Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Cambridgecutie on February 09, 2025, 07:08:PM
-
Your vote counts! Thank you.
-
Can't see JB walking down the COA steps, and ranting passionately into the microphone like Paddy Hill.
More grinning and quiet like a Cheshire cat.
I voted yes. Fuck knows why I did. But I did. I'm a gambling man.
-
Voted no, hope to be wrong
-
I voted yes easy decision for me it's a obvious MOJ in my view.
-
Eeny, meeny, miny, mo
Like it or not, I voted for no
-
I voted yes easy decision for me it's a obvious MOJ in my view.
The powers that be will never admit it Rob.
Which is the issue.
-
Although I do believe JB will one day be cleared posthumously in the same regard as Derek Bentley.
The case will over the years and especially aided by the digital age continue to gather momentum.
-
The powers that be will never admit it Rob.
Which is the issue.
Yes I know ILB it's sad but true, there is another famous case at the moment I wonder how long that will take to get referred?
-
Yes!
-
Without getting overly optimistic and forgetting the realms of having to fight tooth and nail for any perspective compensation. The moment JB walks down any COA steps he is instantly going to become a sensation and very wealthy.
The story is fascinating enough even if you believe JB to be gulity, the innocent cleared man after 40 years imprisonment or plus or whatever is a PR dream.
-
But I do stand by my earlier assessment that in the event of the knockback this time round it's pretty much game over for JB from a personal perspective. The guys aging in category A conditions.
Any new submissions could be a decade down the line. Look st the previous timescales.
-
Without getting overly optimistic and forgetting the realms of having to fight tooth and nail for any perspective compensation. The moment JB walks down any COA steps he is instantly going to become a sensation and very wealthy.
Really? The fact you perceive it this way does not mean everyone else will! How is he going to become very wealthy? What's your definition of "very wealthy"?
The story is fascinating enough even if you believe JB to be gulity, the innocent cleared man after 40 years imprisonment or plus or whatever is a PR dream.
Even if his conviction is overturned no one is going to declare him innocent. Many will still consider him guilty. And no one knows how the youger generations will view the case who were either not around or too young to remember. Then there's a large immigrant population most of whom are probably unfamiliar with the case. What role would SM play? Would someone want to take a pop at him? PR dream? Or disaster?
-
If we say his parents estate was 500k net, which he would have inherited had he not been convicted, this compounded by 5% over 40 years = £3,519,991.70.
-
Really? The fact you perceive it this way does not mean everyone else will! How is he going to become very wealthy? What's your definition of "very wealthy"?
Read what I said.
Book deals, tv interviews, etc etc, story exclusives. The hype would die down. But the story is fascinating.
You know this. We all perceive this.
-
Really? The fact you perceive it this way does not mean everyone else will! How is he going to become very wealthy? What's your definition of "very wealthy"?
Even if his conviction is overturned no one is going to declare him innocent. Many will still consider him guilty. And no one knows how the youger generations will view the case who were either not around or too young to remember. Then there's a large immigrant population most of whom are probably unfamiliar with the case. What role would SM play? Would someone want to take a pop at him? PR dream? Or disaster?
Bamber will be sound, he's a strong character.
Guaranteed will probably make his relatives life difficult. In the legal sense. Private prosecution.
-
Really? What's your definition of "very wealthy"?
To be on a Dorset beach, to go to the supermarket and buy a mango, to have a pot noodle in front or the TV, to enjoy the ballet, to enjoy a simple meal in the local cafe 😀
After 40 years behind the door, a good nights sleep. But you did get my earlier point in what I put anyway.
-
Read what I said.
Book deals, tv interviews, etc etc, story exclusives. The hype would die down. But the story is fascinating.
You know this. We all perceive this.
I did read what you said and you didn't mention book deals etc. Even former PM's autobiographies don't net that much. Why would book authors, tv interviews, story exclusives with JB net him more? How would it be of interest to the public? The monotony and minutiae of prison life: 'I saved a few crumbs from my stale white bread roll and fed them to a sparrow through my cell window' :) 'Once a bird magnet, always a bird magnet' ;D
-
I did read what you said and you didn't mention book deals etc. Even former PM's autobiographies don't net that much. Why would book authors, tv interviews, story exclusives with JB net him more? How would it be of interest to the public? The monotony and minutiae of prison life: 'I saved a few crumbs from my stale white bread roll and fed them to a sparrow through my cell window' :) 'Once a bird magnet, always a bird magnet' ;D
Haha
Don't be argumentative for the sake of it
-
I did read what you said and you didn't mention book deals etc. Even former PM's autobiographies don't net that much. Why would book authors, tv interviews, story exclusives with JB net him more? How would it be of interest to the public? The monotony and minutiae of prison life: 'I saved a few crumbs from my stale white bread roll and fed them to a sparrow through my cell window' :) 'Once a bird magnet, always a bird magnet' ;D
Rumour has it you are putting him up in your spare bedroom till he gets a place ;D
-
Really? The fact you perceive it this way does not mean everyone else will! How is he going to become very wealthy? What's your definition of "very wealthy"?
