Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on July 24, 2025, 08:25:PM
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/claude-vs-the-criminal-cases-review-51b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5m0d4c&fbclid=IwY2xjawLvZ3pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgNpt55C2p1qZ-BKk2aTmOi5ylGN9N8-le-RkZFIqQZlv7tiuWRN-Lgl65S4_aem_09eVclHF-y-lMpdN4hOqBw&triedRedirect=true (https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/claude-vs-the-criminal-cases-review-51b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5m0d4c&fbclid=IwY2xjawLvZ3pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgNpt55C2p1qZ-BKk2aTmOi5ylGN9N8-le-RkZFIqQZlv7tiuWRN-Lgl65S4_aem_09eVclHF-y-lMpdN4hOqBw&triedRedirect=true)
I have also been told "Pc Milbank's interview will be in the New Yorker’s “In the Dark” podcast series at the end of September/beginning of October. it will contain audio of Heidi Blake’s interview with Nicholas Milbank."
-
Looks like 'The Doc Maker' is Guest29835.
-
Looks like 'The Doc Maker' is Guest29835.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
Long posts. He mentions Ozkans Razor & Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Which he mentioned in his forum.
His forum has not had any posts for over a year. So has moved on.
-
He felt strongly about his 'guilty but would not convict' stance on here. Then created his own forum to repeat that.
Is now creating vlogs on it.
-
His vlogs are long and well written. Don't agree with most of it.
You have to subscribe to read more!
-
He was smart enough to create a forum. So would be smart enough to create the vlogs.
Could be wrong.
-
Looks like 'The Doc Maker' is Guest29835.
No he isn't, but could be on George Barwood's Farcebook site with a different id.
-
I was informed a while ago that Eric Allison had spoken to Milbank. He made no mention of speaking to anyone over the line he was monitoring.
-
Long posts. He mentions Ozkans Razor & Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Which he mentioned in his forum.
His forum has not had any posts for over a year. So has moved on.
Is that better than a BIC?
-
No he isn't, but could be on George Barwood's Farcebook site with a different id.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
There's one who writes in a similar condescending way.
-
He was smart enough to create a forum. So would be smart enough to create the vlogs.
Could be wrong.
You are wrong. I know who the DocMaker is. He is not the former member you are talking about. He firmly believes in JB's innocence.
-
You are wrong. I know who the DocMaker is. He is not the former member you are talking about. He firmly believes in JB's innocence.
Is he part of the campaign team?
-
Is he part of the campaign team?
He is not listed, but he is certainly closely associated with the CT.
-
He is not listed, but he is certainly closely associated with the CT.
Only certain people, like him, are trusted with access to things like the CCRC's Statement of Reasons, Milbank's recent Witness Statement etc.
-
And pally with Philip Walker - https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=fugWMBTvAcyJH_-v&t=61
-
Only certain people, like him, are trusted with access to things like the CCRC's Statement of Reasons, Milbank's recent Witness Statement etc.
That is correct. These things are not published by the CT.
-
And pally with Philip Walker - https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=fugWMBTvAcyJH_-v&t=61
That is right. They have worked closely on this.
-
That is right. They have worked closely on this.
Having dispensed with the services of Philip Boyce, they repeated the fruitless experiment with a whole hog's leg -
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
The Doc Maker says he trawled through internet forums.
Says his journey started 4 years ago when watching the ITV drama. Surprised as that paints Bamber in a negative light.
Maybe he has a grudge against the authorities.
-
The Doc Maker has certainly been very prolific in the last year. Creating over 40 vlogs.
Some are long and that's without subscribing to read more!
-
The ITV doc was Jan 2020. Guest29835 joined this forum in June 2020.
The Doc Makers vlogs started a year ago as Guest29835's forum had died.
Seems he's determined to find a technicality.
-
The ITV doc was Jan 2020. Guest29835 joined this forum in June 2020.
The Doc Makers vlogs started a year ago as Guest29835's forum had died.
Seems he's determined to find a technicality.
They're different people - https://brclg.com/project/true-crime-feature/
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
The Doc Maker says he trawled through internet forums.
Says his journey started 4 years ago when watching the ITV drama. Surprised as that paints Bamber in a negative light.
Maybe he has a grudge against the authorities.
Yes, he is very much into the grand conspiracy theory. He is saying that 40 years on, Essex police are still framing Jeremy, either forging his witness statement or coercing him into making a false one before he died.
He also said that CCRC caseworker are under some sort of pressure (from whom and how???) not to refer too many cases to the Court of Appeal.
Also, if he initially believed Bamber was guilty, how come the Campaign Team allowed him into the Holy of Holies, where only the high priest if permitted to go, to see all the "new evidence" of 347,000 documents and things like the Provisional Statement of Documents.
-
And pally with Philip Walker - https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=fugWMBTvAcyJH_-v&t=61
I decided to have a look at this but became sidetracked by the comments which followed! What rubbish! A certain Cadwalleder -I trust he's not the one I know!- ex policeman with a huge resentment against Essex Police, and whose agenda reveals itself as he goes further in to his narrative, hugely appears to believe in a massive stitchup. Either he never explains why, or I fell asleep before I read it!
-
I decided to have a look at this but became sidetracked by the comments which followed! What rubbish! A certain Cadwalleder -I trust he's not the one I know!- ex policeman with a huge resentment against Essex Police, and whose agenda reveals itself as he goes further in to his narrative, hugely appears to believe in a massive stitchup. Either he never explains why, or I fell asleep before I read it!
Is it this comment?
-
Is it this comment?
One of the many, Roch. He, eventually! reveals himself to have 'left' under, what sounds as if it may have been, less than auspicious circumstances. We would all agree with him that the investigation was a shambles -many of us feel this was down to JB's initial input- but when someone who wasn't there to witness what happened, has nothing good to say about it, or those who were part of it, it causes me to wonder how much of what they say is truth.
-
Just all getting too cult like and insular.
-
Seems Guest29835's journey was -
In prison. Gets grudge against authorities. Dates unknown.
Watches WHF drama. Jan 2020. Reads up on case.
Joins this forum June 2020.
Gets second permanent ban 2022.
Creates his own forum 2022.
Starts vlogging 2024 as his own forum defunct.
-
Guest29835's stance has always been if things submitted to the COA, CCRC & media were included at the 1986 trial, he may have been aquited.
We will never know. However everything submitted to the CCRC & COA has since been dismissed. Except DNA evidence which was successful at the CCRC but unsuccessful at the COA. So no guarantee he would have been aquited.
Some of these things his lawyers would refuse to include in his 1986 trial as they are too ridiculous.
Also unlikely he had the finance to drag out the trial to months rather than weeks & numb the jury to submission. As OJ did a decade later.
But he's entitled to search for a technicality.
-
Seems Guest29835's journey was -
In prison. Gets grudge against authorities. Dates unknown.
Watches WHF drama. Jan 2020. Reads up on case.
Joins forum June 2020.
Gets second permanent ban 2022.
Creates his own forum 2022.
Starts vlogging 2024 as forum defunct.
I dont think he merely watched the drama. I think his interest came way before 2020.
He himself told me he had corresponded with Jeremy many years ago and they had spoke on the phone.
-
His guilty but would not convict is 40 years later. With all the internet bluster & appeals.
In 1986 he would have convicted.
-
Seems Guest29835's journey was -
In prison. Gets grudge against authorities. Dates unknown.
Watches WHF drama. Jan 2020. Reads up on case.
Joins this forum June 2020.
Gets second permanent ban 2022.
Creates his own forum 2022.
Starts vlogging 2024 as his own forum defunct.
This is getting tedious Adam. You have been told that QCC is not the DocMaker. That is a fact, not a matter of opinion.
-
I dont think he merely watched the drama. I think his interest came way before 2020.
He himself told me he had corresponded with Jeremy many years ago and they had spoke on the phone.
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
He says it started from watching the drama.
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
He says it started from watching the drama.
We only have his word for it, though.
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
He says it started from watching the drama.
Im on about QC.
Ngb has said QC is not the docmaker
-
Im on about QC.
Ngb has said QC is not the docmaker
Do you think it is coincidence that the Doc Maker started posting after Guest29835's forum became defunct?
Both of them use the term 'Oskan's Razor'.
Both say they trawled forums & have a dig at them.
-
So where is Guest29835?
He is not going to go quietly because his forum is defunct?
-
So where is Guest29835?
He may be preoccupied with other things in his life, family work etc.
He may have lost interest.
Who knows.
-
So where is Guest29835?
He is not going to go quietly because his forum is defunct?
I do not know and I do not care where he is. My guess is that he lost interest when his stupid rip off forum failed as soon as it started.
-
Who is this Doc Maker?
He appeared out of nowhere a year ago & has created over 40 long Vlogs.
Most you have to subscribe to in order to have the privilege to read it all.
-
Who is this Doc Maker?
He appeared out of nowhere a year ago & has created over 40 long Vlogs.
Most you have to subscribe to in order to have the privilege to read it all.
Probably just the same as you and I and etc, A person who has an interest in the case.
-
His guilty but would not convict is 40 years later. With all the internet bluster & appeals.
In 1986 he would have convicted.
The internet and the media shouldn't, at least in theory, make any different to the original trial because if a newspaper article or a social media post affects the jury in any way, this is Contempt of Court.
Also, had Jeremy's lawyers started to suggest that there were 2 - 5 silencers, all the CPS would have to do would be to recall the FSS as witnesses and ask them if they handled two different silencers. Them confirming that there was only one would silence this theory.
Even at the third appeal in 2002, despite Jeremy's lawyers putting forward 16 grounds, even they weren't prepared to argue silly things like 2-5 silencers.
-
Probably just the same as you and I and etc, A person who has an interest in the case.
He said he has trawled FB & forums. So our paths may have crossed.
He said the 2020 WHF drama got him interested & then he read up on the case. Obviously thinks he is now knowledgeable enough to create a lot of Vlogs & charge people for the priviledge of reading them.
Guest29835 used to boast about how knowledgeable he was on the case.
-
A report by a psychologist on Jeremy Bamber references that Jeremy Bamber himself said " that as a neutral he himself would have convicted himself on the evidence at trial available"
-
He said he has trawled FB & forums. So our paths may have crossed.
He said the 2020 WHF drama got him interested & then he read up on the case. Obviously thinks he is now knowledgeable enough to create a lot of Vlogs & charge people for the priviledge of reading them.
Guest29835 used to boast about how knowledgeable he was on the case.
Cant see him getting many people paying for his posts.
Paywall puts many a folk off no matter how wealthy.
Plus there's a vast load of information elsewhere to be gained for free.
-
Who is this Doc Maker?
He appeared out of nowhere a year ago & has created over 40 long Vlogs.
Most you have to subscribe to in order to have the privilege to read it all.
Surprisingly, an award winning documentary filmmaker. He has an extensive oven ready documentary. However, TV / media companies will not air it. This is because it doesn't fit with the accepted narrative of the case. CAL's narrative is the accepted narrative. It is safe territory. The Mindhouse production was relatively safe territory.
The doc makers film would not be safe territory. 'Independence' regarding Britain's media is a concept in name only.
-
The internet and the media shouldn't, at least in theory, make any different to the original trial because if a newspaper article or a social media post affects the jury in any way, this is Contempt of Court.
Also, had Jeremy's lawyers started to suggest that there were 2 - 5 silencers, all the CPS would have to do would be to recall the FSS as witnesses and ask them if they handled two different silencers. Them confirming that there was only one would silence this theory.
Even at the third appeal in 2002, despite Jeremy's lawyers putting forward 16 grounds, even they weren't prepared to argue silly things like 2-5 silencers.
That is because they did not have information about that then.
-
Do you think it is coincidence that the Doc Maker started posting after Guest29835's forum became defunct?
Both of them use the term 'Oskan's Razor'.
Both say they trawled forums & have a dig at them.
Occams or Ockhams, Adam!
-
Surprisingly, an award winning documentary filmmaker. He has an extensive oven ready documentary. However, TV / media companies will not air it. This is because it doesn't fit with the accepted narrative of the case. CAL's narrative is the accepted narrative. It is safe territory. The Mindhouse production was relatively safe territory.
