not have been convicted.
-
I agree with you on this point Steve.
None of us are privy to the exact going on between the core family unit
Nevill June Shelia Jeremy
I believe Shelia had an easier ride. Jeremy was expected to do well. To be honest I think nevill wanted to self teach him. I don't see anything other that an agricultural degree is what he wanted for Jeremy. Maybe a business course. That would be needed for his career ( farmer)
I think nevill perhaps thought in time Jeremy would be mature enough to take over. He let him find his feet though. I'm guessing nevill funded the Australia NZ trips,
I have never seen anybody say a bad word about Mr Bamber senior.
He did but they were loans. Nevill was renovating Granny Bamber's house in Surrey and took out a bank loan. Jeremy crashed his car and expected a replacement. June was writing out personal cheques to fund her son's nocturnal escapades in London's West End, over and above the salary he was drawing as a farmer.
-
If JB was facing the death penalty which would need a unanimous verdict he would not have been convicted.
That's a fair point Rob.
-
I'm beginning to agree with you on the death penalty lookout. It seems the sixties generation and thereafter took their rights without considering the responsibilities which accompanied them.
I know I'm right Steve. These murders can't continue. Get the police on the streets, never mind about whizzing around in cars. They're not doing their jobs at all.
I would volunteer to give the injections to murderers, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about sticking the needle in. They need a taste of their own medicine, not a slapped wrist and freedom after a few years------to murder again, because they will and they do ! Under 21's who offend, let them sweat in a death-row situation, knowing that they'll lose their lives too. The public are fed up with the crime that exists.
-
I don't know anything about prison life ILB. However I do know about adults setting high expectations for me, which fortunately I was able to fulfil. I still say he lived under the weight of expectation for so many years, given away at birth so a detachment disorder straightaway, then failing to bond with June, then being sent away at eight years old to company he felt inferior to. I'm not excusing his heinous crimes for one moment, just trying to understand why he was bent on the course his life took.
So,are you saying that you can turn into a psychopath because of negative life experiences Steve?Isnt it simply due to a chemical imbalance of the brain?
-
If JB was facing the death penalty which would need a unanimous verdict he would not have been convicted.
Yes, of course, it would have had to be a unanimous decision.
In that such case, a re-trial would have to be arranged.
-
So,are you saying that you can turn into a psychopath because of negative life experiences Steve?Isnt it simply due to a chemical imbalance of the brain?
I think there's a whole chain of events which starts in early life with a sense of inadequacy or detachment. It's why statistically adoptees commit far more murders than birth children. The pressure mounts during adolscence, which is why drug-taking is such a huge market in 2022. A tiny minority will resort to murder as release.
-
Environment and parenting----whether adopted or not, play a huge part in a child's life.
Stability, which is lacking today, along with respect is all about a child's environment and upbringing.
Society now has a lot to answer for with all the feral kids that are around as well as a dictatorial government telling you how to bring up your children. Honestly !
Since when has it been right that youths not only hit their parents, but the teachers too ? It goes on !
It was Sheila who got the dirty end of the stick, not Jeremy. Sheila resented June for many reasons.
-
He did but they were loans. Nevill was renovating Granny Bamber's house in Surrey and took out a bank loan. Jeremy crashed his car and expected a replacement. June was writing out personal cheques to fund her son's nocturnal escapades in London's West End, over and above the salary he was drawing as a farmer.
The point I'm making is. Were they loans in the parental sense that Jeremy " promised dad he would pay him back "
Nevill probably knew he would not see the money back if ever. Not detrimental to nevill he was wealthy
Parents have been doing this for children since Moses was in a basket
-
I doubt that any repayments came forthwith from either sibling, not forgetting that Colin hadn't offered to pay back whatever the driving lessons and car cost.
-
Jeremy passed his driving test young I think.
Going by CAL
-
But lookout I agree with you.
-
The point I'm making is. Were they loans in the parental sense that Jeremy " promised dad he would pay him back "
Nevill probably knew he would not see the money back if ever. Not detrimental to nevill he was wealthy
Parents have been doing this for children since Moses was in a basket
This is one area that remains unclear from the books written on the case, though CAL claims Nevill loaned his son money, and June sent return plane tickets. By anyone's standards Nevill and June had huge bank balances, yet Nevill is said to have been worrying about renovating Clifton House after Granny Bamber died. He complained to Barbara Wilson that his offspring were costing him money. He might well have decided to put his foot down with Jeremy, just at the time June was planning an annual allowance for Sheila. Of course this is no excuse for the events which followed.
-
This is one area that remains unclear from the books written on the case, though CAL claims Nevill loaned his son money, and June sent return plane tickets. By anyone's standards Nevill and June had huge bank balances, yet Nevill is said to have been worrying about renovating Clifton House after Granny Bamber died. He complained to Barbara Wilson that his offspring were costing him money. He might well have decided to put his foot down with Jeremy, just at the time June was planning an annual allowance for Sheila. Of course this is no excuse for the events which followed.
I believe that Shelia caused more trouble for them in their adolsence between the two. Wrong for me to say this as Shelia was unwell and you can't hold that against her
Bamber seems less troublesome. Troublesome to a degree ref sue ford, lack of ambition. Perhaps I want this car, I want that mum, I want this dad
In fairness, kids have been spoilt for years.
