Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on August 22, 2024, 09:49:PM
-
According to many Bamber supporters, this is a case where nearly everyone lied to frame Bamber, either because they had something to gain (Julie Mugford and the extended family) or because they were under pressure (although why would they police frame Bamber when they thought (or knew ?) it was Sheila and why would the expert witnesses come in on the conspiracy?).
Anyway, all these people lied at the trial, but for some reason on other occasions, such as the police enquiries (COLP etc) they were given "truth serum". For example, allegedly:
(1) the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator (although the defence didn't do anything about it at the time).
(2) DS Stan Jones talked about the "note" (the suicide note) at the 2002 Stokenhurst enquiry.
(3) ACC Simpson said in the press about a sound moderator recorded on the day of the killings but this not necessarily being suspicious.
(4) PC Milbank and others told Heidi Blake of the New York Times all the information the supporters need to know and information which they have been after for nearly 40 years.
Basically, the police blabbed enough on various occasions after the trial for his supporters to know exactly what happened (although they would still like to see other documents anyway so they can make their submission to the CCRC even longer).
-
You have a good brain on you Dan!
-
(1) the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator (although the defence didn't do anything about it at the time).
When did they do that, and how was it communicated?
-
Basically, the police blabbed enough on various occasions after the trial for his supporters to know exactly what happened.
Sorry if this appears rude to Aunty, but that is a very silly thing to say. The police did not blab to anyone outside of the the immediate police circle and that ensured that nobody else knew what was divulged.
Certainly, ACC Simpson mentioned in a press conference that a silencer was found on 7 August and it was reported in the local press, but the Essex Police tape recording of the press conference is 'missing' the section where he discussed it and EP now deny that he said anything about the silencer.
The Stokenchurch enquiry was not made available to the CT until 2011 and Stan Jones would never have expected the public to know anything about what he discussed with the Met. Likewise with the high definition digital crime scene photographs, none of the police would have anticipated those becoming available to the CT.
Milbank has revealed some information nearly 40 years after the event, his excuse for remaining silent is that nobody asked him previously (which is not true).
So how does the CT get access to information that has either been deleted, withheld or kept secret?
-
When did they do that, and how was it communicated?
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.html
"53. For the reasons given at [20] the judge said there was no evidence that there was ever a second sound moderator and the suggestion that Mr Turner had been told the opposite by a member of the prosecution team was refuted by the three QCs who have appeared for the Crown at various stages. "
-
I don't suppose Bill Robertson is trying to muddy the waters with the two-silencer issue, and confuse a jury thereby?
-
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.html
"53. For the reasons given at [20] the judge said there was no evidence that there was ever a second sound moderator and the suggestion that Mr Turner had been told the opposite by a member of the prosecution team was refuted by the three QCs who have appeared for the Crown at various stages. "
So according to the prosecution they didn't tell the defence about the existence of two silencers, which kind of refutes your original statement? and this was not until 2020? I think that you have to concede that there is no accuracy in what you said, "the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator". I'm only asking because I'm not aware of any time when the prosecution has admitted there was a second silencer.
-
I don't suppose Bill Robertson is trying to muddy the waters with the two-silencer issue, and confuse a jury thereby?
What jury? is there going to be a retrial?
-
What jury? is there going to be a retrial?
You know full well that there will be no retrial. I also suspect that a significant majority of the Bamberettes know he's guilty, and are looking in vain for some technicality to get him off. Their motives? I have no idea.
-
You know full well that there will be no retrial. I also suspect that a significant majority of the Bamberettes know he's guilty, and are looking in vain for some technicality to get him off. Their motives? I have no idea.
I think you may have misinterpreted Bill's post Steve. It was in response to the suggestion a jury would be involved again. However I think that more than ever, there are two distinct camps, each one utterly convinced they are right.
-
I think you may have misinterpreted Bill's post Steve. It was in response to the suggestion a jury would be involved again. However I think that more than ever, there are two distinct camps, each one utterly convinced they are right.
Is that supporters and detractors, or divides within the individual camps?
-
Is that supporters and detractors, or divides within the individual camps?
Guilty v Innocent. Both camps convinced they are right.
-
You know full well that there will be no retrial. I also suspect that a significant majority of the Bamberettes know he's guilty, and are looking in vain for some technicality to get him off. Their motives? I have no idea.
Current & former supporters obviously know Bamber is guilty. But have reasons to support.
Mike, ILB & Guest29835 have beefs with the police. He told Mike & ILB he is innocent.
Roch has a beef with the justice system.
NGB worked for Jeremy. So can't now say he believes him guilty.
Jeremy sent Lookout Xmas cards.
Jane didn't like Julie's court dress.
Caroline saw the CTSB doc and received letters from Jeremy.
David wants to be part of a purpose.
BuboBubo likes creating scenarios.
Bill likes writing articles.