The doc makers film would not be safe territory. 'Independence' regarding Britain's media is a concept in name only.
Has he not put anything on Youtube or TikTok?
-
Has he not put anything on Youtube or TikTok?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMRBm2_ycc&ab_channel=Wedio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nEWh22H6M&ab_channel=Wedio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZI22w1OcZg
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMRBm2_ycc&ab_channel=Wedio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nEWh22H6M&ab_channel=Wedio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZI22w1OcZg
You are just putting up rubbish.
-
Surprisingly, an award winning documentary filmmaker. He has an extensive oven ready documentary. However, TV / media companies will not air it. This is because it doesn't fit with the accepted narrative of the case. CAL's narrative is the accepted narrative. It is safe territory. The Mindhouse production was relatively safe territory.
The doc makers film would not be safe territory. 'Independence' regarding Britain's media is a concept in name only.
Something about a short 12 min. Pro-Sieben news report in Germany on the WHF case edited by him was posted on red a while ago, by whom I can't recall. When it was questioned why only in Germany when it had nothing to do with them, the post, its link and the info on his website was hastily deleted. Nothing more was said.
I can't see that any new docu which "promises to be one of the most shocking true crime stories in years" will make a blind bit of difference to the safety of Bamber's conviction. There have been more than enough of them, both past and recent, which have told the real truth of what happened, not some inflated and questionable accusations of corruption and conspiracy by Essex Police. We might get a few shots of a pig's leg being well and truly burned by an AGA on its highest setting though.
-
You are just putting up rubbish.
You wanted anything he put on YouTube, so you got it matey.
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/claude-vs-the-criminal-cases-review-51b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5m0d4c&fbclid=IwY2xjawLvZ3pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgNpt55C2p1qZ-BKk2aTmOi5ylGN9N8-le-RkZFIqQZlv7tiuWRN-Lgl65S4_aem_09eVclHF-y-lMpdN4hOqBw&triedRedirect=true (https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/claude-vs-the-criminal-cases-review-51b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5m0d4c&fbclid=IwY2xjawLvZ3pleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgNpt55C2p1qZ-BKk2aTmOi5ylGN9N8-le-RkZFIqQZlv7tiuWRN-Lgl65S4_aem_09eVclHF-y-lMpdN4hOqBw&triedRedirect=true)
I have also been told "Pc Milbank's interview will be in the New Yorker’s “In the Dark” podcast series at the end of September/beginning of October. it will contain audio of Heidi Blake’s interview with Nicholas Milbank."
September/October.
Don't rush things.
-
September/October.
Don't rush things.
The timing of this is nothing to do with JB or the CT. They would have liked this made public as soon as possible. It is the New Yorker which has decided the timing.
-
The timing of this is nothing to do with JB or the CT. They would have liked this made public as soon as possible. It is the New Yorker which has decided the timing.
Did the CCRC hear the audio of Millbank's interview?
-
Did the CCRC hear the audio of Millbank's interview?
No
-
No
The sooner the CCRC and the public hear it, the better.
-
I do not know and I do not care where he is. My guess is that he lost interest when his stupid rip off forum failed as soon as it started.
Had he not insisted on asking for personal details a lot more people may have joined.
-
Had he not insisted on asking for personal details a lot more people may have joined.
Possibly, but I doubt it. He was of course entitled to set any rules he wanted for his own forum, but it was very bad to do that by presenting his fake "Erik Narramore" identity to those he was inducing to reveal their details to him. He stole the identity of a real Erik Narramore in the USA, even using a genuine photo of that person's father in a profile. I know that those who joined (probably no more than 5 at most) were taken in by his lies.
-
Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -
The 6.09am 999 call.
The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.
----------
Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.
Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old.
-
Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -
The 6.09am 999 call.
The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.
----------
Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.
Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old.
This is the New Yorker's stance: https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered (https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered)
-
Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -
The 6.09am 999 call.
The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.
----------
Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.
Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old.
Audios of the 6:09 999 call, still available nearly 40 years later?
Is this a bit similar to the claim that the police had body cams when they went into White House Farm ?
-
This is the New Yorker's stance: https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered (https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered)
'But The New Yorker has refused to disclose the tape recorded interview with the cop to Bamber’s legal team or the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which is about to decide whether to refer his case to the appeal court.'
----------
So the CCRC asked for the audio.
Doubt that the audio will enhance the New Yorker article or Bamber. If released.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB
Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB
Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.
That is interesting. Al you have to do in order to become a member is give him your personal details. I am sure many will take up that great offer.
-
'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility. I never thought I would make that statement. This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public'.
----------
Not another piece.
So make it public.
-
'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility. I never thought I would make that statement. This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public'.
----------
Not another piece.
So make it public.
I think he is saying that if you accept his invitation and provide your personal details you can become a member of his private circle and he will share the information with you.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB
Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.
Thanks for posting this up. Interesting read.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB
Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.
Still suffering with advanced verbosity, I see, and isn't it somewhat ironic to only accept posters' real names given that he's using a pseudonyms? Or perhaps it isn't surprising, given his unshakeable belief in his own superiority?
-
Still suffering with advanced verbosity, I see, and isn't it somewhat ironic to only accept posters' real names given that he's using a pseudonyms? Or perhaps it isn't surprising, given his unshakeable belief in his own superiority?
I agree with you on all points.
-
I haven't nothing against QC, Guest29835, Erik Narramore, but it was obvious he was using a alias. The latter name sounds like an american news anchor.
-
I haven't nothing against QC, Guest29835, Erik Narramore, but it was obvious he was using a alias. The latter name sounds like an american news anchor.
Many people use an alias on public forums and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong in my view is requiring members to use their real names whislt prending that he was setting an example by doing the same. I know there are people here who fell for it. Erik Narramore exists in the USA, but has nothing to do with QCC.
-
Many people use an alias on public forums and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong in my view is requiring members to use their real names whislt prending that he was setting an example by doing the same. I know there are people here who fell for it. Erik Narramore exists in the USA, but has nothing to do with QCC.
Self explanatory that QC was attempting to override this forum by creating his own. He had problems and issues with the moderation team.
He seemed heavily invested in the case and mentioned he had phone contact and correspondence with Jeremy years back, like me and Mike its possible they're paths may have crossed in prison. But perhaps not.
A CT member in an email to me some time back ( who I will not name) referred to him as Erik Narramore.
-
Looks like The Doc Maker is someone called Sean BW Parker. He posts on X.
-
Looks like The Doc Maker is someone called Sean BW Parker. He posts on X.
No he is not.
-
Self explanatory that QC was attempting to override this forum by creating his own. He had problems and issues with the moderation team.
He seemed heavily invested in the case and mentioned he had phone contact and correspondence with Jeremy years back, like me and Mike its possible they're paths may have crossed in prison. But perhaps not.
A CT member in an email to me some time back ( who I will not name) referred to him as Erik Narramore.
That is because he has used that name throughout his involvement in this case. It is not his real name.
-
No he is not.
Yes he is.
He posted the exact same post on X as on one of his Doc Maker vlogs. Word for word.
-
Apparently the Doc Maker is not Guest29835 or Sean BW Parker. Despite a mountain of evidence.
Who is he? NGB won't say.
-
For me The Doc Maker is Guest29835/Sean BW Parker.
Need more than a 3 word rebuttal to change my mind.
But not that important.
-
For me The Doc Maker is Guest29835/Sean BW Parker.
Need more than a 3 word rebuttal to change my mind.
But not that important.
I'm sure if he is reading this, the member formerly known as QC Chevalier will be amused that you have attributed the doc -maker blog to him.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12385.msg578393.html#msg578393
The quote in reply 82 was on the Doc Makers vlog. Prior to it being blocked by a paywall.
The exact same quote is on X under Sean BW Parker.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12385.msg578393.html#msg578393
The quote in reply 82 was on the Doc Makers vlog. Prior to it being blocked by a paywall.
The exact same quote is on X under Sean BW Parker.
This would make a good profile pic for you Adam
-
This would make a good profile pic for you Adam
Thought his wetsuit was black.
Possible he wore a wetsuit. He could shower at WHF prior to leaving. Blood would easily come off.
Then he would not need a washing machine.
He would still wear shoes.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12385.msg578393.html#msg578393
The quote in reply 82 was on the Doc Makers vlog. Prior to it being blocked by a paywall.
The exact same quote is on X under Sean BW Parker.
Because he copied and pasted it from the docmaker (Mat Harris) blog site, silly sossij.
-
Because he copied and pasted it from the docmaker (Mat Harris) blog site, silly sossij.
Of course he did.
-
We do know Bamber had a wet suit. If it was black, that would help.
It was summer so he would not need layers of clothes when cycling.
Any blood on a wet suit will easily come off in a shower.
He can still wear shoes. He will still be agile enough.
So quite possible he wore a WS.
-
I do not believe Bamber wore flippers.
Some supporters have suggested he would do this if wearing a WS
No proof he had flippers. He was a wind surfer, not a diver.
-
Apparently the Doc Maker is not Guest29835 or Sean BW Parker. Despite a mountain of evidence.
Who is he? NGB won't say.
You've been told umpteen times who the docmaker is. And he isn't Guest29835, Erik Narramore or Sean BW Parker, but Matt Harris here -
https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=U4tF9tyfZf2CMXBy&t=67
and here -
https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=5rZjwVLPspq1JXei&t=863
How long will it take before it sinks in?
-
You've been told umpteen times who the docmaker is. And he isn't Guest29835, Erik Narramore or Sean BW Parker, but Matt Harris here -
https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=U4tF9tyfZf2CMXBy&t=67
and here -
https://youtu.be/3h3K-d-Rpd4?si=5rZjwVLPspq1JXei&t=863
How long will it take before it sinks in?
You are just posting rubbish again.
-
At least Curiosity is not getting CC to back up her posts.
-
Says Sean BW Parker is a paid subscriber of The Doc Maker. So may have copied and pasted The Doc Makers post.
The Doc Maker has his own X account.
-
Says Sean BW Parker is a paid subscriber of The Doc Maker. So may have copied and pasted The Doc Makers post.
The Doc Maker has his own X account.
https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/crime/update-rapist-who-preyed-on-tired-women-is-jailed-835388
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/why-are-the-ccrc-unwilling-to-investigate-my-conviction-for-a-rape-that-never-happened
-
The Doc Maker joined X and started posting Vlogs in Jan 2025.
The TalkTV interview was in Feb 24.
So would be surprised if he would be invited on TalkTV. He hadn't posted any Vlogs!
-
The Doc Maker joined X and started posting Vlogs in Jan 2025.
The TalkTV interview was in Feb 24.
So would be surprised if he would be invited on TalkTV. He hadn't posted any Vlogs!
Read the blog he wrote about the actual documentary.
-
Read the blog he wrote about the actual documentary.
Please post the link.
-
Please post the link.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedocmaker/p/innocence-porn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4tvp4h
-
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedocmaker/p/innocence-porn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4tvp4h
That is talking about an 80's TV programme. Prior to the paywall block.
-
That is talking about an 80's TV programme. Prior to the paywall block.
Yeah, it's £4 per month I think.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11477219/Forensic-scientist-reveals-used-PIG-SKIN-test-theory-Jeremy-Bamber-case.html&ved=2ahUKEwjPx4KGhOKOAxVcU0EAHQQvAqEQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1p3OnIEo3V-gOBgMIS4a86
After reading this, am satisfied that Matt Harris is 'The Doc Maker' in Vlogs & on X.
-
'Asked why he is making a film about the case, Mr Harris said his initial interest was sparked by the 2020 ITV drama about the case.
He said he has since corresponded extensively with Bamber himself.'
----------
This corresponds with what The Doc Maker wrote in one of his Vlogs.
-
Many people use an alias on public forums and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong in my view is requiring members to use their real names whislt prending that he was setting an example by doing the same. I know there are people here who fell for it. Erik Narramore exists in the USA, but has nothing to do with QCC.
A while ago he seemed to have removed any mention of asking for personal details. I then tired signing up, and he still requested personal information. I did not go any further with my registration because of that.
-
Matt Harris The Doc Maker has certainly stepped up his 'campaign for a technicality' in the last year.