Even if his conviction is overturned no one is going to declare him innocent. Many will still consider him guilty. And no one knows how the youger generations will view the case who were either not around or too young to remember. Then there's a large immigrant population most of whom are probably unfamiliar with the case. What role would SM play? Would someone want to take a pop at him? PR dream? Or disaster?
If released he'll probably end up the same as David Baine. Down here in NZ half the population still think he's guilty.
But what ever happens I cannot see Mr Bamber getting the re-trial which he should have got decades ago.
-
If released he'll probably end up the same as David Baine. Down here in NZ half the population still think he's guilty.
But what ever happens I cannot see Mr Bamber getting the re-trial which he should have got decades ago.
Hey, I didn't realise you're from my favourite wine producing country! Welcome!
No he will never secure a retrial as almost all the exhibits have been destroyed and many witnesses are deceased. The best he can hope for is a CoA hearing and acquittal.
Yes I think you're right if he is acquitted there will be many who still think him guilty.
-
Haha
Don't be argumentative for the sake of it
I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it :P I just don't see an acquittal as a panacea. I guarantee there will be many who will still consider JB guilty. As I said it will depend on how the younger generations perceive it and air it on SM. Hacks for the mainstream are in the main lazy fcukers. They will go with what's easiest and what sells.
Then you will have pressure from victim groups who are set up to support the likes of Colin Caffell. Who undoubtedly is a victim. Publishing groups and production companies, who have a brand to protect, will need to be mindful of this.
The relatives are likely to come out of it badly. Particularly AE's avarice which is on display for all to see. Most will call into her question her ability to move into WHF shortly aftewards and remain thereafter.
-
Rumour has it you are putting him up in your spare bedroom till he gets a place ;D
JackieD thinks he should go and stay with her friend who lives on a sparsely populated island to enable him to readjust :)
-
I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it :P I just don't see an acquittal as a panacea. I guarantee there will be many who will still consider JB guilty. As I said it will depend on how the younger generations perceive it and air it on SM. Hacks for the mainstream are in the main lazy fcukers. They will go with what's easiest and what sells.
Then you will have pressure from victim groups who are set up to support the likes of Colin Caffell. Who undoubtedly is a victim. Publishing groups and production companies, who have a brand to protect, will need to be mindful of this.
The relatives are likely to come out of it badly. Particularly AE's avarice which is on display for all to see. Most will call into her question her ability to move into WHF shortly aftewards and remain thereafter.
Can two years really be considered as being "shortly afewards"? To my knowledge, WHF was rented from a Trust. I imagine, that after the initial interest in the massacre had died down, all potentials were seriously vetted! Not that I think there'd have been queues of them. Not many would relish the idea, I imagine? It maybe, that rather than let it stand empty, Ann and her family were invited to take up the tenancy?
-
I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it :P I just don't see an acquittal as a panacea. I guarantee there will be many who will still consider JB guilty. As I said it will depend on how the younger generations perceive it and air it on SM. Hacks for the mainstream are in the main lazy fcukers. They will go with what's easiest and what sells.
Then you will have pressure from victim groups who are set up to support the likes of Colin Caffell. Who undoubtedly is a victim. Publishing groups and production companies, who have a brand to protect, will need to be mindful of this.
The relatives are likely to come out of it badly. Particularly AE's avarice which is on display for all to see. Most will call into her question her ability to move into WHF shortly aftewards and remain thereafter.
I don't think JB after 40 years of imprisonment would probably give a shit what people thought on the event of an aquittal. He is 64 years old, he went away at 24. His life has been obliterated anyway. At this stage in his life if he is freed it's a case of salvaging some kind of life ( from his personal perspective)
He's lived on the landings with some of the UKs most dangerous people ( of which he himself is currently deemed as being) he is thick skinned and hardened.
-
Can two years really be considered as being "shortly afewards"? To my knowledge, WHF was rented from a Trust. I imagine, that after the initial interest in the massacre had died down, all potentials were seriously vetted! Not that I think there'd have been queues of them. Not many would relish the idea, I imagine? It maybe, that rather than let it stand empty, Ann and her family were invited to take up the tenancy?
I don't know exactly when she moved in. The murders took place nearly 40 years ago. If she moved in around 2 years afterwards that's around 5% of 40 years, so yes I think most would consider "shortly afterwards" an apt description. Even if it was yesterday the fact she is happy to call such a place 'home' would I am sure offend most people.