-
Current & former supporters obviously know Bamber is guilty. But have reasons to support.
Mike, ILB & Guest29835 have beefs with the police. He told Mike & ILB he is innocent.
Roch has a beef with the justice system.
NGB worked for Jeremy. So can't now say he believes him guilty.
Jeremy sent Lookout Xmas cards.
Jane didn't like Julie's court dress.
Caroline saw the CTSB doc and received letters from Jeremy.
David wants to be part of a purpose.
BuboBubo likes creating scenarios.
Bill likes writing articles.
You really are a wind up merchant. I am not going to bother answering this rubbish.
-
You really are a wind up merchant. I am not going to bother answering this rubbish.
I dont think Adam wants an answer Ngb,its his idea of humour!
Quite amusing really,if you take it the right way!
Dont you think?
-
I dont think Adam wants an answer Ngb,its his idea of humour!
Quite amusing really,if you take it the right way!
Dont you think?
No he is trolling.
I made a cartoon of him a while ago that captures the essence of his contributions.
-
Current & former supporters obviously know Bamber is guilty. But have reasons to support.
Mike, ILB & Guest29835 have beefs with the police. He told Mike & ILB he is innocent.
Roch has a beef with the justice system.
NGB worked for Jeremy. So can't now say he believes him guilty.
Jeremy sent Lookout Xmas cards.
Jane didn't like Julie's court dress.
Caroline saw the CTSB doc and received letters from Jeremy.
David wants to be part of a purpose.
BuboBubo likes creating scenarios.
Bill likes writing articles.
Dave says you are trolling Adam!
-
So according to the prosecution they didn't tell the defence about the existence of two silencers, which kind of refutes your original statement? and this was not until 2020? I think that you have to concede that there is no accuracy in what you said, "the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator". I'm only asking because I'm not aware of any time when the prosecution has admitted there was a second silencer.
Let me rephrase on this point: in 2020 at Bamber's (second) Judicial Review application against the Crown Prosecution Service (seeking access to original documents as they only had copies), the defence alleged that they had been told by the prosecution at the 2002 appeal that there were two silencers.
Effectively, Bamber's lawyers were claiming in 2020 that the prosecution had taken "truth serum" and blabbed to the defence (in 2002) about there being two silencers.
I think we both agree this didn't happen.
P.S. the 2020 judgment is worth reading in full, I guess you have probably already read it.
-
Certainly, ACC Simpson mentioned in a press conference that a silencer was found on 7 August and it was reported in the local press, but the Essex Police tape recording of the press conference is 'missing' the section where he discussed it and EP now deny that he said anything about the silencer.
Are you sure he said on the day of the killings rather than "early in the investigation" ??
Why would he admit "on the day of the killings" unless he had been given a very strong dose of truth serum?
-
Are you sure he said on the day of the killings rather than "early in the investigation" ??
Why would he admit "on the day of the killings" unless he had been given a very strong dose of truth serum?
The full press transcript is here
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631)
Simpson never mentioned a silencer being found on the day, a local newspaper simply mis-quoted him.
-
The full press transcript is here
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631)
Simpson never mentioned a silencer being found on the day, a local newspaper simply mis-quoted him.
Thanks David. I'll look at this later.
Some other newspapers have "early on in the investigation" so I thought it was a mis-quotation.
As I said, why would ACC Simpson have said that to the press? It would require a big dose of "truth serum".
-
Sorry if this appears rude to Aunty, but that is a very silly thing to say. The police did not blab to anyone outside of the the immediate police circle and that ensured that nobody else knew what was divulged.
Certainly, ACC Simpson mentioned in a press conference that a silencer was found on 7 August and it was reported in the local press, but the Essex Police tape recording of the press conference is 'missing' the section where he discussed it and EP now deny that he said anything about the silencer.
The Stokenchurch enquiry was not made available to the CT until 2011 and Stan Jones would never have expected the public to know anything about what he discussed with the Met. Likewise with the high definition digital crime scene photographs, none of the police would have anticipated those becoming available to the CT.
Milbank has revealed some information nearly 40 years after the event, his excuse for remaining silent is that nobody asked him previously (which is not true).
So how does the CT get access to information that has either been deleted, withheld or kept secret?
A pretty heavy burden if what you say is true for a PC to carry over a forty year period who did not have direct involvement in the case on a grand scale.
-
According to many Bamber supporters, this is a case where nearly everyone lied to frame Bamber, either because they had something to gain (Julie Mugford and the extended family) or because they were under pressure (although why would they police frame Bamber when they thought (or knew ?) it was Sheila and why would the expert witnesses come in on the conspiracy?).
Anyway, all these people lied at the trial, but for some reason on other occasions, such as the police enquiries (COLP etc) they were given "truth serum". For example, allegedly:
(1) the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator (although the defence didn't do anything about it at the time).