Over 40 Vlogs & lots of posts on X.
But where the heck is Guest29835? Anyone who saw his humongous posts on here under QC & Gasgoigne & the creation of his own forum will know he won't give up on getting a technicality.
-
That is because he has used that name throughout his involvement in this case. It is not his real name.
I know it isn't
On here I never heard him refer to himself as EN, it was chevalier.
-
But where the heck is Guest29835? Anyone who saw his humongous posts on here under QC & Gasgoigne & the creation of his own forum will know he won't give up on getting a technicality.
What do you mean never give up?
He was just a guy like me and you who share an interest in the case.
Probably busy living his life, the same as you and I, our worlds don't revolve round Jeremy Bamber.
-
I know it isn't
On here I never heard him refer to himself as EN, it was chevalier.
I agree, he only used Erik Narramore openly on his forum, Here he was QC Chevalier. However I think he had used another name here previously, although I am not certain of that. Several members had suspicions about another with a similar style who got kicked out.
-
I agree, he only used Erik Narramore openly on his forum, Here he was QC Chevalier. However I think he had used another name here previously, although I am not certain of that. Several members had suspicions about another with a similar style who got kicked out.
Actually wonder how long he had been involved with the whole affair. I do believe he was close to Jeremy at some stage.
Some of the documentation he had in his possession pre dated 1991, he himself said he and Jeremy had a history of correspondence for a significant amount of time.
-
Actually wonder how long he had been involved with the whole affair. I do believe he was close to Jeremy at some stage.
Some of the documentation he had in his possession pre dated 1991, he himself said he and Jeremy had a history of correspondence for a significant amount of time.
As far as I could see all the material he posted was copied from here. I do not think he got other material from the CT or JB.
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/its-always-sunny-in-tv-world
The latest vlog from The Doc Maker.
-
Guest29835 used to promote a documentary -
'If there was a forensically factual documentary about the Bamber case the general public would be horrified and that’s without throwing Julie Mugford into the mix'.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10304.msg480896.html#msg480896
----------
Maybe he is working on this.
-
Guest29835 used to promote a documentary -
'If there was a forensically factual documentary about the Bamber case the general public would be horrified and that’s without throwing Julie Mugford into the mix'.
----------
Maybe he is working on this.
I doubt it.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10306.msg480865.html#msg480865
Going on about it here as well.
-
He may have just simply lost interest.
Most of the case discussion happens on Facebook youtube this day and age. Forums are coming a none existent thing but its nice still see this forum ticking over after such a length of time.
-
Lets hope The Doc Maker does not lose interest. There has been something missing since Trudie's videos stopped.
The Doc Maker has created 48 Vlogs since October 2024. Look forward to them continuing.
-
Going by TalkTV The Doc Maker's support first started as he believed Sheila was still alive inside WHF while the police were outside.
All of the evidence showing this can easily be dismissed.
However Phillip claimed on TalkTV there were lights going off and on and curtains opening and closing. He has not shown proof of this.
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
This is the Doc Maker's first vlog in Oct 24.
Strange how people believe there is mass corruption in the case.
It's simply a case of Bamber leading EP in a direction on the night. Which importantly convinced Taff Jones.
Then EP quickly changing direction when new evidence & information surfaced
-
https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/down-the-bamber-rabbit-hole
This is the Doc Maker's first vlog in Oct 24.
Strange how people believe there is mass corruption in the case.
It's simply a case of Bamber leading EP in a direction on the night. Which importantly convinced Taff Jones.
Then EP quickly changing direction when new evidence & information surfaced
Is that a genuine photo of Bamber with Matt Harris or just another manipulated image con?
-
'it only takes a couple of days - a week at the most - of reading through the evidence to realise it’s a physical impossibility for Bamber to have committed these crimes.'
---------
It is easy to create several Bamber scenarios.
None are definitive as he had several options at different stages.
Hopefully The Doc Maker creates a Sheila scenario with his next vlog.
-
'it only takes a couple of days - a week at the most - of reading through the evidence to realise it’s a physical impossibility for Bamber to have committed these crimes.'
---------
It is easy to create several Bamber scenarios.
None are definitive as he had several options at different stages.
Hopefully The Doc Maker creates a Sheila scenario with his next vlog.
Yes, I agree Adam! The CT and the Doc Maker should give a detailed Sheila scenario!
-
Is that a genuine photo of Bamber with Matt Harris or just another manipulated image con?
I do not believe its genuine.
-
(https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/the-ccrc-needs-to-die-long-live-robot
Here is the latest one.
-
Its an interesting blog to read but to put things into simple context if the evidence isnt there. He's going nowhere. And the ccrc felt that hence the provisional denial.
-
In that particular blog that Adam posted hes getting away from the core reason. Jeremy Bamber, and going on to differences between humans and AI.
-
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) uses a "real possibility" test to determine whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. This threshold, defined in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, requires the CCRC to consider if there's a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding, or sentence would not be upheld if referred. It's a relatively low bar, meaning the CCRC may refer a case even if it's less likely than not that the conviction will be overturned, but more than just a remote possibility"
The provisional denial so far suggests that the ccrc didnt even believe Jeremy had a remote chance at a full COA hearing.
-
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) uses a "real possibility" test to determine whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. This threshold, defined in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, requires the CCRC to consider if there's a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding, or sentence would not be upheld if referred. It's a relatively low bar, meaning the CCRC may refer a case even if it's less likely than not that the conviction will be overturned, but more than just a remote possibility"
The provisional denial so far suggests that the ccrc didnt even believe Jeremy had a remote chance at a full COA hearing.
Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.
-
Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.
No they didn't because their woeful experiment whichever way you look at it was pants.
-
Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.
The AGA burns dont impact the verdict or undermine the conviction Snow.
-
Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.
How do you think they presented it wrongly mate?
-
How do you think they presented it wrongly mate?
Well, if I am reading things correctly, ILB, then the Aga evidence was presented as 'part' of issue 3, the integrity of the crime scene, and as such was thrown out along with that point.
The campaign team seemed to use the Aga evidence for the sole purpose of proving that the police moved Nevill after entry, and Boyce agreed with this stating in his Aga video that the crime scene or evidence was changed, cant remember exactly how he put it.
So it was obvious that the CT and Boyce were only interested in one scenario, that the police moved Nevill and that the Aga burns proved this, no other possibility was of interest to them, eg, that the burns may have happened earlier on when Nevill was still alive.
In my opinion the CT or whoever submitted the application to the CCRC should have simply given them the Aga evidence on its own and if accepted let the CCRC explain how Aga burns can fit into a JB guilt scenario.
After all, Nevill lying against the Aga for a few hours simply doesn't fit into the JB guilt scenario that was presented in court, does it?
BUT!! By simply tying the Aga evidence solely and exclusively to the claim that the police moved Nevill the CT have managed to 'help out' the CCRC as it were, by ruling out any other scenarios connected to the Aga evidence.
Hence, when the claim that the police moved Nevill from the Aga to the scuttle after entry is/was/has been? thrown out, as it seems to have been, then out goes the Aga evidence along with it! Madness!
No, the Aga evidence should have been presented on its own, and if accepted, then it was up to the CCRC to explain how they fitted into a JB guilt scenario, which in my opinion they couldn't, hence a referel would need to be given?
BUT!! Unless we get to see the document of refusal from the CCRC we can only guess at why the Aga evidence was actually dismissed, if indeed it has been by simply being part of issue 3 as some are claiming.
Anyway thats why I think the CT submitted the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB. Make any sense?
-
No one who has read the PSOR has said the CCRC agree with the aga evidence.
It would be a surprise if the CCRC said 'we agree the aga caused the burn marks & the police/raid team moved Nevill then lied about it. But we are still not referring'.
Can only think they do not agree that the aga caused the burn marks.
-
No one who has read the PSOR has said the CCRC agree with the aga evidence.
It would be a surprise if the CCRC said 'we agree the aga caused the burn marks & the police/raid team moved Nevill then lied about it. But we are still not referring'.
Can only think they do not agree that the aga caused the burn marks.
The Aga burns has absolutely no impact in rendering the convictions of Jeremy Bamber unsafe.
-
The only way we are going to see that document is if Jeremy Bamber himself releases it or we ask the CT to release it. ( both extremely unlikely)
Jeremy made a criticism of the recent PSOR, " the first 15 pages is just them making excuses " Without reading it for ourselves we are clueless.
-
The Aga burns has absolutely no impact in rendering the convictions of Jeremy Bamber unsafe.
If the CCRC were satisfied the aga caused the burns, then that would mean a 40 year cover up by the raid team/EP. Saying Nevill was found in the coal scuttle.
NGB can confirm if that would have been sufficient to refer & whether the aga burn ground has been dismissed
-
If the CCRC were satisfied the aga caused the burns, then that would mean a 40 year cover up by the raid team/EP. Saying Nevill was found in the coal scuttle.
NGB can confirm if that would have been sufficient to refer & whether the aga burn ground has been dismissed
If the Aga burned Nevill earlier on that night before he ended up dead on the scuttle, then there was no cover up, Adam!
The CT claim that the police moved Nevill is unnecessary and highly damaging in my opinion!
In one of the early Aga podcasts, Yvonne tried to explain why they thought Nevill had been moved, but her reasons decended into a ramble about phone calls and such which baffled me and didn't seem to prove anything. Recently the claim has been that the chairs are joined together in a balancing act proped up by the dishwasher or whatever it is behind the kitchen door, but would the police really go to all that bother just to balance Nevill on the side of a chair? And for what reason, gallows humour? Well, the CT and the likes of the Doc maker think this quite possible, but is there any real proof it happened?
Besides, Vanezis was happy that Nevill was shot and killed while slumped over the scuttle and the blood stains support this too. And its worth mentioning again that Nevill is in the perfect position to receive the final four head shots.
So no, I think we have to conclude that if the Aga burned Nevills back then it had to have happened earlier that night when Nevill was still alive.
Hence, all the CT had to do was prove that the Aga caused the burns and forget about the police moving Nevill, and Bobs your uncle! Referal time!!!
Are you listening, Yvonne? What about you Phil? Anyway, tell JB to release that dismissal report, or we cant comment any further!
-
If the Aga burned Nevill earlier on that night before he ended up dead on the scuttle, then there was no cover up, Adam!
The CT claim that the police moved Nevill is unnecessary and highly damaging in my opinion!
In one of the early Aga podcasts, Yvonne tried to explain why they thought Nevill had been moved, but her reasons decended into a ramble about phone calls and such which baffled me and didn't seem to prove anything. Recently the claim has been that the chairs are joined together in a balancing act proped up by the dishwasher or whatever it is behind the kitchen door, but would the police really go to all that bother just to balance Nevill on the side of a chair? And for what reason, gallows humour? Well, the CT and the likes of the Doc maker think this quite possible, but is there any real proof it happened?
Besides, Vanezis was happy that Nevill was shot and killed while slumped over the scuttle and the blood stains support this too. And its worth mentioning again that Nevill is in the perfect position to receive the final four head shots.
So no, I think we have to conclude that if the Aga burned Nevills back then it had to have happened earlier that night when Nevill was still alive.
Hence, all the CT had to do was prove that the Aga caused the burns and forget about the police moving Nevill, and Bobs your uncle! Referal time!!!
Are you listening, Yvonne? What about you Phil? Anyway, tell JB to release that dismissal report, or we cant comment any further!
There is no information as to the precise nature of the four issues which were rejected by the CCRC. We only have broad outlines of the original eight. However, 2 more were added.
"Jeremy Bamber’s latest submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) included a substantial dossier containing eight grounds for appeal, each comprising multiple issues. This was lodged on 10 March 2021, and two additional submissions were made later that year based on newly discovered evidence"
JB is now claiming that EP shot SC with one more shot after she was dead. I have made a case for the circumstances that led to this. IF THIS IS TRUE then it is also possible that additional shots were made to other victims including NB. I give reasons for the extra shot to SC.
IF they moved NB it could be argued (though no doubt ridiculed by the guilt fraternity) That the shots to NB were made in order to deceive others like Snow to conclude that he had not been moved but by some weird set of circumstances ended up with his head in the scuttle. From a SOC perspective if bodies were moved it would enhance the reality of the new SOC to add shots to he victims, in their new positions.