-
Can two years really be considered as being "shortly afewards"? To my knowledge, WHF was rented from a Trust. I imagine, that after the initial interest in the massacre had died down, all potentials were seriously vetted! Not that I think there'd have been queues of them. Not many would relish the idea, I imagine? It maybe, that rather than let it stand empty, Ann and her family were invited to take up the tenancy?
Whitehouse farm remained vacated until 1990 when AE and PE took up tenancy.
-
I don't think JB after 40 years of imprisonment would probably give a shit what people thought on the event of an aquittal. He is 64 years old, he went away at 24. His life has been obliterated anyway. At this stage in his life if he is freed it's a case of salvaging some kind of freedom. ( from his personal perspective)
He's lived on the landings with some of the UKs most dangerous people ( of which he himself is currently deemed as being) he is thick skinned and hardened.
Living in a Cat A prison for almost 40 years is completely different to living on the outside as a 'free' man. No one has any idea how he would adjust including JB.
-
Whitehouse farm remained vacated until 1990 when AE and PE took up tenancy.
Please provide a source.
-
Living in a Cat A prison for almost 40 years is completely different to living on the outside as a 'free' man. No one has any idea how he would adjust including JB.
That is correct.
-
That is correct.
I'm always correct! You should know this by now!
A more interesting story over JB's 40 years of incarceration, which is largely known about, would be, imo, JM's truth.
-
I'm always correct! You should know this by now!
A more interesting story over JB's 40 years of incarceration, which is largely known about, would be, imo, JM's truth.
Maybe Julie might invite JB over for Christmas.
All jokes aside what will happen with JM if Jeremy Bamber walks out of jail a free man?
Will she face charges of perverting the course of justice?
Will Jeremy mount a private prosecution?
-
Please provide a source.
-
I don't know exactly when she moved in. The murders took place nearly 40 years ago. If she moved in around 2 years afterwards that's around 5% of 40 years, so yes I think most would consider "shortly afterwards" an apt description. Even if it was yesterday the fact she is happy to call such a place 'home' would I am sure offend most people.
Those figures didn't equate when I first joined the forum and Ann was almost being accused of moving in within days of the massacre. Now, that could justifiably, had it happened, have been called "shortly". I rather think "most people" would be offended by anyone who was "happy to call such a place 'home'". Do you think the house should have been demolished?
-
Those figures didn't equate when I first joined the forum and Ann was almost being accused of moving in within days of the massacre. Now, that could justifiably, had it happened, have been called "shortly". I rather think "most people" would be offended by anyone who was "happy to call such a place 'home'". Do you think the house should have been demolished?
Seems to have been a drawn out affair in fairness, 1990 four years post trial, a court battle with JB in 1989 And twenty other people applying for tenancy.
-
Seems to have been a drawn out affair in fairness, 1990 four years post trial, a court battle with JB in 1989 And twenty other people applying for tenancy.
I would be interesting to know if AE applied for the tenancy, or if, after it was decided that other candidates were unsuitable, she was offered it? It appears that she'd been a suitable caretaker during the 5 years it was vacant.
-
I would be interesting to know if AE applied for the tenancy, or if, after it was decided that other candidates were unsuitable, she was offered it? It appears that she'd been a suitable caretaker during the 5 years it was vacant.
Agree, I'm unsure to be honest.
-
Voted no, hope to be wrong
Voted Yes, hope to be wrong 🙈 No I really hope his case gets referred, I think there will always be doubt otherwise Gringo, I don’t think there is anyone 100% of guilt or innocence, maybe a referral to the COA will let fresh eyes look at the case
-
I can picture Bamber on the sofa of this morning.
-
Voted Yes, hope to be wrong 🙈 No I really hope his case gets referred, I think there will always be doubt otherwise Gringo, I don’t think there is anyone 100% of guilt or innocence, maybe a referral to the COA will let fresh eyes look at the case
Long process, a COA hearing could be some years away yet even on event of successful referral.
-
Long process, a COA hearing could be some years away yet even on event of successful referral.
Yes I know that, although wouldn’t it matter how strong the evidence is?
-
Voted Yes, hope to be wrong 🙈 No I really hope his case gets referred, I think there will always be doubt otherwise Gringo, I don’t think there is anyone 100% of guilt or innocence, maybe a referral to the COA will let fresh eyes look at the case
I think it should be referred HB and hope that it is. I will still hope for the best.
-
I can picture Bamber on the sofa of this morning.
You are starstruck after meeting Bamber once 30 years ago.
-
Maybe Julie might invite JB over for Christmas.
All jokes aside what will happen with JM if Jeremy Bamber walks out of jail a free man?
Will she face charges of perverting the course of justice?
Will Jeremy mount a private prosecution?