(2) DS Stan Jones talked about the "note" (the suicide note) at the 2002 Stokenhurst enquiry.
(3) ACC Simpson said in the press about a sound moderator recorded on the day of the killings but this not necessarily being suspicious.
(4) PC Milbank and others told Heidi Blake of the New York Times all the information the supporters need to know and information which they have been after for nearly 40 years.
Basically, the police blabbed enough on various occasions after the trial for his supporters to know exactly what happened (although they would still like to see other documents anyway so they can make their submission to the CCRC even longer).
Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel. They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next. With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer. But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing. For me I believe DS Jones fabricated the silencer in terms of the blood on the outside, paint and hair. He aslo put the frighteners on JM to secure her testimony. DCI Ainsley, believing this evidence was legitimate, was then able to get the lab on board. Much the same way the 4 teenage girls who lied in the Stefan Kiszko case were then able to get the lab on board via the officer in charge of the investigation, Richard Holland, and the forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Snowball effect.
-
Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel. They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next. With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer. But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing. For me I believe DS Jones fabricated the silencer in terms of the blood on the outside, paint and hair. He aslo put the frighteners on JM to secure her testimony. DCI Ainsley, believing this evidence was legitimate, was then able to get the lab on board. Much the same way the 4 teenage girls who lied in the Stefan Kiszko case were then able to get the lab on board via the officer in charge of the investigation, Richard Holland, and the forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Snowball effect.
So now he's innocent again? ;D
-
So now he's innocent again? ;D
Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.
An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.
Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.
-
Better late than never. Has been a member for over 4 years.
I know the ulterior motives why supporters support Bamber. But never understood CC's reason for doing the opposite.
-
Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.
An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.
Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.
I honestly don't care ;D. I think it's funny.
-
Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel. They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next. With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer. But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing....
Not necessarily. If Jeremy was innocent, it is possible (remotely) that the blood was a mixture of Nevill and June's, and it was possible (fair to say remotely) that Sheila managed to overpower Nevill and shoot her whole family without getting any blood on her hands and feet, and without getting any bullet residue on her hands (or washing) etc .... If this is the case, the only person necessarily lying is Julie Mugford.
-
Not necessarily. If Jeremy was innocent, it is possible (remotely) that the blood was a mixture of Nevill and June's, and it was possible (fair to say remotely) that Sheila managed to overpower Nevill and shoot her whole family without getting any blood on her hands and feet, and without getting any bullet residue on her hands (or washing) etc .... If this is the case, the only person necessarily lying is Julie Mugford.
You also have Robert Boutflour saying that Jeremy told him he could easily kill anybody including his parents.
David Boutflour denying under oath that he'd never seen Sheila fire a gun.
Ann Eaton giving conflicting accounts in her statements and trial testimony. And telling the police she heard Jeremy say that Sheila gave June a black eye.
-
Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.
I just wanted to see what it is like on the other side. Its much easier to argue from a prosecution perspective as its 'official' and you don't need to justify your position.
An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.
Not quite instantly. And I made the mistake of telling Roch in a pm. He undoubtedly told others. But Munska and KE are defintely nothing to do with me.
Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.
Whoa! No definitely not inside. Outside only.
-
I honestly don't care ;D. I think it's funny.
Me too ;D
Well the nights are drawing in so what better way to spend dark, cold evenings than here? :)
-
Not necessarily. If Jeremy was innocent, it is possible (remotely) that the blood was a mixture of Nevill and June's, and it was possible (fair to say remotely) that Sheila managed to overpower Nevill and shoot her whole family without getting any blood on her hands and feet, and without getting any bullet residue on her hands (or washing) etc .... If this is the case, the only person necessarily lying is Julie Mugford.
How would NB's blood have entered the silencer when he did not even sustain any contact shots? Its unlikely the draw back/back spatter phenomenon would occur with a small calibre firearm and subsonic ammo. Attach a silencer and its even less likely. NB did not even sustain any contact shots and this is part of the mechanism required for draw back to take place: expanding gases from bullet entry force blood and tissue backwards into firearm.
You have missed off the paint/scratches.
The state of Sheila's nightdress, hands and feet and overpowering NB can easily be explained from a defence perspective.
If you look at the part of the judge's summing up here you will see the blood weighed very heavily on the minds of jurors.
Had this crime have been committed in US it would never have seen the inside of a court because the expertise and lay knowledge of firearms is a world away compared to the UK. More so back in the 80's.
-
I agree that the sound moderator evidence heavily influenced the jury's decision.
They also asked Bamber why Robert Boutflour would have lied about Bamber talking about killing his parents, and to that question Bamber gave a vague and unconvincing response.
-
Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.
An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.
Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.
And then undermining the chain of custody of his own frame up by concocting a story whereby the blood, paint and silencer was discovered by three members of public and getting them all to go along with it at trial. :))
-
I just wanted to see what it is like on the other side. Its much easier to argue from a prosecution perspective as its 'official' and you don't need to justify your position.