We do not know enough about the PSOR or whether the AGA burns issue was one that was added later.
-
If the CCRC were satisfied the aga caused the burns, then that would mean a 40 year cover up by the raid team/EP. Saying Nevill was found in the coal scuttle.
NGB can confirm if that would have been sufficient to refer & whether the aga burn ground has been dismissed
There is no evidence the burns happened on the night concretely.
Doubt it would be a cover up, the mantra was murder suicide for almost two months after.
-
There is no information as to the precise nature of the four issues which were rejected by the CCRC. We only have broad outlines of the original eight. However, 2 more were added.
"Jeremy Bamber’s latest submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) included a substantial dossier containing eight grounds for appeal, each comprising multiple issues. This was lodged on 10 March 2021, and two additional submissions were made later that year based on newly discovered evidence"
JB is now claiming that EP shot SC with one more shot after she was dead. I have made a case for the circumstances that led to this. IF THIS IS TRUE then it is also possible that additional shots were made to other victims including NB. I give reasons for the extra shot to SC.
IF they moved NB it could be argued (though no doubt ridiculed by the guilt fraternity) That the shots to NB were made in order to deceive others like Snow to conclude that he had not been moved but by some weird set of circumstances ended up with his head in the scuttle. From a SOC perspective if bodies were moved it would enhance the reality of the new SOC to add shots to he victims, in their new positions.
We do not know enough about the PSOR or whether the AGA burns issue was one that was added later.
Well some are claiming that the Aga evidence was included in issue 3, Bubo, and must therefore have been dismissed! But I agree, we definately need to see the dismissal document!
Else what is the point of supporters outside the main circle at all?
-
Was a unusual place Nevill was found granted.
Don't see why Bamber would lift him on a upturned chain with his head in a coal scuttle.
If anything I would have expected Nevill to be laid out on the kitchen floor.
-
There is no information as to the precise nature of the four issues which were rejected by the CCRC. We only have broad outlines of the original eight. However, 2 more were added.
"Jeremy Bamber’s latest submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) included a substantial dossier containing eight grounds for appeal, each comprising multiple issues. This was lodged on 10 March 2021, and two additional submissions were made later that year based on newly discovered evidence"
JB is now claiming that EP shot SC with one more shot after she was dead. I have made a case for the circumstances that led to this. IF THIS IS TRUE then it is also possible that additional shots were made to other victims including NB. I give reasons for the extra shot to SC.
IF they moved NB it could be argued (though no doubt ridiculed by the guilt fraternity) That the shots to NB were made in order to deceive others like Snow to conclude that he had not been moved but by some weird set of circumstances ended up with his head in the scuttle. From a SOC perspective if bodies were moved it would enhance the reality of the new SOC to add shots to he victims, in their new positions.
We do not know enough about the PSOR or whether the AGA burns issue was one that was added later.
Police shot Sheila, police shot Nevill.
-
Police shot Sheila, police shot Nevill.
And they shot June and the twins too for a full house!
-
And they shot June and the twins too for a full house!
I don't think I need to comment further.
-
Was a unusual place Nevill was found granted.
Don't see why Bamber would lift him on a upturned chain with his head in a coal scuttle.
If anything I would have expected Nevill to be laid out on the kitchen floor.
By the Aga, ILB?
-
Was a unusual place Nevill was found granted.
Don't see why Bamber would lift him on a upturned chain with his head in a coal scuttle.
If anything I would have expected Nevill to be laid out on the kitchen floor.
The two reasons would be to get good access to his head and back.
For the shots and burns.
-
Well some are claiming that the Aga evidence was included in issue 3, Bubo, and must therefore have been dismissed! But I agree, we definately need to see the dismissal document!
Else what is the point of supporters outside the main circle at all?
You can ask NGB. Whether he tells you or not is amother matter.
-
The two reasons would be to get good access to his head and back.
For the shots and burns.
I considered for the shots but you would have to remember by that point nevill would be seriously weakened. He had been shot four times and battered. I dont think it would have been difficult for Bamber to give four head shots in those circumstances.
But who knows.
-
By the Aga, ILB?
Anywhere in the kitchen I suppose.
However not like this
-
Why were his pyjamas trousers pulled down?
Humiliation?
-
Why were his pyjamas trousers pulled down?
Humiliation?
They may have fell down during the attack or while he was being lifted onto the chair/coal scuttle.
Bamber is not going to bother pulling them up.
-
He must have thought at some stage
" Jesus look what ive done to him, ive gone overboard, they will never believe Shelia could have done this "
He isnt thick.
-
He must have thought at some stage
" Jesus look what ive done to him, ive gone overboard, they will never believe Shelia could have done this "
He isnt thick.
He did express the first sentiment to Julie.
-
Nevill being in pyjama bottoms was another disadvantage for him. They probably came loose quickly.
-
Being ambushed in bed creates lots of disadvantages. If you are able to get out of bed.
You are injured, bare footed and in loose pyjamas. Then attacked by a man holding a metal object.
-
Why were his pyjamas trousers pulled down?
Humiliation?
Just a thought but in placing him in that position he kept slipping about so the lowered them so that his flesh provided more resistance than his pyjama material.. Any bodies guess
-
Being ambushed in bed creates lots of disadvantages. If you are able to get out of bed.
You are injured, bare footed and in loose pyjamas. Then attacked by a man holding a metal object.
Going overkill on a six foot 4 15 16 stone man is something he would have regret.
Many if not all people's reaction would be " a blokes done this"
-
Why were his pyjamas trousers pulled down?
Humiliation?
If of the ancient St.Michael brand (now M&S) or similar design, they were probably tied with a draw cord or had an elasticated waist which worked loose and dropped down during the violent confrontation, causing him to lose balance. I still have a couple of old pairs of the second type in a cupboard (believe it or not) which after numerous hot washes and wears lose their elasticity. Prefer shorts these days, and save the pj's for hospital if and when needed.
https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1869811471/mens-vintage-lightweight-pyjamas-st?ls=s&ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=st+michael+pyjamas&ref=sr_gallery-1-3&sts=1&loc=1&local_signal_search=1&content_source=9fad7418-c382-44a3-aa28-cfdede24ca25%253A17ffbbbcfaa30a166c21e46a680ce0af6e6c57c2&organic_search_click=1&logging_key=9fad7418-c382-44a3-aa28-cfdede24ca25%3A17ffbbbcfaa30a166c21e46a680ce0af6e6c57c2
-
The two reasons would be to get good access to his head and back.
For the shots and burns.
The back was already done, Adam!
-
You can ask NGB. Whether he tells you or not is amother matter.
I have no doubt NGB has told us all that he can/is allowed to at the moment, Adam!
-
I have no doubt NGB has told us all that he can/is allowed to at the moment, Adam!
If you don't ask....
-
If you don't ask....
You dont get Adam, so that affair your thinking about starting in your workplace, embrace it ;)
-
You dont get Adam, so that affair your thinking about starting in your workplace, embrace it ;)
Workplace.
Can get a date every night from the internet.
-
Can get a date every night from the internet.
More like a turn.
-
Going overkill on a six foot 4 15 16 stone man is something he would have regret.
Many if not all people's reaction would be " a blokes done this"
I think it would need more than one. A 16 stone dead weight!
-
I was informed a while ago that Eric Allison had spoken to Milbank. He made no mention of speaking to anyone over the line he was monitoring.
Maybe he did not know he had a terminal illness at that time and/or fear of reprisal and loosing his pension etc.
-
And they shot June and the twins too for a full house!
I certainly think NB was a candidate. SC because she was being set up to be the killer of June. It is debateable when it comes to June. Her death was down to EP but she could have been shot while phoning by SC. She had walked to or from the bedside table where the bedroom phone was usually kept. but her body was moved so that increases the likelihood. The twins were not moved so I do not think they would be involved.
-
I think it would need more than one. A 16 stone dead weight!
Like I said he was a big guy.
The fact that the belief of Shelia would not be able to overpower Nevill has plagued Jeremy Bamber for 40 years. A case cornerstone really in my opinion.
-
Like I said he was a big guy.
The fact that the belief of Shelia would not be able to overpower Nevill has plagued Jeremy Bamber for 40 years. A case cornerstone really in my opinion.
All she needs to do is shoot him. It's pretty simple, imo..
-
All she needs to do is shoot him. It's pretty simple, imo..
I was about to say the same thing, Roch!
And thats exactly what happened before Nevill reached the kitchen no matter how you look at it!
-
All she needs to do is shoot him. It's pretty simple, imo..
Adam says Nevill would " just take the rifle "
-
I was about to say the same thing, Roch!
And thats exactly what happened before Nevill reached the kitchen no matter how you look at it!
The trouble is the shots recieved by Nevill would have rendered him from making capable speech.
If SC shot him upstairs how does he go down to the kitchen to ring and speak to JB?
In a shelia scenario you have to look at the possibility that Nevill is moving around the house.
-
Adam says Nevill would " just take the rifle "
Either Nevill or June would instantly reclaim the rifle.
In the unlikely event neither had put it away.
The rifle is considered not powerful enough to shoot foxes. So would not deter adults.
-
Either Nevill or June would instantly reclaim the rifle.
In the unlikely event neither had put it away.
The rifle is considered not powerful enough to shoot foxes. So would not deter adults.
Nonetheless, I can't imagine it wouldn't sting a bit if one of the bullets -or several?- hit you.
-
Nonetheless, I can't imagine it wouldn't sting a bit if one of the bullets -or several?- hit you.
All the more reason to instantly reclaim it. No one likes being stung.
Sheila couldn't function & CC said she had no rifle experience or hand to eye co ordination.
So no reason for Nevill or June to start ringing Bamber's AM regarding a rifle that is too weak for foxes.
-
Adam says Nevill would " just take the rifle "
If you find yourself in an armed robbery " just take the rifle " simple :))
-
If you find yourself in an armed robbery " just take the rifle " simple :))
They use sawn off shot guns. Not rifles too weak for foxes.
Assume the robbers can function a bit as well. It would help.
-
Either Nevill or June would instantly reclaim the rifle.
In the unlikely event neither had put it away.
The rifle is considered not powerful enough to shoot foxes. So would not deter adults.
Shelia was taller than June.
-
They use sawn off shot guns. Not rifles too weak for foxes.
.22s have been used in warfare.
In this instance it claimed five lifes.
-
Sheila couldn't function & CC said she had no rifle experience or hand to eye co ordination.
An ideal scapegoat, No wonder Nevill had him in the fields.
-
If Shelia was indeed completely out of it as Adam suggests, it all points to a snap decision been made that Tuesday afternoon possibly after an argument. And done out of hot blooded anger.
I seriously doubt if he was being methodical and calculating he would have done it if he knew and he knew other people knew the condition shelia was in.
The overkill of a six 4 foot 16 stone farmer and a woman who couldnt get " off a sofa" as an alternative suspect isnt a perfect crime.
-
If Shelia was indeed completely out of it as Adam suggests, it all points to a snap decision been made that Tuesday afternoon possibly after an argument. And done out of hot blooded anger.
I seriously doubt if he was being methodical and calculating he would have done it if he knew and he knew other people knew the condition shelia was in.
The overkill of a six 4 foot 16 stone farmer and a woman who couldnt get " off a sofa" as an alternative suspect isnt a perfect crime.
But what could the relatives do faced with a fait accompli? It was touch and go whether anyone from law enforcement would believe them.
-
But what could the relatives do faced with a fait accompli? It was touch and go whether anyone from law enforcement would believe them.
Not just the relatives to be honest.
CC, the law, anybody.
In the 1980s mental health was heavily stigmatised. Thats what may have got Jeremy his extra two months of freedom. If the crime happened in 2025 maybe not so.
-
If you find yourself in an armed robbery " just take the rifle " simple :))
Creating a Jeremy Bamber scenario is relatively easily.
A shelia scenario, you have to include a build up.
All forum fodder of course.
-
Not just the relatives to be honest.
CC, the law, anybody.
In the 1980s mental health was heavily stigmatised. Thats what may have got Jeremy his extra two months of freedom. If the crime happened in 2025 maybe not so.