-
Yet Nevill bought a large piece of land to help the Eaton's out ? So I don't believe it was just Sheila and Jeremy who were draining him. Why was this land such a mystery that Nevill's nearest and dearest hadn't known about ?
-
There's more to these murders than meets the eye, not as straightforward as EP would have you believe.
-
There's more to these murders than meets the eye, not as straightforward as EP would have you believe.
Such as what lookout, what's your opinion on this matter. I am intrigued
-
Such as what lookout, what's your opinion on this matter. I am intrigued
There seemed to have been some jiggery-pokery prior to the murders with one or two troubling episodes. The brother of Peter Eaton bashing Nevill outside some pub that I'm sure when Nevill told Barbara Wilson about not turning his back on " those two " he'd meant the Eaton brothers, John and Peter.
Did the bashing come before Nevill purchased the land to help out Ann and Peter Eaton ? Where did the brother come in ? What was the row about ?
-
I think there's a whole chain of events which starts in early life with a sense of inadequacy or detachment. It's why statistically adoptees commit far more murders than birth children. The pressure mounts during adolscence, which is why drug-taking is such a huge market in 2022. A tiny minority will resort to murder as release.
Am I understanding you right here Steve,do you mean most drug takers and murderers are adoptees? I must be misunderstanding you.
-
Am I understanding you right here Steve,do you mean most drug takers and murderers are adoptees? I must be misunderstanding you.
No but they are statistically more likely to be: https://www.crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder
-
No but they are statistically more likely to be: https://www.crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder
Well,to be honest Steve that is quite eye opening and surprising.Seems you can be turned into a murderer because of adoption.But remember both Sheila and Jeremy were adopted,so it means they BOTH had more chance of killing their parents than non adopted children.And look at the case of Berkowitz,he started his killing spree soon after meeting his birth mother.So,Sheila meeting her birth mother may have done more harm than good,especially in her fragile mental state.What do you think Steve? Could that have been a trigger for Sheila?
-
Did Sheilas birth mother have any more children which she kept? In the Berkowitz case,his birth mother had kept and raised another child which caused an even greater sense of rejection and seems to have pushed him over the edge.Yes you may have found something very important here Steve.
-
Did Sheilas birth mother have any more children which she kept? In the Berkowitz case,his birth mother had kept and raised another child which caused an even greater sense of rejection and seems to have pushed him over the edge.Yes you may have found something very important here Steve.
I think this may be Sheila's half-sister or niece: https://youtu.be/7gxXacyYjaw
However I do think comparing Sheila Caffell with David Berkowitz is a bit of a stretch.
-
I think this may be Sheila's half-sister or niece: https://youtu.be/7gxXacyYjaw
However I do think comparing Sheila Caffell with David Berkowitz is a bit of a stretch.
Thanks Steve,thats very interesting.As far as Berkowitz is concerned,of course every case is different,but as you have pointed out,with adoptees there is a definite pattern.Makes you think Steve.With Sheilas mental illness and a shaky relationship with her mother,it is by no means impossible to believe she could have flipped and carried out the massacre,no surprise at all really.Is it?
-
If only a fully fit Nevill had taken the rifle off Sheila. Instead of ringing Jeremy's AM.
-
Adam goes on about the AM. His theory has been debunked.
Unable to get to terms with this he just denies it.
-
Adam goes on about the AM. His theory has been debunked.
Unable to get to terms with this he just denies it.
I thought you agree Nevill rang Bamber's AM.
-
I thought you agree Nevill rang Bamber's AM.
Not repeatedly
-
Not repeatedly
Oh yes. Two calls. Each of 3-7 rings would get Bamber awake, alert & downstairs.
-
Oh yes. Two calls. Each of 3-7 rings would get Bamber awake, alert & downstairs.
3 rings and then to answerphone?
My landline is about nine maybe more.
-
3 rings and then to answerphone?
My landline is about nine maybe more.
Mine is 3.
-
Mine is 3.
I think he could have answered.
You don't
We just have different opinions on this aspect
-
Thanks Steve,thats very interesting.As far as Berkowitz is concerned,of course every case is different,but as you have pointed out,with adoptees there is a definite pattern.Makes you think Steve.With Sheilas mental illness and a shaky relationship with her mother,it is by no means impossible to believe she could have flipped and carried out the massacre,no surprise at all really.Is it?
But there's no evidence that meeting her birth mother, Christine Jay, was detrimental. As for Berkowitz, I think he used his parentage and religion as exculpation for his crimes: he was more bad than mad. https://www.ranker.com/list/david-berkowitz-relationship-with-his-mother/april-a-taylor
-
I think he could have answered.
You don't
We just have different opinions on this aspect
You are saying '2 calls max'.
I am more flexible. Could be anything from 2 to 20.
Take a hell of a lot of 3-7 rings followed by silence to wake me upstairs.
-
You are saying '2 calls max'.
I am more flexible. Could be anything from 2 to 20.
Take a hell of a lot of 3-7 rings followed by silence to wake me upstairs.