Not quite instantly. And I made the mistake of telling Roch in a pm. He undoubtedly told others. But Munska and KE are defintely nothing to do with me.
Whoa! No definitely not inside. Outside only.
Ha, ha! You made the same mistake Bamber did - you told someone! Schoolgirl error, should have known better given the case you're interested in! ;D
No, I know Munska and defo not you.
-
And I made the mistake of telling Roch in a pm. He undoubtedly told others.
I don't recall you telling me by PM or any other method. I knew you were playing a game.
-
I don't recall you telling me by PM or any other method. I knew you were playing a game.
Asif someone using a photo of themselves holding a mostly empty bottle of Cambridge dry gin with a big creepy grin on their face as their forum avatar would make things up and play games.
-
Better late than never. Has been a member for over 4 years.
I know the ulterior motives why supporters support Bamber. But never understood CC's reason for doing the opposite.
She has given conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members on here. So its unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer.
-
She has given conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members on here. So its unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer.
She either believed in what she was posting when posting as a guilter. So not sure how she still finds him innocent.
Or didn't believe in what she was posting. In which case why post it?
A very strange 4 years.
-
She has given conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members on here. So its unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer.
You could always give her some "truth serum" :o)
-
I dont think Adam wants an answer Ngb,its his idea of humour!
Quite amusing really,if you take it the right way!
Dont you think?
I agree it is amusing, but it is still very low grade posting.
-
Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel. They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next. With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer. But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing. For me I believe DS Jones fabricated the silencer in terms of the blood on the outside, paint and hair. He aslo put the frighteners on JM to secure her testimony. DCI Ainsley, believing this evidence was legitimate, was then able to get the lab on board. Much the same way the 4 teenage girls who lied in the Stefan Kiszko case were then able to get the lab on board via the officer in charge of the investigation, Richard Holland, and the forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Snowball effect.
You do make some very good posts CC. You have a knowledge of the science involved in the case which is probably better than anyone here. You have researched it thoroughly. I just think it is unfortunate that you have wound up some members. I do understand the joke but I feel at times it has gone too far.
-
She either believed in what she was posting when posting as a guilter. So not sure how she still finds him innocent.
Or didn't believe in what she was posting. In which case why post it?
A very strange 4 years.
It has been claimed that the person now being judged is accused of giving "conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members here" There is irony in in the following claim that "it's unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer". One has to wonder how it may be possible for a member to know what PMs are being sent to other members and/or how may the integrity of the poster revealing such be trusted given the obvious 'history' they have. Might there be something here about a bruised ego? Might there be a warning here to posters to think twice about who they send PMs to?
This certainly isn't the first time the forum has been 'duped'. It's unlikely to be the last. It's standard practice where big egos congregate and they try to outdo each other. It's of no moment whether or not person A is telling the truth. They'll very likely be accused of lying if they are.
At the end of the day, I don't think this person's status as either detractor or supporter is important. Good posts will always be worth reading. It would be arrogant to believe that the contents of this forum will provide the means to JB's release, but it does provide an interest for its members on both sides of the argument.
-
It has been claimed that the person now being judged is accused of giving "conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members here" There is irony in in the following claim that "it's unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer". One has to wonder how it may be possible for a member to know what PMs are being sent to other members and/or how may the integrity of the poster revealing such be trusted given the obvious 'history' they have. Might there be something here about a bruised ego? Might there be a warning here to posters to think twice about who they send PMs to?
This certainly isn't the first time the forum has been 'duped'. It's unlikely to be the last. It's standard practice where big egos congregate and they try to outdo each other. It's of no moment whether or not person A is telling the truth. They'll very likely be accused of lying if they are.
At the end of the day, I don't think this person's status as either detractor or supporter is important. Good posts will always be worth reading. It would be arrogant to believe that the contents of this forum will provide the means to JB's release, but it does provide an interest for its members on both sides of the argument.
What you say is true to an extent, but it has still upset some genuine people. Even you were drawn in and expressed your strong support. Surely you are slightly annoyed by that?
-
What you say is true to an extent, but it has still upset some genuine people. Even you were drawn in and expressed your strong support. Surely you are slightly annoyed by that?
Mmm. I was delighted to think she may have come to her senses, and I believe most people deserve a second chance, but as I've lived through/witnessed several reincarnations, it was a question of living with/enjoying this one whilst it lasted but waiting to see where it went!! Naturally, I'm sorry genuine people have been upset. It's always sad when trust gets misplaced.
-
It has been claimed that the person now being judged is accused of giving "conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members here" There is irony in in the following claim that "it's unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer". One has to wonder how it may be possible for a member to know what PMs are being sent to other members and/or how may the integrity of the poster revealing such be trusted given the obvious 'history' they have. Might there be something here about a bruised ego? Might there be a warning here to posters to think twice about who they send PMs to?