I doubt she will face charges of perverting the course of justice. Do you know of any witnesses, lay or professional, that have when convictions are quashed?
I don't blame her at all. I blame DS Jones for weaponising her.
-
Those figures didn't equate when I first joined the forum and Ann was almost being accused of moving in within days of the massacre. Now, that could justifiably, had it happened, have been called "shortly". I rather think "most people" would be offended by anyone who was "happy to call such a place 'home'". Do you think the house should have been demolished?
I would not want to live in such a place regardless of whether or not I was related to the victims and regardless of the time lapse. I guess at the end of the day its personal opinion.
There's now a legal duty on house sellers to disclose any negative history about the property. Appreciate WHF is tenanted. If I remember correctly it is owned by a charity? Is the charity connected to the CoE?
-
I can picture Bamber on the sofa of this morning.
Suited and booted in Hugo Boss...opens his jacket..."Look who's the Boss now"!
-
I would not want to live in such a place regardless of whether or not I was related to the victims and regardless of the time lapse. I guess at the end of the day its personal opinion.
There's now a legal duty on house sellers to disclose any negative history about the property. Appreciate WHF is tenanted. If I remember correctly it is owned by a charity? Is the charity connected to the CoE?
I believe it is on both counts.
-
Suited and booted in Hugo Boss...opens his jacket..."Look who's the Boss now"!
Like father, like son. Except that dad doesn't have the same expensive tastes -
"Have a gander everybody, I've gone for a Burton's!"
-
Those figures didn't equate when I first joined the forum and Ann was almost being accused of moving in within days of the massacre. Now, that could justifiably, had it happened, have been called "shortly". I rather think "most people" would be offended by anyone who was "happy to call such a place 'home'". Do you think the house should have been demolished?
Yes definitely.
-
NO! Definitely not.
-
You are starstruck after meeting Bamber once 30 years ago.
More than once, same wing for a significant period.
Starstruck?
-
Like father, like son. Except that dad doesn't have the same expensive tastes -
"Have a gander everybody, I've gone for a Burton's!"
Yeah spitting image of his old man.
-
I doubt she will face charges of perverting the course of justice. Do you know of any witnesses, lay or professional, that have when convictions are quashed?
I don't blame her at all. I blame DS Jones for weaponising her.
DS Jones is dead and buried.
End of the day she gave evidence.
Wonder if Jez would mount a private prosecution?
-
I believe it is on both counts.
Yes. Here they are:
https://www.henrysmithcharity.org.uk/about-us/#:~:text=The%20Henry%20Smith%20Charity%20has,%C2%A346.4%20million%20in%202023.
-
Like father, like son. Except that dad doesn't have the same expensive tastes -
"Have a gander everybody, I've gone for a Burton's!"
Nice one! 8)
-
DS Jones is dead and buried.
End of the day she gave evidence.
Wonder if Jez would mount a private prosecution?
She was just 21 years of age up against a middle aged experienced police officer.
I would think Jez's efforts would be better spent pursuing his relatives. That's assuming of course he ever get the opportunity to do so!
-
She was just 21 years of age up against a middle aged experienced police officer.
I would think Jez's efforts would be better spent pursuing his relatives. That's assuming of course he ever get the opportunity to do so!
In the first world war men volunteered underage.
Not going to break into rhetoric but you get where I am leading to. " the I'm just a young girl/boy so that means what ever I do wrong I should escape punishment doesn't wash with me. I myself when younger did stupid things and paid the price. Take account of your actions.
If JB walks free, Mugford should face charges.
-
In the first world war men volunteered underage.
Not going to break into rhetoric but you get where I am leading to. " the I'm just a young girl/boy so that means what ever I do wrong I should escape punishment doesn't wash with me. I myself when younger did stupid things and paid the price. Take account of your actions.
If JB walks free, Mugford should face charges.
JB was not convicted on JM's testimony. He was convicted on the blood evidence. JM had nothing to do with the blood evidence.
-
The powers that be will never admit it Rob.
Which is the issue.
The "powers that be" don't have to admit they were wrong. The CCRC are independent of the the police, the CPS and the government, as is the Court of Appeal.
If the 1,000+ page dossier really is fully of lots of "inarguable" grounds like the Campaign Team claim it is, there is no reason for the CCRC not to refer.
The CCRC would look very silly if they lost at a Judicial Review!
-
In the first world war men volunteered underage.
Not going to break into rhetoric but you get where I am leading to. " the I'm just a young girl/boy so that means what ever I do wrong I should escape punishment doesn't wash with me. I myself when younger did stupid things and paid the price. Take account of your actions.
If JB walks free, Mugford should face charges.
Bet there was a lot of propaganda.
You acted on your own free will.