The Eatons will have at least CCTV installed at White House Farm and possibly a panic button wired to a private security company.
-
Shelia was taller than June.
June would have taken the rifle off Sheila. As she did with the phone a few hours earlier.
-
.22s have been used in warfare.
In this instance it claimed five lifes.
18 of the shots were close range head or neck shots.
These and the other shots did kill two 6 year old boys an elderly and a very weak woman.
Nevill needed 8 shots and 40+ other injuries.
-
Nevill needed 8 shots and 40+ other injuries.
Did he?
Jeremy didnt have a scratch on him.
Perhaps I looked into it wrong and it wasnt a fight to the death but revenge and adrenalin gone overboard against a dad he hated.
-
18 of the shots were close range head or neck shots.
These and the other shots did kill two 6 year old boys an elderly and a very weak woman.
Nevill needed 8 shots and 40+ other injuries.
Going by Vanezis evidence there was a fair chance that Nevill was already dead by the time he received the final four head shots, Adam!
-
The Eatons will have at least CCTV installed at White House Farm and possibly a panic button wired to a private security company.
What for?
The guy is in prison and has been for 40 years come next month.
-
18 of the shots were close range head or neck shots.
These and the other shots did kill two 6 year old boys an elderly and a very weak woman.
Nevill needed 8 shots and 40+ other injuries.
All the victims ( despite shelias mental health problems) were in good physical normal stature as the autopsy suggests.
You accept the.22 is used in warfare and can kill humans.
-
Shelia was 5 foot 7,that's above average height for a female.
Would say Bamber is 5 11 tops, I towered him thirty odd years back.
-
Going by Vanezis evidence there was a fair chance that Nevill was already dead by the time he received the final four head shots, Adam!
Agree with that.
Bamber's kitchen attack left Nevill with 40+ horrific head, face & torso injuries.
-
All the victims ( despite shelias mental health problems) were in good physical normal stature as the autopsy suggests.
You accept the.22 is used in warfare and can kill humans.
I have already posted AI quote regarding war fare.
It can't be used on foxes as won't kill them outright. So someone unfunctional holding it won't intimidate a 15 stone man or 10 stone woman.
-
Did he?
Jeremy didnt have a scratch on him.
Perhaps I looked into it wrong and it wasnt a fight to the death but revenge and adrenalin gone overboard against a dad he hated.
Do you believe the pathologist report is wrong?
-
Do you believe the pathologist report is wrong?
I believe Nevill Bamber suffered horrific injuries.
But its seems more of an attack than a fight. Jeremy Bamber didnt have a scratch upon him. I used to think and was shocked to be honest as to why Nevill didnt mark his face.
-
Even after getting shot four times Nevill managed to get downstairs which is a testament to his fitness and resistance. Especially for a bloke at 61.
-
The Doc Maker has gone quiet. Nothing for 6 weeks. Used to be a couple of articles a month.
Maybe he has changed stance.
-
The Doc Maker has gone quiet. Nothing for 6 weeks. Used to be a couple of articles a month.
Maybe he has changed stance.
He has not.
-
He has not.
He must have heard the audio of Millbank's mysterious interview you said was being released in early October.
-
He must have heard the audio of Millbank's mysterious interview you said was being released in early October.
You do post utter rubbish at times Adam. I think you do it to goad and get a reaction.
-
You do post utter rubbish at times Adam. I think you do it to goad and get a reaction.
The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?
-
He is not listed, but he is certainly closely associated with the CT.
Funny that he is part of the inner circle, allowed to see documents like the PSOR and the 347,000 documents
-
The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?
It is very unethical for The New Yorker to refuse to release the audio of Millbank's interview to the CCRC. Which the Doc Maker says.
Releasing the audio to the public instead is also very unethical & surely against journalism protocol. If Millbank wanted an audio interview to go online, he would arrange that himself.
It is just supporters who claimed an audio was being released. To justify the refusal to give the audio to the CCRC. It has now been dismissed.
-
The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?
I have no idea. It is in the hands of the New Yorker.
-
Funny that he is part of the inner circle, allowed to see documents like the PSOR and the 347,000 documents
Why is that funny?
-
It is very unethical for The New Yorker to refuse to release the audio of Millbank's interview to the CCRC. Which the Doc Maker says.
Releasing the audio to the public instead is also very unethical & surely against journalism protocol. If Millbank wanted an audio interview to go online, he would arrange that himself.
It is just supporters who claimed an audio was being released. To justify the refusal to give the audio to the CCRC. It has now been dismissed.
It is not the fault of the CT or Jeremy Bamber's supporters that the audio has not been released. They have been asking for it since they knew of its existence.
-
It is not the fault of the CT or Jeremy Bamber's supporters that the audio has not been released. They have been asking for it since they knew of its existence.
No one is going to hear it. Supporters, guilters, CT, CCRC.
That was always going to be the case.
-
No one is going to hear it. Supporters, guilters, CT, CCRC.
That was always going to be the case.
You obviously have inside knowledge Adam.
-
You obviously have inside knowledge Adam.
You have inside knowledge. You have the 2012 Statement of Reasons and the recent Provisional Statement of Reasons. I'm guessing you also have material such as the transcript for Julie Mugford's testimony and cross-examination and the judge's summing up. Is that correct?
-
You have inside knowledge. You have the 2012 Statement of Reasons and the recent Provisional Statement of Reasons. I'm guessing you also have material such as the transcript for Julie Mugford's testimony and cross-examination and the judge's summing up. Is that correct?
I have a large amount of material, much of it posted here but other elements I have seen over the past 14 years during which I have had some involvement. However, I am not and never have been a member of the CT. Anything I have been given in confidence I will not publish, even where I think there would be no harm in doing so.
I do not know any more about the New Yorker audio files than has already been posted.
-
I have a large amount of material, much of it posted here but other elements I have seen over the past 14 years during which I have had some involvement. However, I am not and never have been a member of the CT. Anything I have been given in confidence I will not publish, even where I think there would be no harm in doing so.
I do not know any more about the New Yorker audio files than has already been posted.
This site is always the last to know anything re: the Jeremy Bamber case.
-
JB has probably been on a 48 hour lockdown recently due to the Ian Watkins debacle.
-
JB has probably been on a 48 hour lockdown recently due to the Ian Watkins debacle.
The misuse of drugs has a lot to answer for: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2d2me0eljo
-
This site is always the last to know anything re: the Jeremy Bamber case.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
Part tongue in cheek, but we don't seem to have moved on recently.
-
Part tongue in cheek, but we don't seem to have moved on recently.
I agree that news has been very limited.
-
I have a large amount of material, much of it posted here but other elements I have seen over the past 14 years during which I have had some involvement. However, I am not and never have been a member of the CT. Anything I have been given in confidence I will not publish, even where I think there would be no harm in doing so.
I do not know any more about the New Yorker audio files than has already been posted.
Since it's half term and the site has been struggling a little of late maybe you could disclose some titbits from your profession without betraying any confidences. Think Rumpole of the Bailey, Patrick Hasting's Cases in Court, that kind of thing.
-
Since it's half term and the site has been struggling a little of late maybe you could disclose some titbits from your profession without betraying any confidences. Think Rumpole of the Bailey, Patrick Hasting's Cases in Court, that kind of thing.
You will hopefully get the New Yorker article on Milbank tomorrow, Steve.
That may give you something juicy to get your teeth into!
-
You will hopefully get the New Yorker article on Milbank tomorrow, Steve.
That may give you something juicy to get your teeth into!
Well maybe Dame Vera Baird will get her teeth into in too.
-
Well maybe Dame Vera Baird will get her teeth into in too.
Who knows, Steve! Maybe, but if its that compelling, why haven't they given the evidence to JBs legal team yet?
-
Who knows, Steve! Maybe, but if its that compelling, why haven't they given the evidence to JBs legal team yet?
It's all a mystery to me. I respect those who call for full disclosure, but not people who claim police shot Sheila and all that stuff.
-
This site is always the last to know anything re: the Jeremy Bamber case.
I have been assured by the Campaign Team (Simon Kelly) that once the CCRC (and any appeal) has ran its course, they will be able to share all the "new evidence" publicly.
They say that if they do not hold certain cards close to their chest, it would somehow harm the CCRC application. Make of that what you will.
-
I have been assured by the Campaign Team (Simon Kelly) that once the CCRC (and any appeal) has ran its course, they will be able to share all the "new evidence" publicly.
They say that if they do not hold certain cards close to their chest, it would somehow harm the CCRC application. Make of that what you will.
I was thinking more of the documents sealed until 2054. It does make one suspicious as to why that should be.
-
I have been assured by the Campaign Team (Simon Kelly) that once the CCRC (and any appeal) has ran its course, they will be able to share all the "new evidence" publicly.
They say that if they do not hold certain cards close to their chest, it would somehow harm the CCRC application. Make of that what you will.
Surely they are hoping that once the CCRC application and appeal has run its course, that JB will finally be a free man, Dan? Else their cards are of no importance!
-
Surely they are hoping that once the CCRC application and appeal has run its course, that JB will finally be a free man, Dan? Else their cards are of no importance!
I don't see how the Establishment can ever release someone who may make his way down to Essex with a rifle on his person.
-
I have been assured by the Campaign Team (Simon Kelly) that once the CCRC (and any appeal) has ran its course, they will be able to share all the "new evidence" publicly.
They say that if they do not hold certain cards close to their chest, it would somehow harm the CCRC application. Make of that what you will.
A bit late by then.
But could be used for the 2042 CCRC application.
-
I was thinking more of the documents sealed until 2054. It does make one suspicious as to why that should be.
I think this is just sealing of documents to the general public.
-
A bit late by then.
But could be used for the 2042 CCRC application.
Do you believe people will campaign for Jeremy posthumously?
-
The podcast is up.
Part 1 seems to be the family history. Dating back decades before the massacre.
No one said it was going to be short!
-
You will hopefully get the New Yorker article on Milbank tomorrow, Steve.
That may give you something juicy to get your teeth into!
Oh well, thats the first two episodes of Heidi Blakes New Yorker article available to listen to!
No mention of Milbank yet, next episode/s available on Tuesday, although you can listen to all six episodes right now if you have a New Yorker subscription.
Anyone here subscribed?
-
It is very warped of Bamber to put rats into June's car. As well as cycle around her while taunting her.
Bamber testified 'there was a lack of understanding' !
-
Is there a link to the podcasts?
-
It is very warped of Bamber to put rats into June's car. As well as cycle around her while taunting her.
Bamber testified 'there was a lack of understanding' !
Only BW said Bamber did this.
Has Bamber ever been challenged about this?
BW bearing in mind once said she got along with Bamber better than her own son. She also went missing days prior and had to be found by DS Jones prior to giving evidence in the 86 trial.
-
Is there a link to the podcasts?
I listened to it over on Twitter, Steve.
I'm no use at posting links to anything, but no doubt someone will post them here soon.
The likes of ngb or Dan perhaps?
-
Only BW said Bamber did this.
Has Bamber ever been challenged about this?
BW bearing in mind once said she got along with Bamber better than her own son. She also went missing days prior and had to be found by DS Jones prior to giving evidence in the 86 trial.
Only BW is enough.
Who else is going to say it?
Do you agree it was warped of Bamber?
-
Only BW is enough.
Who else is going to say it?
Do you agree it was warped of Bamber?
No proof it happened.
Anyone can say anything.
-
No proof it happened.
Anyone can say anything.
It is no surprise he did that to June. Sadly he had no love or respect for her. The judge said he was warped.
-
It is no surprise he did that to June. Sadly he had no love or respect for her. The judge said he was warped.
Neither of the children did. They preferred Nevill.
-
Neither of the children did. They preferred Nevill.
Sheila had love and respect for June. June was heavily financially supporting her, visiting her & Sheila was staying at WHF.
June may have pushed her religous beliefs too far on both of them when younger. Although Bamber claimed Sheila was religous & left a bible next to her
Bamber had no love or respect for June. Resulting in his warped actions.
-
It is very warped of Bamber to put rats into June's car. As well as cycle around her while taunting her.
Bamber testified 'there was a lack of understanding' !