It could have happened
Just face it
-
But there's no evidence that meeting her birth mother, Christine Jay, was detrimental. As for Berkowitz, I think he used his parentage and religion as exculpation for his crimes: he was more bad than mad. https://www.ranker.com/list/david-berkowitz-relationship-with-his-mother/april-a-taylor
Yes,you are right Steve,there is no evidence meeting her birth mother was detrimental,but we never really know what is going on inside someone elses head do we? As for Berkowits,I would agree that he was simply an evil seriel killer,probably using adoption as an excuse.But like most seriel killers he confessed to his crimes right away and said in court that he was glad and would do it again.
Although not a seriel killer as such,if Jeremy Bamber was responsible for killing his family,he must be just as evil as the likes of Berkowitz.Yet he has never wavered from his claim of innocence.This as you know is very unusual for psychotic killers,most are more than willing to explain what drove them to carry out their atrocities.They seem compelled to do so.
Rather than confess,JB has spent almost every waking hour since being locked up sifting through the available evidence,trying to prove his innocence.You must admit that this is very unusual for a guilty man Steve,How do you explain this?
-
Serial,sorry!
-
Yes,you are right Steve,there is no evidence meeting her birth mother was detrimental,but we never really know what is going on inside someone elses head do we? As for Berkowits,I would agree that he was simply an evil seriel killer,probably using adoption as an excuse.But like most seriel killers he confessed to his crimes right away and said in court that he was glad and would do it again.
Although not a seriel killer as such,if Jeremy Bamber was responsible for killing his family,he must be just as evil as the likes of Berkowitz.Yet he has never wavered from his claim of innocence.This as you know is very unusual for psychotic killers,most are more than willing to explain what drove them to carry out their atrocities.They seem compelled to do so.
Rather than confess,JB has spent almost every waking hour since being locked up sifting through the available evidence,trying to prove his innocence.You must admit that this is very unusual for a guilty man Steve,How do you explain this?
It was an opportunistic killing and in his mind worth the risk as the scapegoat was in situ. He was minded to petty criminality such as burglary but this even for him was a huge step up. Now he's incarcerated he's probably frightened of retaliation for being labelled a child killer.
-
It was an opportunistic killing and in his mind worth the risk as the scapegoat was in situ. He was minded to petty criminality such as burglary but this even for him was a huge step up. Now he's incarcerated he's probably frightened of retaliation for being labelled a child killer.
Simple as that Steve? I dont know,most psychotic nutters boast of their crimes,even if it means being held in solitary confinement for their own protection.Besides,it has never even been proven that he is in the least bit psychotic.You must believe he is a very good actor indeed Steve.
-
It was an opportunistic killing and in his mind worth the risk as the scapegoat was in situ. He was minded to petty criminality such as burglary but this even for him was a huge step up. Now he's incarcerated he's probably frightened of retaliation for being labelled a child killer.
He is a not a sex killer. He isn't a classic pedophile child killer
He is not an Ian Huntley Roy whiting type of individual
He is not as high profile in the prison system as you think
I can remember him telling me many years ago his toughest time in jail was after conviction. At HMP wormwood scrubs. After that his jail has been a constant innocence campaign. Many in long lartin though him innocent ( including staff)
Many people in their don't look at Daniel and Nicholas and think Bamber, they term Bamber as the guy who " offed his parents for the dough ( cash)
In fact Daniel and Nicholas seem to fade into the background in the whole scenario. It has always been Shelia or Jeremy the prominent characters. As do nevill and June. Once it got to court it only mattered about Jeremy and Shelia
-
Simple as that Steve? I dont know,most psychotic nutters boast of their crimes,even if it means being held in solitary confinement for their own protection.Besides,it has never even been proven that he is in the least bit psychotic.You must believe he is a very good actor indeed Steve.
Didn't he himself say he should have been an actor? Don't many murderers blab of their crimes anyway?
-
He is a not a sex killer. He isn't a classic pedophile child killer
He is not an Ian Huntley Roy whiting type of individual
He is not as high profile in the prison system as you think
I can remember him telling me many years ago his toughest time in jail was after conviction. At HMP wormwood scrubs. After that his jail has been a constant innocence campaign. Many in long lartin though him innocent ( including staff)
Many people in their don't look at Daniel and Nicholas and think Bamber, they term Bamber as the guy who " offed his parents for the dough ( cash)
In fact Daniel and Nicholas seem to fade into the background in the whole scenario. It has always been Shelia or Jeremy the prominent characters. As do nevill and June. Once it got to court it only mattered about Jeremy and Shelia
For me the case is primarily about Daniel and Nicholas and justice for Colin. That's not to say I don't think of Nevill and June, robbed of a comfortable retirement and life itself, not forgetting beautiful Sheila, who only wanted to be told she was pretty and be loved, unwittingly led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter by a diabolical conman, who professed to be her brother.
-
For me the case is primarily about Daniel and Nicholas and justice for Colin. That's not to say I don't think of Nevill and June, robbed of a comfortable retirement and life itself, not forgetting beautiful Sheila, who only wanted to be told she was pretty and be loved, unwittingly led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter by a diabolical conman, who professed to be her brother.
I was more talking along the lines of Jeremy's time inside as a convicted child killer.