The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments that demonstrated how people can be forced to obey orders from an authority figure, even if those orders go against their own conscience.
-
JB was not convicted on JM's testimony. He was convicted on the blood evidence. JM had nothing to do with the blood evidence.
That's true, but if JB is innocent of this crime Mugford went on the stand took the oath and spoke a load of bollocks which was a contributing factor as to why an innocent man was jailed for life.
I still agree with the late Anthony Arlidge, that JM was the strongest piece they had.
-
Bet there was a lot of propaganda.
You acted on your own free will.
The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments that demonstrated how people can be forced to obey orders from an authority figure, even if those orders go against their own conscience.
I did and so did Mugford.
Do you believe Stan and Julie were intimate?
-
The "powers that be" don't have to admit they were wrong. The CCRC are independent of the the police, the CPS and the government, as is the Court of Appeal.
If the 1,000+ page dossier really is fully of lots of "inarguable" grounds like the Campaign Team claim it is, there is no reason for the CCRC not to refer.
The CCRC would look very silly if they lost at a Judicial Review!
You misread my point.
By the powers that be will never admit I was talking about him getting a succsefull COA aquittal. Much like 2002, one ground unless bombshell won't be enough to quash the conviction is other evidence at trial remains unchallenged which led to a route to which Mugford did .I reference Victor Temple QC 2002.
Looking beyond, but a successful ccrc referral is not his biggest problem.
-
I did and so did Mugford.
Do you believe Stan and Julie were intimate?
If they were it would have been down to what was in it for her. Stan not exactly an oil painting.
-
If they were it would have been down to what was in it for her. Stan not exactly an oil painting.
I would disagree with that -
-
That's true, but if JB is innocent of this crime Mugford went on the stand took the oath and spoke a load of bollocks which was a contributing factor as to why an innocent man was jailed for life.
I still agree with the late Anthony Arlidge, that JM was the strongest piece they had.
Well AA is wrong and you are too.
If JM was the strongest piece they had the CCRC would not have refererred to CoA in 2002 based on the blood evidence. The blood WAS by far the strongest evidence.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/bamber-jeremy/
-
I did and so did Mugford.
No she did not if police protocol was not followed. Its called an abuse of power.
Do you believe Stan and Julie were intimate?
No. Why are you asking such a question?
-
Well AA is wrong and you are too.
If JM was the strongest piece they had the CCRC would not have refererred to CoA in 2002 based on the blood evidence. The blood WAS by far the strongest evidence.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/decision/bamber-jeremy/
That is not true.
Appeals have been heard over the years on numerous cases when put forward on a particular ground only to be shut down at a COA hearing when a respondent QC/KC highlights other evidence that has remained unaffected.
-
Many of Bambers grounds at his 2002 appeal hearing were almost mocked. The three judges scathing of some almost.
-
You misread my point.
By the powers that be will never admit I was talking about him getting a succsefull COA aquittal. Much like 2002, one ground unless bombshell won't be enough to quash the conviction is other evidence at trial remains unchallenged which led to a route to which Mugford did .I reference Victor Temple QC 2002.
Looking beyond, but a successful ccrc referral is not his biggest problem.
JB needs to submit evidence that meet the criteria set out by the CPS:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
He submits material that goes no way to meeting the above criteria hence its rejected.
-
No she did not if police protocol was not followed. Its called an abuse of power.
She approached DS Jones.
He didn't force her in a corner, unless you have evidence of which?
-
No she did not if police protocol was not followed. Its called an abuse of power.
No. Why are you asking such a question?
-
That is not true.
Appeals have been heard over the years on numerous cases when put forward on a particular ground only to be shut down at a COA hearing when a respondent QC/KC highlights other evidence that has remained unaffected.
We are not talking about other cases; we're talking about JB's. The blood and how it came to be there is by far the strongest evidence so it is this that needs undermining before other aspects can be considered.
-
Many of Bambers grounds at his 2002 appeal hearing were almost mocked. The three judges scathing of some almost.
I am not surprised they were mocked. At best they were weak.
-
She approached DS Jones.
He didn't force her in a corner, unless you have evidence of which?
What evidence do you have that she approached DS Jones?
What evidenced do you have that he didn't force her into a corner?
-
What evidenced do you have that he didn't force her into a corner?
What evidence have you of him doing so?
You are alleging a copper abusing his power, you are saying Mugford was cocered into sending an innocent man down for life. You are saying this man orchestrated this.
-
What evidence have you of him doing so?
You are alleging a copper abusing his power, you are saying Mugford was cocered into sending an innocent man down for life. You are saying this man orchestrated this.
She did not send him down for life. The lab/blood/drawback phenomenon sent him down for life.
May I suggest you familiarise yourself with JM's 2002 wit stats.