I believe he was possibly warped enough to do this, there have been other instances brought up of his use of Rats, Aldridge refers to, and JM remarks about the Rats eating his Marijuana plants making them easy to catch, so possibly he did this to June, someone who he had a dislike of?
-
Sheila had love and respect for June. June was heavily financially supporting her, visiting her & Sheila was staying at WHF.
June may have pushed her religous beliefs too far on both of them when younger. Although Bamber claimed Sheila was religous & left a bible next to her
Bamber had no love or respect for June. Resulting in his warped actions.
I think that's going a bit far. She may have respected her insofar as she seemed more capable and better organized, maybe she wanted to spare her feelings upon searching for her birth mother and thus asked Ann Eaton to take a photograph of her in her garden lest June found out. But I don't think love came in to the equation. Remember there were never any hugs, let alone kisses.
-
Resulting in his warped actions.
Sometimes you can put good arguments across but resorting to Justice Drakes sentencing remarks word he used to try and use it to your advantage is just goading and petty.
-
I listened to it over on Twitter, Steve.
I'm no use at posting links to anything, but no doubt someone will post them here soon.
The likes of ngb or Dan perhaps?
Listened to episode 2 over on Twitter. Heidi interviews Dave and there's input from Bews as usual.
Julie wouldn't reply and Anne and Peter refused to discuss the murders when Heidi visited Whitehouse farm uninvited, although she had sent them a letter requesting an interview in the weeks previously.
-
I believe he was possibly warped enough to do this, there have been other instances brought up of his use of Rats, Aldridge refers to, and JM remarks about the Rats eating his Marijuana plants making them easy to catch, so possibly he did this to June, someone who he had a dislike of?
He was very warped before the massacre and still is. His attitude to women is warped.
Calling Sheila names and trying to frame her. Minutes after killing her.
Putting rats in June's car & cycling around her. Prior to killing her.
Complaining to MM about June & calling MM 'Mummy'.
Involving Julie in his plans & threatening her not to go to the police. Prior to asking another out in front of her. Accusing her of lying since 1985. Despite no evidence of his innocence.
-
Listened to episode 2 over on Twitter. Heidi interviews Dave and there's input from Bews as usual.
Julie wouldn't reply and Anne and Peter refused to discuss the murders when Heidi visited Whitehouse farm uninvited, although she had sent them a letter requesting an interview in the weeks previously.
So nothing new regarding who spoke & who didn't.
Did they not interview CC? If not there is plenty of audio interviews of him online.
Visited WHF? Thought it was private property.
-
He was very warped before the massacre and still is. His attitude to women is warped.
Calling Sheila names and trying to frame her. Minutes after killing her.
Putting rats in June's car & cycling around her. Prior to killing her.
Complaining to MM about June & calling MM 'Mummy'.
Involving Julie in his plans & threatening her not to go to the police. Prior to asking another out in front of her. Accusing her of lying since 1985. Despite no evidence of his innocence.
Do you believe Bamber is a misogynist?
-
He was very warped before the massacre and still is. His attitude to women is warped.
Calling Sheila names and trying to frame her. Minutes after killing her.
Putting rats in June's car & cycling around her. Prior to killing her.
Complaining to MM about June & calling MM 'Mummy'.
Involving Julie in his plans & threatening her not to go to the police. Prior to asking another out in front of her. Accusing her of lying since 1985. Despite no evidence of his innocence.
The Utter shambles of the investigation has given him the Strategy for police corruption which enables him to claim his innocence and to keep his campaign going. Doesn’t matter how many times his appeals have failed, his supporters (who do him more harm) will always distort a Narrative for him. The list is endless what they have come up with, you’ve only got to look around the Aga evidence, and the claims that the Police moved Neville from the Aga to burn evidence after shooting June, or that Sheila knocked Neville out cold for three hours and he burned his back by the Aga?
-
So nothing new regarding who spoke & who didn't.
Did they not interview CC? If not there is plenty of audio interviews of him online.
Visited WHF? Thought it was private property.
No Colin yet, Adam, but its only episode 2.
Heidi just chanced her arm turning up at WHF!
-
No Colin yet, Adam, but its only episode 2.
Heidi just chanced her arm turning up at WHF!
Have not read CC gave them an interview. They may play some former audios of his.
Optimistic of Heidi, just turning up.
-
Think everyone is waiting for an audio of Millbank's interview. If it comes to nothing, everyone will be waiting for Guest29835's evidence. He posted on his forum -
'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility. I never thought I would make that statement. This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public. It is not conclusive, and never will be, and I must grant that it is also possible I am misinterpreting it. Expert input is needed, but my tentative conclusion about it is that it is damning for the prosecution. '
-
Have not read CC gave them an interview. They may play some former audios of his.
Optimistic of Heidi, just turning up.
Well she had written to Ann requesting an interview but got no reply.
Yes, they may play previous audios of CC, I think thats what they may have done with Bews?
Dave and Ann dont get on very well now, due to the distribution of the Bambers estate!
Oh and Peter told Heidi not to get seduced by JBs charms and fall for his lies.
-
Think everyone is waiting for an audio of Millbank's interview. If it comes to nothing, everyone will be waiting for Guest29835's evidence. He posted on his forum -
'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility. I never thought I would make that statement. This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public. It is not conclusive, and never will be, and I must grant that it is also possible I am misinterpreting it. Expert input is needed, but my tentative conclusion about it is that it is damning for the prosecution. '
Yes, the Milbank audio is obviously what everyone is waiting for, Adam!
-
It is very warped of Bamber to put rats into June's car. As well as cycle around her while taunting her.
Bamber testified 'there was a lack of understanding' !
In the podcast Barbara Wilson said Jeremy put a bag of rats into her car. Or have I missed something and he did it to June as well.
-
The Utter shambles of the investigation has given him the Strategy for police corruption which enables him to claim his innocence and to keep his campaign going. Doesn’t matter how many times his appeals have failed, his supporters (who do him more harm) will always distort a Narrative for him. The list is endless what they have come up with, you’ve only got to look around the Aga evidence, and the claims that the Police moved Neville from the Aga to burn evidence after shooting June, or that Sheila knocked Neville out cold for three hours and he burned his back by the Aga?
Well realistically, HB, if you accept that the Aga was indeed responsible for the burns, then there are only two scenarios, either Nevill was alive when lying against it and then got up himself, or he was already dead and the police moved him!
Of course most just dismiss the Aga evidence and say that it could have been any hot item that caused the burns, but deep down I think we all know that there was no real logical reason whatsoever for the killer to burn Nevills back, be it Jeremy or Sheila!
Indeed, the burns had always been a bit of a mystery until the Boyce evidence emerged a few years ago, which to be honest, made a lot of sense, well to me anyway!
Yes, I for one will always have reasonable doubt of JBs guilt even if he never gains his freedom, due to the Aga evidence alone.
-
Well realistically, HB, if you accept that the Aga was indeed responsible for the burns, then there are only two scenarios, either Nevill was alive when lying against it and then got up himself, or he was already dead and the police moved him!
Of course most just dismiss the Aga evidence and say that it could have been any hot item that caused the burns, but deep down I think we all know that there was no real logical reason whatsoever for the killer to burn Nevills back, be it Jeremy or Sheila!
Indeed, the burns had always been a bit of a mystery until the Boyce evidence emerged a few years ago, which to be honest, made a lot of sense, well to me anyway!
Yes, I for one will always have reasonable doubt of JBs guilt even if he never gains his freedom, due to the Aga evidence alone.
There is no aga evidence. Just more things invented by the CT. The evidence is in the raid team WS's from 1985. That Nevill was found with his head in the coal scuttle.
One of the few things guilters agreed with Bamber about was his 2012 CCRC submission. That the burns could have been submitted with rifle minus silencer. But he changed his mind on this.
-
Well realistically, HB, if you accept that the Aga was indeed responsible for the burns, then there are only two scenarios, either Nevill was alive when lying against it and then got up himself, or he was already dead and the police moved him!
Of course most just dismiss the Aga evidence and say that it could have been any hot item that caused the burns, but deep down I think we all know that there was no real logical reason whatsoever for the killer to burn Nevills back, be it Jeremy or Sheila!
Indeed, the burns had always been a bit of a mystery until the Boyce evidence emerged a few years ago, which to be honest, made a lot of sense, well to me anyway!
Yes, I for one will always have reasonable doubt of JBs guilt even if he never gains his freedom, due to the Aga evidence alone.
Well if your quest to Bamber’s freedom is the Aga evidence alone, you are totally wasting your time with this, it was a pointless exercise and it wouldn’t have reached any conclusion, it was used as throw anything at the CCRC hoping something sticks.
-
Well realistically, HB, if you accept that the Aga was indeed responsible for the burns, then there are only two scenarios, either Nevill was alive when lying against it and then got up himself, or he was already dead and the police moved him!
Of course most just dismiss the Aga evidence and say that it could have been any hot item that caused the burns, but deep down I think we all know that there was no real logical reason whatsoever for the killer to burn Nevills back, be it Jeremy or Sheila!
Indeed, the burns had always been a bit of a mystery until the Boyce evidence emerged a few years ago, which to be honest, made a lot of sense, well to me anyway!
Yes, I for one will always have reasonable doubt of JBs guilt even if he never gains his freedom, due to the Aga evidence alone.
You are not alone Snow, if it can be proved the Aga caused caused the burns to Nevil then it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night. As you say only two options and I don't think the police would have moved Nevil other than to put him back where he was if they dislodged him on entry.
If JB never gains his freedom he will one day be pardoned, the release of the original case notes will see to that.
-
You are not alone Snow, if it can be proved the Aga caused caused the burns to Nevil then it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night. As you say only two options and I don't think the police would have moved Nevil other than to put him back where he was if they dislodged him on entry.
If JB never gains his freedom he will one day be pardoned, the release of the original case notes will see to that.
Of course, Rob!
If the Aga burned Nevill it is significant evidence in JBs favour as far as I can see.
Who knows Whether the Milbank phone call will come to anything? Posting it as part of a podcast series seems a bit odd, but who knows!
-
You are not alone Snow, if it can be proved the Aga caused caused the burns to Nevil then it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night. As you say only two options and I don't think the police would have moved Nevil other than to put him back where he was if they dislodged him on entry.
If JB never gains his freedom he will one day be pardoned, the release of the original case notes will see to that.
IF IF IF, you have to present the CCRC proof and logical reasons of this happening, it’s absolutely nonsense that Neville would have been knocked out for three hours enough time to burn himself, recover and phone Jeremy and then go upstairs and confront Sheila. In other words, there is zero evidence that this happened and that’s why the CCRC have rejected it.
-
Of course, Rob!
If the Aga burned Nevill it is significant evidence in JBs favour as far as I can see.
Who knows Whether the Milbank phone call will come to anything? Posting it as part of a podcast series seems a bit odd, but who knows!
IF IF. Anyone can make any claim, the CCRC work on hard evidence, not someone’s opinion.
-
IF IF. Anyone can make any claim, the CCRC work on hard evidence, not someone’s opinion.
Of course, HB!
But personally I think the 'alleged' Aga burn evidence amounts to slightly more than someone's opinion!
-
IF IF. Anyone can make any claim, the CCRC work on hard evidence, not someone’s opinion.
The CCRC don't do anything as far as I can see? They just look to reject, they have massive powers which they never use.
They are not fit for purpose and hopefully will be replaced by another organisation soon.
-
The CCRC don't do anything as far as I can see? They just look to reject, they have massive powers which they never use.
They are not fit for purpose and hopefully will be replaced by another organisation soon.
Im not sticking up for them and I’ve said it before, but they are limited by their resources, they get roughly 1500/1600 cases to look at each year, now imagine just Bambers case which has the number of points raised to look into, then take the scope needed to investigate just the Aga burn theory none sense, you can replace them with a new organisation, but, unless they get the resources and funded needed it will just be the same.
I know a sex offender who pleaded guilty, he served 4 months of a 8 month prison sentence, when he came out he applied to the CCRC to look into his case, not because he was innocent but because he thought his sentence was too long. He lost, but It clogs the system up, this would have took someone off a more serious and proper MOJ case to look into other than his trying to save face, he did it just to brag that he had appealed.