This certainly isn't the first time the forum has been 'duped'. It's unlikely to be the last. It's standard practice where big egos congregate and they try to outdo each other. It's of no moment whether or not person A is telling the truth. They'll very likely be accused of lying if they are.
At the end of the day, I don't think this person's status as either detractor or supporter is important. Good posts will always be worth reading. It would be arrogant to believe that the contents of this forum will provide the means to JB's release, but it does provide an interest for its members on both sides of the argument.
It may be a case that she believed what she was posting, but has an ulterior motive for being a supporter.
I look forward to her new theories.
She has recently said what Bamber says can't be trusted. If she retracts on this she will have to agree he had an AM. She refused to accept that even as a pretend guilter!
-
Or didn't believe in what she was posting. In which case why post it?
A very strange 4 years.
Probably a combination of boredom, immaturity, drink and feelings of resentment towards JB supporters?
-
I think people get too concerned over what other people believe and that becomes the debate rather than the actual case. It doesn't really matter what someone else thinks, as long as you're sure in your own mind about your own thoughts, even if that means you're innocent, guilty or on the fence.
-
I think people get too concerned over what other people believe and that becomes the debate rather than the actual case. It doesn't really matter what someone else thinks, as long as you're sure in your own mind about your own thoughts, even if that means you're innocent, guilty or on the fence.
It's always sad when forum hiccoughs -and as hiccoughs go, this is a minor one- cause an hiatus which prevents some members from posting. It may also allows posts, which are little more than insults, because of personal histories/resentments space to be read, rather than ignored.
-
I agree it is amusing, but it is still very low grade posting.
Yes,low grade and childish ngb!
Unfortunately,thats the kind of humour I tend to chuckle at! ^-^
-
You could always give her some "truth serum" :o)
She is on a form of truth serum all the time. Hence her cover keeps getting blown.
-
She is on a form of truth serum all the time. Hence her cover keeps getting blown.
This isn't the best truth serum.. but it's all I have tonight. Plus some Talisker.
-
This isn't the best truth serum.. but it's all I have tonight. Plus some Talisker.
Duval?
Bosh!!
-
Duval?
Bosh!!
What's your poison ILB?
-
What's your poison ILB?
My Mrs haha
-
Better late than never. Has been a member for over 4 years.
I know the ulterior motives why supporters support Bamber. But never understood CC's reason for doing the opposite.
Secondment :)
-
I agree that the sound moderator evidence heavily influenced the jury's decision.
They also asked Bamber why Robert Boutflour would have lied about Bamber talking about killing his parents, and to that question Bamber gave a vague and unconvincing response.
No it wasn't the jury that asked the question it was the prosecutor:
423. June Bamber's sister, Pamela, was married to Robert Boutflour. He gave evidence that in about March 1985 the appellant had made a remark "Oh Uncle Bobby, I could kill anybody. I could easily kill my parents." This allegation was categorically denied by the appellant, and when he was in the witness box and under cross-examination he was asked by Mr Arlidge QC whether he knew of any reason that Mr Boutflour might have for making such an untrue allegation. The appellant's reply was (transcript PMS/15 page 54):
"I can only surmise reasons. I don't know any specifics, but I can only surmise reasons, and I think it is very dangerous to do so."
424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
And then undermining the chain of custody of his own frame up by concocting a story whereby the blood, paint and silencer was discovered by three members of public and getting them all to go along with it at trial. :))
Why would it undermine the chain of custody? DS Jones handed the keys over to AE and briefed her on the alarm on Fri 9th Aug late early eve. This was at the time the soc was transferred from EP's control to that of Bamber's extended family. After showing the Eatons around WHF they all left around the same time. DS Jones had access to WHF before and after this visit which presented the opportunity to contaminate the OUTSIDE of the silencer with blood, paint and hair before the relatives arrived the following day and found the silencer in the gun cupboard with blood, paint and hair on it as DS Jones left it the previous day.
-
What you say is true to an extent, but it has still upset some genuine people. Even you were drawn in and expressed your strong support. Surely you are slightly annoyed by that?
It was a secondment in an attempt to prove my understanding of the case.
-
Mmm. I was delighted to think she may have come to her senses, and I believe most people deserve a second chance, but as I've lived through/witnessed several reincarnations, it was a question of living with/enjoying this one whilst it lasted but waiting to see where it went!! Naturally, I'm sorry genuine people have been upset. It's always sad when trust gets misplaced.
It was a secondment in an attempt to improve my understanding of the case.
-
It may be a case that she believed what she was posting, but has an ulterior motive for being a supporter.
I look forward to her new theories.
She has recently said what Bamber says can't be trusted. If she retracts on this she will have to agree he had an AM. She refused to accept that even as a pretend guilter!