Since going downstairs to the bowels of Chelmsford crown court in October 1986. He has adamantly been on a campaign of innocence.
Hence why his time inside has not been as bad
Jail has been Jeremy's life for the past 37 years. Everyday he talked about his case. It his is entire life. He has convinced many a prisoner and staff member of his innocence.
-
For me the case is primarily about Daniel and Nicholas and justice for Colin. That's not to say I don't think of Nevill and June, robbed of a comfortable retirement and life itself, not forgetting beautiful Sheila, who only wanted to be told she was pretty and be loved, unwittingly led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter by a diabolical conman, who professed to be her brother.
I absolutely understand where you are coming from Steve,obviously you are a very caring person appalled at what happened to the Bamber family,one hundred percent sure of JBs guilt.But just take a minute to think about what ILB has said above,that many,even other prisoners and prison officers believe in Bambers innocence.
I will say it again,I firmly believe now,that reasonable doubt is the only sensible view to take in the JB case.I dont know why you are so sure of his guilt with the available evidence.
-
Bamber is either a good actor or the unluckiest man in the world.
I get offended when Adam calls me a hardcore supporter because I don't support a conviction
It truly shows he has no idea
I have always looked at the case from a neutral prosepective.
I do lean to innocence though
This guy was a lamb to the slaughter from September 1985. Nobody will never convince me otherwise.
-
I was more talking along the lines of Jeremy's time inside as a convicted child killer.
Since going downstairs to the bowels of Chelmsford crown court in October 1986. He has adamantly been on a campaign of innocence.
Hence why his time inside has not been as bad
Jail has been Jeremy's life for the past 37 years. Everyday he talked about his case. It his is entire life. He has convinced many a prisoner and staff member of his innocence.
Yes,very interesting ILB.It seems very unlikely to me that a homicidal nutter would spent every day in prison searching for evidence to clear his name,if guilty,he must know that no such evidence exists.
-
I absolutely understand where you are coming from Steve,obviously you are a very caring person appalled at what happened to the Bamber family,one hundred percent sure of JBs guilt.But just take a minute to think about what ILB has said above,that many,even other prisoners and prison officers believe in Bambers innocence.
I will say it again,I firmly believe now,that reasonable doubt is the only sensible view to take in the JB case.I dont know why you are so sure of his guilt with the available evidence.
Prison officer is just another job, like teacher or caretaker or politician. It puts food on the table. It doesn't give you a special insight into an individual's condition or character. Bamber is a mountebank, a charlatan, who has deceived many people for a good number of years. Some like Trudy saw the light and got away from his sway. Julie was not so lucky.
-
Prison officer is just another job, like teacher or caretaker or politician. It puts food on the table. It doesn't give you a special insight into an individual's condition or character. Bamber is a mountebank, a charlatan, who has deceived many people for a good number of years. Some like Trudy saw the light and got away from his sway. Julie was not so lucky.
But who or what made YOU so sure of his guilt Steve,and why do you feel so strongly about it? You almost seems that you hate Bamber with a vengeance.
-
Yes,very interesting ILB.It seems very unlikely to me that a homicidal nutter would spent every day in prison searching for evidence to clear his name,if guilty,he must know that no such evidence exists.
Let's say there's a possibility that the silencer evidence is spurious, as several members here believe. That in itself doesn't make him innocent, but it is motivation enough to keep him looking through the official documents to find further inaccuracies.
I'm not saying I believe this, but it is one explanation.
-
But who or what made YOU so sure of his guilt Steve,and why do you feel so strongly about it? You almost seems that you hate Bamber with a vengeance.
I try not to hate because it's such a negative emotion it's destructive of self. I detest the actions of Bamber, which have caused misery for Colin especially and deprived five of life. It's really quite despicable. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=colin+caffell+photos&sxsrf=ALiCzsb_rTuzssR82e72jBQS1IExxtcMAA:1659304564805&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=lLzOLhc8rIjgJM%252C7NpdEz7nNpq4tM%252C_%253BjrcC1sNFxmSIQM%252CMJDuZs1kDXMf4M%252C_%253ByYW1mtidUc30TM%252CUCfPrvP1b0gCNM%252C_%253BTvlNW8asOYP9jM%252C7NpdEz7nNpq4tM%252C_%253BN-QO1eAJnlpGYM%252Cxnom0RZmUfqmNM%252C_%253B0mqvpBzwL-5P0M%252CpLRvADYXgkl-6M%252C_%253BCAjqbzRyd9mgzM%252Cpwc7gHHo0-8_gM%252C_%253BczPyOtXpydicOM%252CvesHYGlOTwGdxM%252C_%253BrwZeUB_mSF6n7M%252CjW56l79g3wWWnM%252C_%253BmkPCaxNPdHc-EM%252CxvE-RgifK0HaaM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRmTVh1aLwLqmVBri6cFPaSDq_Wmg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz8KKZj6T5AhUNiVwKHRPKCW4Q9QF6BAgCEAE#imgrc=lLzOLhc8rIjgJM
-
Bamber is either a good actor or the unluckiest man in the world.