-
Im not sticking up for them and I’ve said it before, but they are limited by their resources, they get roughly 1500/1600 cases to look at each year, now imagine just Bambers case which has the number of points raised to look into, then take the scope needed to investigate just the Aga burn theory none sense, you can replace them with a new organisation, but, unless they get the resources and funded needed it will just be the same.
I know a sex offender who pleaded guilty, he served 4 months of a 8 month prison sentence, when he came out he applied to the CCRC to look into his case, not because he was innocent but because he thought his sentence was too long. He lost, but It clogs the system up, this would have took someone off a more serious and proper MOJ case to look into other than his trying to save face, he did it just to brag that he had appealed.
You only have to look at Simon Hall, protesting his innocence through a Campaign team, he had a massive Campaign by activists, the CCRC referred his case but the Court of Appeal rejected, he later confessed and killed himself. A waste of resources for the CCRC, driven purely by lies, His case was said to have gravely undermined the claims of many prisoners who claim their innocence and embarrassed miscarriage of justice activists, having proved that they had campaigned for a guilty man.
you also have to also feel sorry for the victims family having to be put through this sort of thing. No one ever thinks about these, imagine your family member that’s been killed and there are idiots coming up with nonsense and the distress it causes them. imagine the family who’s daughter (she was just 13) sexually assaulted by a sex offender and then he appeals his sentence just for face save, these poor people never get the chance to move on.
-
You only have to look at Simon Hall, protesting his innocence through a Campaign team, he had a massive Campaign by activists, the CCRC referred his case but the Court of Appeal rejected, he later confessed and killed himself. A waste of resources for the CCRC, driven purely by lies, His case was said to have gravely undermined the claims of many prisoners who claim their innocence and embarrassed miscarriage of justice activists, having proved that they had campaigned for a guilty man.
you also have to also feel sorry for the victims family having to be put through this sort of thing. No one ever thinks about these, imagine your family member that’s been killed and there are idiots coming up with nonsense and the distress it causes them. imagine the family who’s daughter (she was just 13) sexually assaulted by a sex offender and then he appeals his sentence just for face save, these poor people never get the chance to move on.
The CCRC has what around 90 staff what are they doing?
In Andrew Malkinson's case they were going to reject a third time even when they knew of compelling DNA evidence it's beyond a joke. If the police had fully disclosed the case would not have even got to trial.
Obviously I don't like seeing people abusing the system.
-
The CCRC has what around 90 staff what are they doing?
In Andrew Malkinson's case they were going to reject a third time even when they knew of compelling DNA evidence it's beyond a joke. If the police had fully disclosed the case would not have even got to trial.
Obviously I don't like seeing people abusing the system.
What do you think they’re doing? It’s ok for someone without any knowledge to judge, Some are part time, and The average workload of investigators at the troubled miscarriage of justice watchdog has more than doubled since 2010 and, in at least one case, was closer to four times the average, according to new data obtained under a freedom of information request. Fifteen years ago case review managers had on average 12.5 cases; but according to the latest figures from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the average caseworker is now managing 25 cases. The highest number of cases allocated to a single worker in January this year was 45.
The CCRC said that ‘the numbers given alone do not do anything to describe the diverse portfolio case review managers may have – for example, one might have 40 simple cases whereas another might have 12 complex cases resulting in similar workload, but different portfolio sizes’. As of January 2025, the commission has 39 case handlers (including nine part-time) and 50 case reviewers.
It was awful for Andrew and what he went through, I do agree the CCRC needs an overall, but without the proper funding and the vast increase in Staff, nothing will change. I think it lacks expertise in some important fields, like forensics pathology ETC, which the Guardian touched on, it’s ok having legal knowledge but I think they should invest more in this area?
-
What do you think they’re doing? It’s ok for someone without any knowledge to judge, Some are part time, and The average workload of investigators at the troubled miscarriage of justice watchdog has more than doubled since 2010 and, in at least one case, was closer to four times the average, according to new data obtained under a freedom of information request. Fifteen years ago case review managers had on average 12.5 cases; but according to the latest figures from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the average caseworker is now managing 25 cases. The highest number of cases allocated to a single worker in January this year was 45.
The CCRC said that ‘the numbers given alone do not do anything to describe the diverse portfolio case review managers may have – for example, one might have 40 simple cases whereas another might have 12 complex cases resulting in similar workload, but different portfolio sizes’. As of January 2025, the commission has 39 case handlers (including nine part-time) and 50 case reviewers.
It was awful for Andrew and what he went through, I do agree the CCRC needs an overall, but without the proper funding and the vast increase in Staff, nothing will change. I think it lacks expertise in some important fields, like forensics pathology ETC, which the Guardian touched on, it’s ok having legal knowledge but I think they should invest more in this area?
They work at home doing no investigative work, doing next to nothing, but they have massive powers if only they would use them.
It was plainly obvious there was serious doubt about Andrews's case only 3 years after conviction and the CCRC reviewer did nothing. If only the police had fully disclosed he would never have been convicted in the first place.
The system is rotten, to scared to admit when a conviction is wrong.
-
D
They work at home doing no investigative work, doing next to nothing, but they have massive powers if only they would use them.
It was plainly obvious there was serious doubt about Andrews's case only 3 years after conviction and the CCRC reviewer did nothing. If only the police had fully disclosed he would never have been convicted in the first place.
The system is rotten, to scared to admit when a conviction is wrong.
Nearly half the British workforce work from home, I would say it creates a happier and less stressful employee with higher productivity. Having an employee work from home lets the CCRC pick the right candidates for the job from all over the UK instead of a drive away to the Birmingham office?
I don’t agree with you that they do nothing! They might work really hard for all you know.
-
DNearly half the British workforce work from home, I would say it creates a happier and less stressful employee with higher productivity. Having an employee work from home lets the CCRC pick the right candidates for the job from all over the UK instead of a drive away to the Birmingham office?
I don’t agree with you that they do nothing! They might work really hard for all you know.
I concur with that. I work from home 3 days a week and work from the office the other two. Its cuts the stress of commuting considerably.
If the CCRC did not allow staff to work from home, they would only be able to recruit staff local to Birmingham.
-
I concur with that. I work from home 3 days a week and work from the office the other two. Its cuts the stress of commuting considerably.
If the CCRC did not allow staff to work from home, they would only be able to recruit staff local to Birmingham.
Have you read the Guardian article today about Milbank, Dan?
-
Have you read the Guardian article today about Milbank, Dan?
Is it any good? I can no longer read Guardian articles.
-
Is it any good? I can no longer read Guardian articles.
I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!
-
I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi
Thanks Bubo!
-
I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!
I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC? They couldn’t verify it until they hear it? Maybe this will change once it’s released?
Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)
-
I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!
Thank you Snow.
-
I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC? They couldn’t verify it until they hear it? Maybe this will change once it’s released?
Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)
I suspect that when the audio is finally released, one lot of people will interpret it one way and the other lot of people will interpret another way.. and we'll be no further forward.
-
I suspect that when the audio is finally released, one lot of people will interpret it one way and the other lot of people will interpret another way.. and we'll be no further forward.
I don’t know Roch, could it be verified it’s actually him talking? If so it might carry weight? Don’t you find it strange though, that a man has spent nearly 40 years in prison and the New Yorker are said to have this evidence, but chose not to send it to the decision makers, on these grounds…. The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.
Yet they are prepared to release it apparently on a podcast? So the recording could have been sent to the CCRC earlier and maybe it might have been investigated differently? It probably became of lesser value to the CCRC because it couldn’t be verified?
-
I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC? They couldn’t verify it until they hear it? Maybe this will change once it’s released?
Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)
[/quoteYes, here's evidence that has allegedly the potential to free a man after forty years in prison, yet its only available on a paid for podcast mean time.
Oh well, we will just have to wait and see, HB!
The thing is, if Milbank was willing to give an interview then Heidi Blake should have made damned sure that it was videod, and also made sure that Milbank ran through the exact details of what took place, eg, 'the phone rang at 6.09 and I picked it up' etc,.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4994.0.html
At 6.09am this open line was linked up with our own '999' call line and was thereafter constantly monitored by PC Millbank'.
----------
This is the 1985 WS relating to the time of 6.09am.
Appreciate supporters will try to twist it to Sheila ringing 999 & then saying nothing. Although police had been outside with a loud speaker for hours.
-
Supporters & Bamber claimed Nevill called Chelmsford police, 25 years later. As the WS's of West & Bonnet were different.
The WS's would be different . They are different people receiving information from different people.
Now 40 years later it is claimed Sheila called 999 and said nothing. The officer did not say anything to anyone in 1985.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi
Then his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, whom he had just dumped, told the police he had been planning the murders for a year and had contracted a local hitman. When the hired killer turned out to have a cast-iron alibi, Mugford changed her story and said he carried out the murders himself. Bamber was convicted on a 10-2 majority in October 1986.
You would think a national newspaper would get the sequence right.
-
Then his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, whom he had just dumped, told the police he had been planning the murders for a year and had contracted a local hitman. When the hired killer turned out to have a cast-iron alibi, Mugford changed her story and said he carried out the murders himself. Bamber was convicted on a 10-2 majority in October 1986.
You would think a national newspaper would get the sequence right.
She left him on the 27th August 1985.
Her WS has a lot about MM. No surprise he told his GF he did not pull the trigger.
-
I don’t know Roch, could it be verified it’s actually him talking? If so it might carry weight? Don’t you find it strange though, that a man has spent nearly 40 years in prison and the New Yorker are said to have this evidence, but chose not to send it to the decision makers, on these grounds…. The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.
Yet they are prepared to release it apparently on a podcast? So the recording could have been sent to the CCRC earlier and maybe it might have been investigated differently? It probably became of lesser value to the CCRC because it couldn’t be verified?
Yes the whole episode seems odd. This is why I don't want to pin my hopes on it.
-
Yes, she should have snow66! I also find it incredible that Milbank didn't realize the import of the information he possessed, but sat on it for forty years. It makes no sense unless he was conducting missionary work in West Africa with no access to mass media during the whole of that time.
-
Yes, she should have snow66! I also find it incredible that Milbank didn't realize the import of the information he possessed, but sat on it for forty years. It makes no sense unless he was conducting missionary work in West Africa with no access to mass media during the whole of that time.
Here is a suggestion. Many asked why he waited all this time when the story first broke last year. I suggested it was because he knew he was dying. At a risk of repeating myself. Any one who knew the real truth and knew JB was 'Trussed up like a kipper' could not whistle blow. Not just they but the others would all be sacked and would loose their pensions. The whole of EP would be affected good and bad. Talks about combining Essex and Kent were in the news frequently. Today there is very close cooperation between the two forces. Might they have been merged?
At the end of his life he had nothing to loose.
-
Yes, she should have snow66! I also find it incredible that Milbank didn't realize the import of the information he possessed, but sat on it for forty years. It makes no sense unless he was conducting missionary work in West Africa with no access to mass media during the whole of that time.
Ha ha! you may have a point there, Steve!
BUT!! I suppose we have to remember too, that the only media we had in 1985 was three or four news channels and newspapers, that was all.
No forums like this with all the details of the case, so once the trial was over that was it for most of us regarding the Bamber case.
You could say that Milbank should have realized that he received a call from WHF before the police entered, but again, where was all the details written down at the time for him to scrutinize?
After all, he was a civilian operator wasn't he? not a police man or a detective!
I dont know, lets just see what the New Yorker produces, Steve.
-
She left him on the 27th August 1985.
Her WS has a lot about MM. No surprise he told his GF he did not pull the trigger.
He dumped her. Just deal with it.
Girls get dumped.
-
He dumped her. Just deal with it.
Girls get dumped.
Once Brett had arrived, he didn't need her so much. Her WS says this.
Julie would not be a bundle of laughs from the 7th August & he could not see other women while she was around.
A combination of feeling safe & realising Julie was staying in London resulted in him asking another woman out in front of her.
-
The Doc Maker has not commented on the Millbank interview. His latest article is about UFO's.
Looks like it is down to the evidence Guest29835 says he has seen. Some of the posters on here posted on there. Maybe they can ask him what it is. Although suspect he will dig in & say it is a secret
-
The Doc Maker has not commented on the Millbank interview. His latest article is about UFO's.