Can't be trusted doesn't necessarily mean he is knowingly attempting to deceive. Can't be trusted includes facts like he has been incarcerated for nearly 40 years and does not have access to the outisde world and the sort of means you and I have access to.
I refuse to accept he had an AM pre murders because there's no evidence he had one. And as I said I don't take any notice what Bamber/supporters say.
-
I don't recall you telling me by PM or any other method. I knew you were playing a game.
I will try and find the PM. It wasn't a game. I was on a secondment.
-
Asif someone using a photo of themselves holding a mostly empty bottle of Cambridge dry gin with a big creepy grin on their face as their forum avatar would make things up and play games.
The mostly empty bottle of Cambridge dry gin you refer to remains to this day unopened.
-
She has given conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members on here. So its unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer.
Who gives a flying fig? How important is it to anyone/thing in the grand scheme of things?
-
She either believed in what she was posting when posting as a guilter. So not sure how she still finds him innocent.
Or didn't believe in what she was posting. In which case why post it?
A very strange 4 years.
It isn't strange at all. I wanted to experience what it is like on the other side. Also since I don't believe in much of what Bamber and his supporters put out there it really wasn't difficult.
-
You do make some very good posts CC. You have a knowledge of the science involved in the case which is probably better than anyone here. You have researched it thoroughly. I just think it is unfortunate that you have wound up some members. I do understand the joke but I feel at times it has gone too far.
Thanks, but only here?
But it is necessary to try and understand the prosecution case.
-
It has been claimed that the person now being judged is accused of giving "conflicting explanations for why in PMs to other members here" There is irony in in the following claim that "it's unlikely you'd ever get an honest answer". One has to wonder how it may be possible for a member to know what PMs are being sent to other members and/or how may the integrity of the poster revealing such be trusted given the obvious 'history' they have. Might there be something here about a bruised ego? Might there be a warning here to posters to think twice about who they send PMs to?
This certainly isn't the first time the forum has been 'duped'. It's unlikely to be the last. It's standard practice where big egos congregate and they try to outdo each other. It's of no moment whether or not person A is telling the truth. They'll very likely be accused of lying if they are.
At the end of the day, I don't think this person's status as either detractor or supporter is important.Good posts will always be worth reading. It would be arrogant to believe that the contents of this forum will provide the means to JB's release, but it does provide an interest for its members on both sides of the argument.
I agree. No one has sworn an oath or anything. Why not just take the content of the post and attempt to learn something from it.
-
I think people get too concerned over what other people believe and that becomes the debate rather than the actual case. It doesn't really matter what someone else thinks, as long as you're sure in your own mind about your own thoughts, even if that means you're innocent, guilty or on the fence.
Totally agree.
-
This isn't the best truth serum.. but it's all I have tonight. Plus some Talisker.
I've recently sampled Lost by Brewdog. A nice sessionable beer ;)
-
Can't be trusted doesn't necessarily mean he is knowingly attempting to deceive. Can't be trusted includes facts like he has been incarcerated for nearly 40 years and does not have access to the outisde world and the sort of means you and I have access to.
I refuse to accept he had an AM pre murders because there's no evidence he had one. And as I said I don't take any notice what Bamber/supporters say.
How can you refuse to accept he had one when he himself admits he had one?
Why would he lie about it?
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11457.msg530123.html#msg530123
Here is 33 reasons why he had an AM pre massacre.
Jeremy himself has also said he had one via the Justice4Jeremy team.
No surprise, AM's were common in 1985.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11457.msg530123.html#msg530123
Here is 33 reasons why he had an AM pre massacre.
Jeremy himself has also said he had one via the Justice4Jeremy team.
No surprise, AM's were common in 1985.
Jeremy Bamber himself saying he had one is the only thing you need.
-
Jeremy Bamber himself saying he had one is the only thing you need.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12109.msg557610.html#msg557610
The 33 reasons were strong.
Posted before I found the Justice4Jeremy video.
-
How can you refuse to accept he had one when he himself admits he had one?
Why would he lie about it?
ILB were has JB said this?
-
How can you refuse to accept he had one when he himself admits he had one?
Why would he lie about it?
Are we talking pre murders or post murders?
I refuse to accept he had one pre murders because DS Jones interrogated him over the phones and made no mention of an AM. Also the WS's of others talk about the phones extensively and no one makes any ref to an AM.
Anyway its irrelevant.
-
Are we talking pre murders or post murders?
I refuse to accept he had one pre murders because DS Jones interrogated him over the phones and made no mention of an AM. Also the WS's of others talk about the phones extensively and no one makes any ref to an AM.
Anyway its irrelevant.
When did he buy one between the 7th August 1985 - Virginna Greaves leaving a message on his AM? - Wilkes.
There is nothing in anyone's WS saying he bought one.
-
ILB were has JB said this?
It is in the Justice4Jeremy video I posted months ago.
-
When did he buy one between the 7th August 1985 - Virginna Greaves leaving a message on his AM? - Wilkes.