-
She did not send him down for life. The lab/blood/drawback phenomenon sent him down for life.
May I suggest you familiarise yourself with JM's 2002 wit stats.
Il rephrase, as a prosecution witness in the 1986 trial, where is your evidence to show that DS Jones made her do this?
Let me make it clear I'm open to all possibilities but without foundation it's a red herring isn't it?
-
JB needs to submit evidence that meet the criteria set out by the CPS:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
He submits material that goes no way to meeting the above criteria hence its rejected.
Yes, and so far he has failed.
Time will tell. Who knows.
-
Il rephrase, as a prosecution witness in the 1986 trial, where is your evidence to show that DS Jones made her do this?
Let me make it clear I'm open to all possibilities but without foundation it's a red herring isn't it?
Have you read her 2002 wit stats?
-
Have you read her 2002 wit stats?
Sometime ago yes.
-
Sometime ago yes.
And you think this was police protocol?
-
And you think this was police protocol?
Are you referring to the midland bank Alan Dovey thing?
I would have to have another read.
-
In lomaxs book JB claims he was interviewed without a solicitor.
In the transcripts he has a MR Richard Pirie and a Mr Bruce Bowler represent him.
Was he interviewed other times? Certainly wasn't interviewed pre charge on his final arrest.
-
Are you referring to the midland bank Alan Dovey thing?
I would have to have another read.
No. I am referring to the fact she was 'placed' in the police training college and shut off from the outside world and supervised at all times.
-
No. I am referring to the fact she was 'placed' in the police training college and shut off from the outside world and supervised at all times.
Supervised for a year?
Do you think Mary Mugford knew Julie was lying? She was also a prosecution witness.
-
In lomaxs book JB claims he was interviewed without a solicitor.
In the transcripts he has a MR Richard Pirie and a Mr Bruce Bowler represent him.
Was he interviewed other times? Certainly wasn't interviewed pre charge on his final arrest.
Why would I be impressed with anything Lomax said or didn't say? He does not even get right the most basics about the blood.
-
Supervised for a year?
Do you think Mary Mugford knew Julie was lying? She was also a prosecution witness.
Mary Mugford was not holed up in the police training college. No one knows what went on between DS Jones and JM other than the pair.
-
Why would I be impressed with anything Lomax said or didn't say? He does not even get right the most basics about the blood.
I don't expect you to be impressed. I am just interested as to when JBs interviews took place without a solicitor. This is what Lomax claims JB told him.
Unless Lomax is bullshitting.
-
Mary Mugford was not holed up in the police training college. No one knows what went on between DS Jones and JM other than the pair.
No but I'm sure in that year period Mary Mugford and Julie Mugford met and spoke on plenty of occasions, mother and daughter.
Funny how she didn't unburden herself to her mother. Guess Mary is in on it too.
-
I don't expect you to be impressed. I am just interested as to when JBs interviews took place without a solicitor. This is what Lomax claims JB told him.
Unless Lomax is bullshitting.
You can see from the statements in the library here which ones were with/without a solicitor present.
-
No but I'm sure in that year period Mary Mugford and Julie Mugford met and spoke on plenty of occasions, mother and daughter.
Funny how she didn't unburden herself to her mother. Guess Mary is in on it too.
Why would she unburden herself if DS Jones did a good job? She refers to her mother in her 2002 wit stats stating that she was not even allowed to contact her mother.
-
You can see from the statements in the library here which ones were with/without a solicitor present.
Yes I have read the transcripts on many occasions.
He had legal representation throughout them all, Pirie and Bowler.
Which contrasts with his claim to have been interviewed without legal representation.
Unless other interviews took place at a point in time.
-
I don't expect you to be impressed. I am just interested as to when JBs interviews took place without a solicitor. This is what Lomax claims JB told him.
Unless Lomax is bullshitting.
He did not have solicitor in his interviews on the 8th and 9th of September. But he did on the 10th, 11th and 12th.
-
Why would she unburden herself if DS Jones did a good job? She refers to her mother in her 2002 wit stats stating that she was not even allowed to contact her mother.
I don't tend to believe that to be true. She was a witness, she wasn't on bail with conditions facing charges. It would be a deprivation of freedoms.
-
I don't tend to believe that to be true. She was a witness, she wasn't on bail with conditions facing charges. It would be a deprivation of freedoms.
According to her 2002 wit stats she was not allowed contact with the outside world including her mother.
-
He did not have solicitor in his interviews on the 8th and 9th of September. But he did on the 10th, 11th and 12th.
Correct Dave, I have just re read. Taff conducted them. Seem more like a fact finding excersise than a grilling.
-
According to her 2002 wit stats she was not allowed contact with the outside world including her mother.
Outside world?
Bamber was banged up on remand.