I get offended when Adam calls me a hardcore supporter because I don't support a conviction
It truly shows he has no idea
I have always looked at the case from a neutral prosepective.
I do lean to innocence though
This guy was a lamb to the slaughter from September 1985. Nobody will never convince me otherwise.
Well,Adam seems to be another person with a slightly unhealthy dislike of Bamber for some reason ILB.Heaven knows why.
-
I try not to hate because it's such a negative emotion it's destructive of self. I detest the actions of Bamber, which have caused misery for Colin especially and deprived five of life. It's really quite despicable. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=colin+caffell+photos&sxsrf=ALiCzsb_rTuzssR82e72jBQS1IExxtcMAA:1659304564805&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=lLzOLhc8rIjgJM%252C7NpdEz7nNpq4tM%252C_%253BjrcC1sNFxmSIQM%252CMJDuZs1kDXMf4M%252C_%253ByYW1mtidUc30TM%252CUCfPrvP1b0gCNM%252C_%253BTvlNW8asOYP9jM%252C7NpdEz7nNpq4tM%252C_%253BN-QO1eAJnlpGYM%252Cxnom0RZmUfqmNM%252C_%253B0mqvpBzwL-5P0M%252CpLRvADYXgkl-6M%252C_%253BCAjqbzRyd9mgzM%252Cpwc7gHHo0-8_gM%252C_%253BczPyOtXpydicOM%252CvesHYGlOTwGdxM%252C_%253BrwZeUB_mSF6n7M%252CjW56l79g3wWWnM%252C_%253BmkPCaxNPdHc-EM%252CxvE-RgifK0HaaM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRmTVh1aLwLqmVBri6cFPaSDq_Wmg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz8KKZj6T5AhUNiVwKHRPKCW4Q9QF6BAgCEAE#imgrc=lLzOLhc8rIjgJM
But if you have no connection to the Bambers or Colin,you shouldn't take the case so personally Steve.It will do your health no good getting worked up over it.
-
But if you have no connection to the Bambers or Colin,you shouldn't take the case so personally Steve.It will do your health no good getting worked up over it.
I've learned strategies over the years to keep calm. They do work mostly.
-
I've learned strategies over the years to keep calm. They do work mostly.
Well,I wouldn't like to think I was causing you distress and raising your blood pressure Steve.As I have said before,I did not join this forum to offend people and make enemies,I think we can discuss the case in a friendly way without too much name calling.
-
Words of the day--exculpation and mountebank! ;D
-
But who or what made YOU so sure of his guilt Steve,and why do you feel so strongly about it? You almost seems that you hate Bamber with a vengeance.
It's nothing to do with hating anyone.
It's about looking at the evidence in a calm and neutral and logical way.
Most people who are new to this, like myself, come to this forum having been exposed to Jeremy Bamber's many press releases over the years. As well as the Campaign Team website.
The call logs, the now notorious wet blood images, the speaking to someone in the farm, the challenge to persons in the house, the multiple silencers, the moving of the bodies, the gun against the window....and so on and so on...all on the surface make Bamber look like he might be innocent.
But on closer inspection - and with neutral eyes - it becomes clear that something is wrong with the evidence Bamber presents...like the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes on the call logs, that supporters never explained. That's one of the things I noticed early on. Those boxes prove that Bamber's version of events is wrong.
It eventually becomes apparent that Bamber is deliberately misrepresenting evidence, by taking individual sheets of paper out of context, and fabricating stories to make him look innocent.
Once you tune into that behaviour, it becomes quite easy to pick apart the lies.
I did a bit more digging and found out that in 2012 the CCRC described the very same 'evidence' as "pure speculation and multiple unsubstantiated allegations".
So it's not hate that makes people think that Bamber is guilty, it is the truth that makes people think that Bamber is guilty.
I can see and understand why people want to support Bamber, and want to believe him, because it becomes an Us vs Them contest, the evil state Vs a defenceless individual.
But that is an emotion, and a negative one at that. We all love to hate authority. And with Bamber we get to do that. The police, the Judiciary, the Government, the entire British State, they are all in it together, protecting each other. Except in this case, they are not.
Roswell was a weather balloon, Jeremy Bamber killed his family.
There is no hate from people who say Bamber is guilty, it's just that they are the people who look at the evidence in its totality, because only then can you see the whole picture, only then can you see the truth.
But to get there you have to put all negative emotion to one side, which is what I did.
-
ILB & Mike have been in prison & met Bamber. They are very supportive. Lookout supports Bamber because he sent her a Christmas card.
Snow66! & Rob have so far not given a good reason for their support.
-
ILB & Mike have been in prison & met Bamber. They are very supportive. Lookout supports Bamber because he sent her a Christmas card.
Snow66! & Rob have so far not given a good reason for their support.
Adam doesn't like Bamber because Bamber copped off with his girlfriend in the 80s
Why are you so disrespectful and patronising towards lookout?
-
Adam doesn't like Bamber because Bamber copped off with his girlfriend in the 80s
Wasn't born then.
-
Wasn't born then.
How am I supportive towards Bamber?
-
Can anyone explain why so many are working behind the scenes for JB if they think he's guilty ?
I'm talking police officers, either working or retired. A team of forensic experts. A QC or two, lawyers and of course JB's many supporters.