There is nothing in anyone's WS saying he bought one.
If VG did leave a message on an AM was this at Bamber's cottage or SC's flat? I believe SC may have had an AM and JB might well have taken it to use.
What relevance anyway?
-
If VG did leave a message on an AM was this at Bamber's cottage or SC's flat? I believe SC may have had an AM and JB might well have taken it to use.
What relevance anyway?
Wilkes sayjng 'his AM' means Goldhanger.
Julie's 23 page WS details where they went, who with, who paid. After the 7th August 1985. No mention of buying an AM.
The relevance is huge.
-
Are we talking pre murders or post murders?
I refuse to accept he had one pre murders because DS Jones interrogated him over the phones and made no mention of an AM. Also the WS's of others talk about the phones extensively and no one makes any ref to an AM.
Anyway its irrelevant.
Agree its irrelevant as he could answer a call still from nevill. Its Adam whose championed the theory that the AM thwarts the scenario Jeremy said happens.
The tik tok sources are from people who are part of the CT Emma Morris is a regular.
The point I am making is they would not say he had an AM and then state what his usual habit with his AM was if he denied having one. This information would have come from Jeremy directly.
He had an AM at the material time. Its simple.
-
The relevance is huge.
It would have been relevant if it had been brought up to his detriment during the investigation. As it never was, we will never know. He wasnt asked about it so had no chance to give a reply. It remains no more than speculation
It has no relevance now. It can't be applied retrospectively.
-
It would have been relevant if it had been brought up to his detriment during the investigation. As it never was, we will never know. He wasnt asked about it so had no chance to give a reply. It remains no more than speculation
It has no relevance now. It can't be applied retrospectively.
The relevance is -
Nevill would not call an AM after being shot 4 times.
If he did call an AM he would leave a message.
Bamber would have remained sleeping.
An AM gives him an option of faking a call from WHF.
-
Are we talking pre murders or post murders?
I refuse to accept he had one pre murders because DS Jones interrogated him over the phones and made no mention of an AM. Also the WS's of others talk about the phones extensively and no one makes any ref to an AM.
Anyway its irrelevant.
Why would they mention the AM when Bamber states he answered the phone?
-
The relevance is -
Nevill would not call an AM after being shot 4 times.
If he did call an AM he would leave a message.
Bamber would have remained sleeping.
An AM gives him an option of faking a call from WHF.
I emphatically disagree.
-
I emphatically disagree.
Do you believe Nevill would call Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times?
-
Do you believe Nevill would call Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times?
You have no evidence to suggest he was shot before he would have called Bamber.
You rely on the report that the four shots would render him unable to speak. This may have come after the phonecall.
-
You have no evidence to suggest he was shot before he would have called Bamber.
You rely on the report that the four shots would render him unable to speak. This may have come after the phonecall.
A fully fit Nevill would instantly reclaim the rifle instead of ring Bamber's AM.
To be honest I don't go a bundle on him calling it after being shot 4 times either!
-
I emphatically disagree.
Do you agree Nevill would leave a message on Bamber's AM?
-
A fully fit Nevill would instantly reclaim the rifle instead of ring Bamber's AM.
To be honest I don't go a bundle on him calling it after being shot 4 times either!
In your opinion.
Accept you thought your AM theory would put the case to bed.
-
Do you agree Nevill would leave a message on Bamber's AM?
I believe he would haven woken up and answered the call.
-
I believe he would haven woken up and answered the call.
Do you think Nevill would have repeatedly rang Bamber's AM until he woke, decided to get out of bed, go downstairs & answer?
If yes, why?
-
Do you think Nevill would have repeatedly rang Bamber's AM until he woke, decided to get out of bed, go downstairs & answer?
If yes, why?
What do you mean by repeatedly? How many times do you believe it would have taken nevill to rouse Bamber out of bed?
-
Do you believe people can't wake up to phonecalls in the early hours?
-
What do you mean by repeatedly? How many times do you believe it would have taken nevill to rouse Bamber out of bed?
A lot.
There would be gaps between each attempted call. Nevill would have to redial.
Will make the question easier -
Do you believe Nevill would have rang Bamber again after getting his AM?
-
Do you believe people can't wake up to phonecalls in the early hours?
Do you believe Bamber would not hear a downstairs phone if his bedroom door was shut?
-
A lot.
There would be gaps between each attempted call. Nevill would have to redial.
Will make the question easier -
Do you believe would have rang Bamber again after getting his AM?
I think he it would have taken 2 callas maximum. There is a chance after so many rings nevill cut the call then redialled and Bamber answered. Although I believe he may have answered during the first call.
What do you think of Bambers AM ritual he claimed to have had in 1985?
-
Do you believe Bamber would not hear a downstairs phone if his bedroom door was shut?
No. You can still hear a phone ring with a door shut.