Jesus, who they were afraid would get to her?
-
Outside world?
Bamber was banged up on remand.
Jesus, who they were afraid would get to her?
We are talking why she was brainwashed and holed up in the police training college. You really need to read the material CAREFULLY.
-
From todays Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/feb/11/former-solicitor-general-uks-miscarriage-of-justice-watchdog-is-beyond-a-joke
-
Bamber will never prove his innocence. The police, relatives, experts, legal system & JM will never retract.
However he would have been more than happy with a release on a technicality since 1986. And more than happy now.
Upon any release, he can start touting the media for deals. Himself & his supporters can say the release on a technicality proves his innocence.
-
Bamber will never prove his innocence. The police, relatives, experts, legal system & JM will never retract.
However he would have been more than happy with a release on a technicality since 1986. And more than happy now.
Upon any release, he can start touting the media for deals. Himself & his supporters can say the release on a technicality proves his innocence.
Now now Adam! You dont know what JB would be happy with or what he is thinking!
-
From todays Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/feb/11/former-solicitor-general-uks-miscarriage-of-justice-watchdog-is-beyond-a-joke
Interesting article Bubo
-
If released he'll probably end up the same as David Baine. Down here in NZ half the population still think he's guilty.
But what ever happens I cannot see Mr Bamber getting the re-trial which he should have got decades ago.
They are sensible people then. I thought he might end up in Australia. The climate has more in common with Papua New Guinea.
-
Bamber will never prove his innocence. The police, relatives, experts, legal system & JM will never retract.
However he would have been more than happy with a release on a technicality since 1986. And more than happy now.
Upon any release, he can start touting the media for deals. Himself & his supporters can say the release on a technicality proves his innocence.
I would imagine at 64 and with time slipping by he just wants out by any means nessecary. So I do agree with you in that sense.
-
If there was a technicality which could be exploited, surely that would have been found in the first 10 years. As was the case with Sion Jenkins & Barry George.
However he has been trying for 40 years & has a lot people working for him. So he may do what he has said he will do - 'win this'.
-
If there was a technicality which could be exploited, surely that would have been found in the first 10 years. As was the case with Sion Jenkins & Barry George.
However he has been trying for 40 years & has a lot people working for him. So he may do what he has said he will do - 'win this'.
Listen, let's not bullshit ourselves here. And let's look at it from a neutral perspective.
He's been banged up for 40 years. One could easily argue his campaign is his way of escaping the pressures and monotous of prison life.
-
Listen, let's not bullshit ourselves here. And let's look at it from a neutral perspective.
He's been banged up for 40 years. One could easily argue his campaign is his way of escaping the pressures and monotous of prison life.
Agree it's been a way of life for him since 1986.
-
Agree it's been a way of life for him since 1986.
... and when this CCRC application fails and his subsequent judicial review fails, maybe he and his supporters will finally realise that he will never leave prison.
-
... and when this CCRC application fails and his subsequent judicial review fails, maybe he and his supporters will finally realise that he will never leave prison.
He will carry on till he dies.
It's all he has.
-
I thought a decision on the 2021 CCRC submission is due this month?
-
I thought a decision on the 2021 CCRC submission is due this month?
Correct, it was. Now, the decision on the 3 main grounds is due to be made in April.
-
Correct, it was. Now, the decision on the 3 main grounds is due to be made in April.
Oh I will look forward to that! What about the lesser grounds ie those that don't form the 3 main grounds? Or is it a case of the less said, the better?
-
Oh I will look forward to that! What about the lesser grounds ie those that don't form the 3 main grounds? Or is it a case of the less said, the better?
Interesting question. The Campaign Team haven't said much except getting excited a while ago when the CCRC were nearly finished looking at ground 2 and more recently, the CCRC are to have a committee meeting to decide on "the main three grounds" in April.
If the decision is a no, the CCRC will produce a Provisional Statement of Reasons and then look at the other less detailed grounds.
-
Oh I will look forward to that! What about the lesser grounds ie those that don't form the 3 main grounds? Or is it a case of the less said, the better?
Maybe his grounds should have all been on the treacherous Stan Jones.
-
Interesting question. The Campaign Team haven't said much except getting excited a while ago when the CCRC were nearly finished looking at ground 2 and more recently, the CCRC are to have a committee meeting to decide on "the main three grounds" in April.
If the decision is a no, the CCRC will produce a Provisional Statement of Reasons and then look at the other less detailed grounds.
Interesting, thanks. Something to look forward to in April!
-
Maybe his grounds should have all been on the treacherous Stan Jones.
Not maybe but absolutely and of course the lab too. Sadly DS Jones and Ronald Outteridge are deceased so not around to receive their comeuppance. But the relatives are still around and hopefully time will catch up. Not that I'm vindictive :P
-
Interesting, thanks. Something to look forward to in April!