-
Can anyone explain why so many are working behind the scenes for JB if they think he's guilty ?
I'm talking police officers, either working or retired. A team of forensic experts. A QC or two, lawyers and of course JB's many supporters.
..because Jeremy Bamber is the master conman, who duped all around him in Essex outside of the Gresham's establishment, where he learned to cut his teeth. By the end Nevill was suspicious and June was driven to bouts of tears, Sheila intuitively fearful as she dialled the number at Colin's party and passed the receiver over to him. Those who support him now either knew him in his Jubilee photograph days, when he knew his place, if even then somewhat arrogant, or came to know him post-murders but had no knowledge of the victims personally, and again were taken in by his bluff, his bluster and superficial yet deadly charm.
-
How am I supportive towards Bamber?
Of course you're on his side: as the saying goes "there's honour among thieves.". Except you're out of your depth ILB, because you too have been deceived by outward appearances and slick manner, hiding the cold, calculating individual who escalated his crimes solely from robbery to mass murder in one reckless gamble, depriving five people of life in the process, including twin six-year-old boys of whom Jeremy became insanely jealous and who had of necessity to be snuffed out to make his plan financially worthwhile.
-
Well he didn't con Auckland drug dealers according to Brett Collins. They duped him out of £5000
Week off work. Currently watching that four part Louie theroux documentary for the first time
-
Well he didn't con Auckland drug dealers according to Brett Collins. They duped him out of £5000
Week off work. Currently watching that four part Louie theroux documentary for the first time
He was in the drugs trade in Essex though, wasn't he, consuming cannabis himself to boot and moody without it.
-
He was in the drugs trade in Essex though, wasn't he, consuming cannabis himself to boot and moody without it.
Possibly.
Very shocked though Steve as I watch this james Richards was called to chelsmford. All he heard was a off the cuff remark what Bamber is supposed to have uttered
I imagine my own children probably say to their friends " I fucking hate dad" if I refuse to buy them the latest phone etc.
-
Possibly.
Very shocked though Steve as I watch this james Richards was called to chelsmford. All he heard was a off the cuff remark what Bamber is supposed to have uttered
I imagine my own children probably say to their friends " I fucking hate dad" if I refuse to buy them the latest phone etc.
Well the verdict of the trial didn't rely solely on James Richards' evidence, but the cumulative effect of the evidence against him.
-
Possibly.
Very shocked though Steve as I watch this james Richards was called to chelsmford. All he heard was a off the cuff remark what Bamber is supposed to have uttered
I imagine my own children probably say to their friends " I fucking hate dad" if I refuse to buy them the latest phone etc.
Bamber was in his 20's when saying it. It was 'parents', not 'dad'.
-
Bamber was in his 20's when saying it. It was 'parents', not 'dad'.
I know it was parents what he apparently said
why the man got called to trial I don't know
do you agree it was more than likely a throwaway remark at the time?
-
Of course you're on his side: as the saying goes "there's honour among thieves.". Except you're out of your depth ILB, because you too have been deceived by outward appearances and slick manner, hiding the cold, calculating individual who escalated his crimes solely from robbery to mass murder in one reckless gamble, depriving five people of life in the process, including twin six-year-old boys of whom Jeremy became insanely jealous and who had of necessity to be snuffed out to make his plan financially worthwhile.
I'm not on his side. I have not seen or spoke to Jeremy Bamber since 1995. I don't support him financial wise. The first I have had any recent contact is a letter I sent to him a week or so ago.
In my younger years I was involved with much heavier criminals then Jeremy Bamber. Of no names I will mention. I've done the jail for it though. So I can mention it.
Stop making him out to be a master conman of high intelligence. He was a barman and farm labourer. He was of average intelligence. He was privately educated at Greshams. He didn't excel at anything
Steve do you hate people from poor backgrounds?
-
I'm not on his side. I have not seen or spoke to Jeremy Bamber since 1995. I don't support him financial wise. The first I have had any recent contact is a letter I sent to him a week or so ago.
In my younger years I was involved with much heavier criminals then Jeremy Bamber. Of no names I will mention. I've done the jail for it though. So I can mention it.
Stop making him out to be a master conman of high intelligence. He was a barman and farm labourer. He was of average intelligence. He was privately educated at Greshams. He didn't excel at anything
Steve do you hate people from poor backgrounds?
He had animal cunning. He took some qualifications at Colchester College. Okay he wasn't particularly academic. Why as a Christian should I hate people from poor backgrounds? There would be no point in attending Church if I did.
-
He had animal cunning. He took some qualifications at Colchester College. Okay he wasn't particularly academic. Why as a Christian should I hate people from poor backgrounds? There would be no point in attending Church if I did.
A hunch I guess. You seem to celebrate academia.
-
ILB & Mike have been in prison & met Bamber. They are very supportive. Lookout supports Bamber because he sent her a Christmas card.
Snow66! & Rob have so far not given a good reason for their support.
I am about to give Killingeve an answer as to why I have reasonable doubt Adam,that may answer your question,I suspect Rob would give roughly the same answer.