Also it was the summertime so likely the door was open.
He lived alone
-
No. You can still hear a phone ring with a door shut.
Also it was the summertime so likely the door was open.
He lived alone
Not sure about that. I couldn't hear my phone if my bedroom door was shut.
Does make a massive difference.
Nevill would have been hopeing Bamber had left his bedroom door open.
-
I think he it would have taken 2 callas maximum. There is a chance after so many rings nevill cut the call then redialled and Bamber answered. Although I believe he may have answered during the first call.
What do you think of Bambers AM ritual he claimed to have had in 1985?
Answering within Nevill's first call would be within 5-15 seconds before the AM switched on.
Bamber was upstairs sleeping 'like a log'.
-
Answering within Nevill's first call would be within 5-15 seconds before the AM switched on.
Bamber was upstairs sleeping 'like a log'.
Nevill could cut the call. And redial. Before an AM activation.
Again I ask what do you think of Bambers AM Habit he gave?
-
Nevill could cut the call. And redial. Before an AM activation.
Again I ask what do you think of Bambers AM Habit he gave?
Very weak. AM's have always been 24/7 accessories.
Do you think that is what Nevill thought - 'I must keep ringing Jeremy and cut the call before the AM starts'.
-
Very weak. AM's have always been 24/7 accessories.
Do you think that is what Nevill thought - 'I must keep ringing Jeremy and cut the call before the AM starts'.
But furnished with what Bamber has said about the AM how do I know that the AM wasn't switched on or not? We can't prove he is lying about what he states. So we have to look at it from all angles.
If he had said " on the night of August 6th I switched it off then of course alarm bells would be ringing.
-
Bamber said he switched the AM off when he was in as a matter of habit.
Let's be honest it's a perfectly feasible thing to do.
-
But furnished with what Bamber has said about the AM how do I know that the AM wasn't switched on or not? We can't prove he is lying about what he states. So we have to look at it from all angles.
If he had said " on the night of August 6th I switched it off then of course alarm bells would be ringing.
Why would a fully fit Nevill start ringing Bamber's AM?
-
When I go out I turn everything off in the house gas cooker, kettle, air fryer, TV etc. I believe I have OCD.
-
Bamber said he switched the AM off when he was in as a matter of habit.
Let's be honest it's a perfectly feasible thing to do.
He has to say that.
Not credible. AM's have always been 24/7 accessories
-
Why would a fully fit Nevill start ringing Bamber's AM?
Oh come on Adam, do you think nevill even would give a shit about Bambers AM if he even knew he had one or not. He was a busy businessman. He probably seldom visited bourtree after Bamber moved in. He was a busy guy.
-
He has to say that.
Not credible. AM's have always been 24/7 accessories
Sweeping statement to make unless you've done a survey?
-
When I go out I turn everything off in the house gas cooker, kettle, air fryer, TV etc. I believe I have OCD.
Things permanently plugged in in 1985 - fridge, kettle, toaster, AM, phone, washing machine, table lights, microwave, electric oven, TV, stereo, dish washer, computer.
-
Oh come on Adam, do you think nevill even would give a shit about Bambers AM if he even knew he had one or not. He was a busy businessman. He probably seldom visited bourtree after Bamber moved in. He was a busy guy.
That has not answered my question -
Why would a fully fit Nevill start ringing Bamber's AM?
-
That has not answered my question -
Why would a fully fit Nevill start ringing Bamber's AM?
He wouldn't ring Bambers AM, he would ring Bambers phone.
-
Things permanently plugged in in 1985 - fridge, kettle, toaster, AM, phone, washing machine, table lights, microwave, electric oven, TV, stereo, dish washer, computer.
58.55 million was the UK population in 1985?
I assume you've conducted a survey?
-
He wouldn't ring Bambers AM, he would ring Bambers phone.
Why would Nevill ring Bamber's phone when fully fit?
-
Why would Nevill ring Bamber's phone when fully fit?
For assistance.
-
For assistance.
What immediate assistance could he give?
Why would Nevill ring Bamber's phone after being shot 4 times?
-
What immediate assistance could he give?
Why would Nevill ring Bamber's phone after being shot 4 times?
I don't believe he phoned him after being shot four times, it was prior.
A lot possibly, the son of the caller, the brother of the woman going ape shit. He wasn't an outsider
-
61 years old
Knackered ( I am 56 and I know the feeling plagued with health problems such as bad back joints hip is going )
Anybody who has done manual labour graft for years knows the feeling.
28 year daughter going mad
Overworked
Wife having problems
Children in the house
Doesn't want a scene
Doesn't want an embarrassment
Doesn't want it getting out.
He's gone to bed after a long grafting day, he's probably had à few drinks to relax. The blokes knackered he has to be up for work in a few hours again.
Yes I would phone my 24 year old son for help.
Adam has nevill as this Jean Claude van damn mixed with a diplomat character.