We might not get the full story for several years or we might never get it. The Campaign Team are very secretive. For example, there are 10 grounds, 8 submitted in March 2021 and 2 added later. The 2 later grounds are the Aga Burns and another secret one.
The Campaign Team will keep dragging it out by adding further bits of "new evidence" (e.g. the New Yorker article) or replying to the CCRC's Provisional Statement of Reasons which representations as to why the CCRC should reconsider.
-
We might not get the full story for several years or we might never get it. The Campaign Team are very secretive. For example, there are 10 grounds, 8 submitted in March 2021 and 2 added later. The 2 later grounds are the Aga Burns and another secret one.
The Campaign Team will keep dragging it out by adding further bits of "new evidence" (e.g. the New Yorker article) or replying to the CCRC's Provisional Statement of Reasons which representations as to why the CCRC should reconsider.
Oooo I wonder what the secret one is!?
I read the New Yorker article but don't recall reading anything relevant to a CCRC submission.
-
Oooo I wonder what the secret one is!?
I read the New Yorker article but don't recall reading anything relevant to a CCRC submission.
The New Yorker article has been sent to the CCRC for them to consider, along with the 1,000+ page March 2021 submissions and the two more recent submissions.
Even more recent to that, they have also sent the CCRC a picture of the silencer without a label as further proof of there being two silencers.
-
Bamber will be sound, he's a strong character.
Guaranteed will probably make his relatives life difficult. In the legal sense. Private prosecution.
But then Bamber would have the burden of proof. He would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had framed him or helped frame him.
If he lost the case, he would have a massive Costs Order against him.
-
The New Yorker article has been sent to the CCRC for them to consider, along with the 1,000+ page March 2021 submissions and the two more recent submissions.
Even more recent to that, they have also sent the CCRC a picture of the silencer without a label as further proof of there being two silencers.
1000+ page. If at first you don't succeed....
Silencer with no label on. It must have been Sheila.
-
Cook & Sgt Bernard's WS are online.
Cook moved Sheila's hands during photographs to show blood stains on her nightdress.
Think the CT are being optimistic saying Cook picked it up then opened & closed it pre photos. No reason to.
-
The New Yorker article has been sent to the CCRC for them to consider, along with the 1,000+ page March 2021 submissions and the two more recent submissions.
Even more recent to that, they have also sent the CCRC a picture of the silencer without a label as further proof of there being two silencers.
I can see there will be some very unhappy bunnies here in the not too distant future.
-
But then Bamber would have the burden of proof. He would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had framed him or helped frame him.
If he lost the case, he would have a massive Costs Order against him.
Are we talking about JB bringing a private prosecution against his relatives for framing him resulting in his conviction/incarceration or loss of his inheritance or both?
If he is acquitted it will only be on very compelling grounds in which case I am sure the judicial system would want to see him restored to a position financially to the one he would have been in had he not been found guilty ie inherited his parents estate circa 500k gross in 1985. In which case the relatives would have to settle. I doubt it would go to court. Lawyers for all sides (Eatons, Boutflours, Pargeters and Woods) would agree best to settle out of court.
-
Are we talking about JB bringing a private prosecution against his relatives for framing him resulting in his conviction/incarceration or loss of his inheritance or both?
If he is acquitted it will only be on very compelling grounds in which case I am sure the judicial system would want to see him restored to a position financially to the one he would have been in had he not been found guilty ie inherited his parents estate circa 500k gross in 1985. In which case the relatives would have to settle. I doubt it would go to court. Lawyers for all sides (Eatons, Boutflours, Pargeters and Woods) would agree best to settle out of court.
Even if he is acquitted, the relatives could still argue in a civil court that on balance of probability, he killed his family.
-
But then Bamber would have the burden of proof. He would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had framed him or helped frame him.
If he lost the case, he would have a massive Costs Order against him.
Maybe so, but he would want revenge and I believe he'd go down this route.
-
Maybe so, but he would want revenge and I believe he'd go down this route.
Believe his final years would be -
A cheeky compo claim from the legal system. Similar to Barry George & Sion Jenkins, fail.
Would also look to make money from media deals as quickly as possible.
Then he would want some jolly ups as a famous person. Who knows, Brett might re surface.
-
Believe his final years would be -
A cheeky compo claim from the legal system. Similar to Barry George & Sion Jenkins, fail.
Would also look to make money from media deals as quickly as possible.
Then he would want some jolly ups as a famous person. Who knows, Brett might re surface.
He told Lomax he intended to buy a Russian bride.
-
Then he would want some jolly ups as a famous person. Who knows, Brett might re surface.
Like anything the hype would die down and he'd be left to face his own battles.