-
I'm not on his side. I have not seen or spoke to Jeremy Bamber since 1995. I don't support him financial wise. The first I have had any recent contact is a letter I sent to him a week or so ago.
In my younger years I was involved with much heavier criminals then Jeremy Bamber. Of no names I will mention. I've done the jail for it though. So I can mention it.
Stop making him out to be a master conman of high intelligence. He was a barman and farm labourer. He was of average intelligence. He was privately educated at Greshams. He didn't excel at anything
Steve do you hate people from poor backgrounds?
I wouldn't say that Bamber is intelligent, it seems to be something that he gets labelled with. I think that manipulative people may possibly come across as intelligent, because the people they manipulate recognise that they are being controlled in some way by that person.
That may come across as acting in a clever way, and the perception may be that clever people are intelligent.
So there may have been an illusion of intelligence.
But manipulation never really got Bamber anywhere in life. If anything his behaviour held him back, and increased his anger and frustrations with his life in general.
I would say that his behaviour throughout his life was the opposite of clever. He influenced people, but in a negative way.
Most, if not all of his friends and acquaintances, seemed to be unsavoury in some way. He was having multiple affairs with women all at the same time, and they all seemed to be acquainted with each other, and kind of tolerated each other. Bret Collins comes across as a nasty piece of work, who was happy to do Bamber's dirty work after the murders of his family. Julie Mugford helped him rob his own family business, was happy that he was growing cannabis for the purpose of dealing.
Jeremy Bamber and his circle of friends, including Julie Mugford, were not nice people.
Given that he wasn't backwards in coming forwards, where were all the good people, the loyal friends? Where were they? The truth is he didn't have any. He must have driven them all away with his deviant behaviour.
There is nothing in Jeremy Bamber's life, from his schooldays until prison, that indicate to me that he was intelligent and/or clever.
-
I wouldn't say that Bamber is intelligent, it seems to be something that he gets labelled with. I think that manipulative people may possibly come across as intelligent, because the people they manipulate recognise that they are being controlled in some way by that person.
That may come across as acting in a clever way, and the perception may be that clever people are intelligent.
So there may have been an illusion of intelligence.
But manipulation never really got Bamber anywhere in life. If anything his behaviour held him back, and increased his anger and frustrations with his life in general.
I would say that his behaviour throughout his life was the opposite of clever. He influenced people, but in a negative way.
Most, if not all of his friends and acquaintances, seemed to be unsavoury in some way. He was having multiple affairs with women all at the same time, and they all seemed to be acquainted with each other, and kind of tolerated each other. Bret Collins comes across as a nasty piece of work, who was happy to do Bamber's dirty work after the murders of his family. Julie Mugford helped him rob his own family business, was happy that he was growing cannabis for the purpose of dealing.
Jeremy Bamber and his circle of friends, including Julie Mugford, were not nice people.
Given that he wasn't backwards in coming forwards, where were all the good people, the loyal friends? Where were they? The truth is he didn't have any. He must have driven them all away with his deviant behaviour.
There is nothing in Jeremy Bamber's life, from his schooldays until prison, that indicate to me that he was intelligent and/or clever.
Julie has redeemed herself, as much as it is possible so to do. https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-england-chelmsford-ext-julie-mugford-news-footage/1273842477?adppopup=true
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-england-chelmsford-ext-julie-mugford-news-footage/1273846817?adppopup=true
-
I wouldn't say that Bamber is intelligent, it seems to be something that he gets labelled with. I think that manipulative people may possibly come across as intelligent, because the people they manipulate recognise that they are being controlled in some way by that person.
That may come across as acting in a clever way, and the perception may be that clever people are intelligent.
So there may have been an illusion of intelligence.
But manipulation never really got Bamber anywhere in life. If anything his behaviour held him back, and increased his anger and frustrations with his life in general.
I would say that his behaviour throughout his life was the opposite of clever. He influenced people, but in a negative way.
Most, if not all of his friends and acquaintances, seemed to be unsavoury in some way. He was having multiple affairs with women all at the same time, and they all seemed to be acquainted with each other, and kind of tolerated each other. Bret Collins comes across as a nasty piece of work, who was happy to do Bamber's dirty work after the murders of his family. Julie Mugford helped him rob his own family business, was happy that he was growing cannabis for the purpose of dealing.
Jeremy Bamber and his circle of friends, including Julie Mugford, were not nice people.
Given that he wasn't backwards in coming forwards, where were all the good people, the loyal friends? Where were they? The truth is he didn't have any. He must have driven them all away with his deviant behaviour.
There is nothing in Jeremy Bamber's life, from his schooldays until prison, that indicate to me that he was intelligent and/or clever.
That would have kept him fit for his cycling.
-
Are you happy in your hideout ? Coward !
-
Let's say there's a possibility that the silencer evidence is spurious, as several members here believe. That in itself doesn't make him innocent, but it is motivation enough to keep him looking through the official documents to find further inaccuracies.
I'm not saying I believe this, but it is one explanation.
I agree it does not make JB innocent Steve, but if the silencer evidence is spurious then it's a MOJ either way. Other members are posting about JB's intelligence in this thread, if he really did put the silencer in the cupboard he must be a halfwit! The silencer was obviously planted in my view hopefully I am not entrenched! there are many other aspects that deeply worry me about this case apart from the silencer evidence.
-
..because Jeremy Bamber is the master conman, who duped all around him in Essex outside of the Gresham's establishment, where he learned to cut his teeth. By the end Nevill was suspicious and June was driven to bouts of tears, Sheila intuitively fearful as she dialled the number at Colin's party and passed the receiver over to him. Those who support him now either knew him in his Jubilee photograph days, when he knew his place, if even then somewhat arrogant, or came to know him post-murders but had no knowledge of the victims personally, and again were taken in by his bluff, his bluster and superficial yet deadly charm.
What is your connection to the case Steve? I know little about Bamber have never spoke or wrote to him, I just look at the evidence and to me it's a clear MOJ that is an embarrassment to our judicial system.
-
I agree it does not make JB innocent Steve, but if the silencer evidence is spurious then it's a MOJ either way. Other members are posting about JB's intelligence in this thread, if he really did put the silencer in the cupboard he must be a halfwit! The silencer was obviously planted in my view hopefully I am not entrenched! there are many other aspects that deeply worry me about this case apart from the silencer evidence.
Who planted it? Not the relatives. They found it.
-
Who planted it? Not the relatives. They found it.
Yes I know they found it Adam, after five officers had searched the gun cupboard.
-
What is your connection to the case Steve? I know little about Bamber have never spoke or wrote to him, I just look at the evidence and to me it's a clear MOJ that is an embarrassment to our judicial system.
The only indirect connection is I'm from the same area as Julie, attended a similar school and we both ended up working for the ILEA (Inner London Education Authority) at a time when working in inner city schools was a tough job. Please don't say there are other tough jobs out there because I've heard it all before. Suffice to say I sympathized with her mental state at the time, which may have skewed her judgement as regards inaction to prevent the murders. That doesn't mean that I excuse her behaviour; just without wishing to sound pompous I have more of an insight into what she was going through on a professional level than most other people.
-
The only indirect connection is I'm from the same area as Julie, attended a similar school and we both ended up working for the ILEA (Inner London Education Authority) at a time when working in inner city schools was a tough job. Please don't say there are other tough jobs out there because I've heard it all before. Suffice to say I sympathized with her mental state at the time, which may have skewed her judgement as regards inaction to prevent the murders. That doesn't mean that I excuse her behaviour; just without wishing to sound pompous I have more of an insight into what she was going through on a professional level than most other people.
Thanks Steve.
-
..because Jeremy Bamber is the master conman, who duped all around him in Essex outside of the Gresham's establishment, where he learned to cut his teeth. By the end Nevill was suspicious and June was driven to bouts of tears, Sheila intuitively fearful as she dialled the number at Colin's party and passed the receiver over to him. Those who support him now either knew him in his Jubilee photograph days, when he knew his place, if even then somewhat arrogant, or came to know him post-murders but had no knowledge of the victims personally, and again were taken in by his bluff, his bluster and superficial yet deadly charm.
Steve, I'm an ordinary UK citizen, but at the same time I KNOW if someone's a " con " or not so why is it that those of a professional capacity can't see or sense a " con " ?
People such as QC's, lawyers, psychiatrists, forensic experts and those who have a connection to the law have no sense whatsoever which is why they're helping JB ? You say they're being conned / duped ?
-
Steve, I'm an ordinary UK citizen, but at the same time I KNOW if someone's a " con " or not so why is it that those of a professional capacity can't see or sense a " con " ?
People such as QC's, lawyers, psychiatrists, forensic experts and those who have a connection to the law have no sense whatsoever which is why they're helping JB ? You say they're being conned / duped ?
I don't dispute the motives of some of those helping Bamber to appeal against his life tariff. Some on his team come across to me as more polished than others. I've always said there should be a barrister such as Michael Mansfield charged with viewing all the evidence, so conspiracy theories can be put to bed.
-
My sister is a teacher.
Unfortunately teachers develop grandiose complexes.
Think they are god
-
My sister is a teacher.
Unfortunately teachers develop grandiose complexes.
Think they are god
No but they have to command respect. Maybe there's another reason why you don't enjoy cordial relations with your sister.
-
Dear Mr Bamber.
I have been following the case for a long time. I am not going to start the machinations of your innocence or guilt. From my own personal opinion I am undecided. But I hope you can find it in yourself to answer a question that I am interested in finding out.
How did you wake and became alerted to a call from your father nevill at 3am approx on August 7th 1985?. It is said you had an AM. A person I am in contact with says that your father's phonecall was futile in that you had an AM and could not awake in time due to you being " asleep like a log
I just want to hear your opinion on this matter. You say it happened. I want to hear the words from the horses mouth ( Jeremy Bamber himsel) I have enclosed a first class stamped letter enclosed for you to reply with. I am completely aware that due to you being CAT A it may take time for you to reply.
Again I do not cast doubt on the claim of your innocence. I am not trying to trip you up. I am open minded. I just wish for your opinion.
( I also included personal details that I will not divulge on an internet forum) such as my real name. Our time in long lartin was referenced.
When a reply if it does come through from Jeremy Bamber himself I will duly post
Seems that Bamber did not reply.