Looks like it is down to the evidence Guest29835 says he has seen. Some of the posters on here posted on there. Maybe they can ask him what it is. Although suspect he will dig in & say it is a secret
Well if there is evidence out there to clear JB, I dare say QC is just the man to find it, Adam!
-
Well if there is evidence out there to clear JB, I dare say QC is just the man to find it, Adam!
Please ask him.
-
Most of the case is discussed on social media platforms this day.
From memory very little traffic on QCs is he still posting on it?
-
Most of the case is discussed on social media platforms this day.
From memory very little traffic on QCs is he still posting on it?
No he is not.
-
Well if there is evidence out there to clear JB, I dare say QC is just the man to find it, Adam!
West's forged log on it's own would clear JB Snow just needs EP to hand it over.
-
West's forged log on it's own would clear JB Snow just needs EP to hand it over.
Yes, I remember Bill did a comprehensive piece on the Esda testing, Rob.
But it seems no matter what evidence is presented it falls on deaf ears as far as the CCRC is concerned.
-
Yes, I remember Bill did a comprehensive piece on the Esda testing, Rob.
But it seems no matter what evidence is presented it falls on deaf ears as far as the CCRC is concerned.
I don't think EP handed the original log over Snow to be fair to the CCRC, they can't because ESDA testing would reveal two calls I believe?
-
I don't think EP handed the original log over Snow to be fair to the CCRC, they can't because ESDA testing would reveal two calls I believe?
OK, thanks Rob.
Seems the CCRC have thrown out the Aga evidence too though, that was their decision.
And it doesn't look good for the Milbank call by the look of things either?
-
Personally I suspect although indeed still resilaint and confident on the surface Jeremy acknowledges that any accquital he may get will be a posthumous one.
-
Personally I suspect although indeed still resilaint and confident on the surface Jeremy acknowledges that any accquital he may get will be a posthumous one.
A remark he made in the past may be illuminating: it was harder for him to settle at Gresham's than to endure life at Gartree Prison. It seems his personality wasn't conducive to produce for a sustained period of time. He would adhere to a routine where little demand was made of him, yet faltered when a system wanted results. Even now, attempting to control events from a prison cell, as Ann Eaton remarked, his efforts have been fruitless, yet in his own mind he has been afforded a certain cachet and at least a purpose, even if that purpose is founded not on truth, but on lies and deceit.
-
Personally I suspect although indeed still resilaint and confident on the surface Jeremy acknowledges that any accquital he may get will be a posthumous one.
Yes, I suppose even if JB is indeed innocent he will be thinking that every piece of evidence in his favour will have been exhausted if the latest CCRC application is rejected.
What could be left?
-
OK, thanks Rob.
Seems the CCRC have thrown out the Aga evidence too though, that was their decision.
And it doesn't look good for the Milbank call by the look of things either?
I don’t know how you class the Aga rubbish as Evidence Snow, all it did was waste time and resources on something that was futile. It was put in just to arouse more suspicion that’s all. It was an ill conceived video in my opinion, accusing the Police of moving Neville from in front of the Aga and onto the chair was never going anywhere.
Not listened to the Podcast, has the Millbank call been on yet?
-
I don’t know how you class the Aga rubbish as Evidence Snow, all it did was waste time and resources on something that was futile. It was put in just to arouse more suspicion that’s all. It was an ill conceived video in my opinion, accusing the Police of moving Neville from in front of the Aga and onto the chair was never going anywhere.
Not listened to the Podcast, has the Millbank call been on yet?
I dont think the Millbank episode will be free to listen to for a few weeks yet, HB.
-
I dont think the Millbank episode will be free to listen to for a few weeks yet, HB.
Thanks Snow. I thought Boyces theory about the burns on Neville’s back being caused by the rifle barrel end minus the silencer carried more weight, this way it points to the Silencer not being on the rifle, especially when you consider it was the silencer evidence that probably sealed his fate?
-
The doc saying Nevill's burns may have been carried out by the rifle without silencer is decent.
But it could just mean he had finished the shooting and then burnt his back after putting the silencer away. Or used another rifle nozzle or instrument to burn him.
The theory that Nevill was laying on a cold aga door & was moved by the police upon entry does not work or match the raid teams WS's.
-
The doc saying Nevill's burns may have been carried out by the rifle without silencer is decent.
But it could just mean he had finished the shooting and then burnt his back after putting the silencer away. Or used another rifle nozzle or instrument to burn him.
The theory that Nevill was laying on a cold aga door & was moved by the police upon entry does not work or match the raid teams WS's.
That is why the Aga burns only make sense if they happened earlier on before Nevill had been shot and killed, Adam!
But alas, the CT wont entertain that possibility.
Dont see why? Nevill lying against the Aga from around 11.00-3.00 is just the same as lying against it from 3.30-7.30, and the Aga would have been hotter at that time too, would it not?
-
Thanks Snow. I thought Boyces theory about the burns on Neville’s back being caused by the rifle barrel end minus the silencer carried more weight, this way it points to the Silencer not being on the rifle, especially when you consider it was the silencer evidence that probably sealed his fate?
Well, I suppose its the fact that the blood in the silencer allegedly belonged to Sheila that did the damage, HB.
Something that can never be determined at this stage I suppose.
But its always worth remembering that the police didn't find a silencer at the crime scene.
-
Well, I suppose its the fact that the blood in the silencer allegedly belonged to Sheila that did the damage, HB.
Something that can never be determined at this stage I suppose.
But its always worth remembering that the police didn't find a silencer at the crime scene.
I think it’s common knowledge that the silencer was found by the relatives at the crime scene Snow.
-
I think it’s common knowledge that the silencer was found by the relatives at the crime scene Snow.
I may be wrong, but I think Snow66!'s point is that the silencer evidence would have carried more weight had it been found by police that first morning.
-
I may be wrong, but I think Snow66!'s point is that the silencer evidence would have carried more weight had it been found by police that first morning.
Yes I agree, but then they would still offer excuses that it was planted by the police after they shot June and then shot Sheila to frame Jeremy, after they moved Neville’s body from in front of the Aga. You know the story Steve.
-
I may be wrong, but I think Snow66!'s point is that the silencer evidence would have carried more weight had it been found by police that first morning.
Exactly, Steve!
-
Optimistic to think the police would find the silencer on the first morning. It was murder/suicide and the silencer was not part of the crime scene.
-
Exactly, Steve!
Oh do you mean on the morning Snow, I just thought you meant the police didn’t find the silencer?
-
Optimistic to think the police would find the silencer on the first morning. It was murder/suicide and the silencer was not part of the crime scene.
Well, possibly, Adam, but the funny part is that the silencer was spoken about by JB, the relatives and the police in the first few days after the murders yet no one bothered to accertain its whereabouts.
Astonishing really! Quite quite astonishing! WHY?
-
Oh do you mean on the morning Snow, I just thought you meant the police didn’t find the silencer?
Well the police never found a silencer in WHF did they, HB?
At least thats the official narrative!
-
Well the police never found a silencer in WHF did they, HB?
At least thats the official narrative!
Steve’s saying you mean on the morning, do you mean they never found one, like I said it’s common knowledge that the relatives found the silencer.
This issue has been raised millions of times, they were never looking for a silencer, why should they look for a silencer when initially it was Sheila who shot everyone and then killed herself.
-
Well, possibly, Adam, but the funny part is that the silencer was spoken about by JB, the relatives and the police in the first few days after the murders yet no one bothered to accertain its whereabouts.
Astonishing really! Quite quite astonishing! WHY?
When was it spoken about?
Believe the police did an inventory of the gun cupboard. One item would be 'silencer in it's box'. But they would not notice any blood or paint inside it.
-
When was it spoken about?
Believe the police did an inventory of the gun cupboard. One item would be 'silencer in it's box'. But they would not notice any blood or paint inside it.
Wasn't it supposed to be propped up against a box?
-
When was it spoken about?
Believe the police did an inventory of the gun cupboard. One item would be 'silencer in it's box'. But they would not notice any blood or paint inside it.
It was raised during his Questioning on the day, he replied that it had to be removed to fit in the gun cupboard.
-
Optimistic to think the police would find the silencer on the first morning. It was murder/suicide and the silencer was not part of the crime scene.
The Judge at the trial made the remark that the Senior crime Examination was Perfunctory, I couldn’t agree more with this.
-
Wasn't it supposed to be propped up against a box?
It was in it's box. Believe behind a dart board.
-
Wasn't it supposed to be propped up against a box?
No it was inside a box Steve, a brown cardboard box. The Police admitted they wasn’t looking for a silencer, and even if they had examined the Gun Cupboard thoroughly and found one, they doubt they would have found the significance with it? As far as they were concerned it was murder then Suicide, case closed.
-
It was in it's box. Believe behind a dart board.
No the dart board was to the left hand corner of the cupboard and the box with the silencer in was to the back right of the cupboard.
-
No the dart board was to the left hand corner of the cupboard and the box with the silencer in was to the back right of the cupboard.
Remember Wilkes mentions a dart board.
Going by the state of WHF, suspect the gun cupboard had a lot junk in. The silencer in amongst it.
-
Remember Wilkes mentions a dart board.
Going by the state of WHF, suspect the gun cupboard had a lot junk in. The silencer in amongst it.
Yes the dart board was behind a box containing several boxes of cartridges and to the left corner. I agree about the junk especially around the house.
-
No it was inside a box Steve, a brown cardboard box. The Police admitted they wasn’t looking for a silencer, and even if they had examined the Gun Cupboard thoroughly and found one, they doubt they would have found the significance with it? As far as they were concerned it was murder then Suicide, case closed.
Yes, I just checked in Chapter 27 of CAL. What confused me was the silencer was standing upright, but it was in the box. In Chapter 6 of Claire Powell it says the box was wedged beneath one of the shelves, so maybe Bamber thought nobody would notice it there.
-
Yes, I just checked in Chapter 27 of CAL. What confused me was the silencer was standing upright, but it was in the box. In Chapter 6 of Claire Powell it says the box was wedged beneath one of the shelves, so maybe Bamber thought nobody would notice it there.
Sadly for him, the relatives went on a search.
-
Yes, I just checked in Chapter 27 of CAL. What confused me was the silencer was standing upright, but it was in the box. In Chapter 6 of Claire Powell it says the box was wedged beneath one of the shelves, so maybe Bamber thought nobody would notice it there.
Why was he trying to hide it, Steve?
-
I may be wrong, but I think Snow66!'s point is that the silencer evidence would have carried more weight had it been found by police that first morning.
But it was all sown up, Steve. On that first morning it was murder/suicide. Why would they be looking for anything/anyone else?
-
The two things that have always blared out to me in the case.
The police's failure even to discover the silencer in a cursory search. On the morning of 7.8.85.
And Jeremy Bamber alleging police foul play prior to any arrest. Ref the Gerard Wiggins WS.
-
But it was all sown up, Steve. On that first morning it was murder/suicide. Why would they be looking for anything/anyone else?
Who made the police aware of the fact that a silencer existed for the murder weapon, Jane?
The sights too for that matter?
-
Sadly for him, the relatives went on a search.
££££
-
Yes, I just checked in Chapter 27 of CAL. What confused me was the silencer was standing upright, but it was in the box. In Chapter 6 of Claire Powell it says the box was wedged beneath one of the shelves, so maybe Bamber thought nobody would notice it there.
Yes, it just seems a bit odd hiding the silencer in the gun cupboard only to tell the police a few hours later about its existence, Steve!
Can you explain this?
-
Who made the police aware of the fact that a silencer existed for the murder weapon, Jane?
The sights too for that matter?
It was first brought up while he was being questioned by the Police, when Bamber was telling them about him loading the rifle and going to shoot the rabbits, the silencer and sights were brought up at this point, that was probably after 12 noon on the day of the murders, it was just brought up in the conversation. Stan would have been in on the questioning he’d probably seen the rifle on top of Sheila. I think as the story goes, Anne went home later that evening and told Pargeter who made the statement that he’d seen them on the rifle the week before? This is without checking in detail, but it was just routine questioning about his movements and how he left the rifle?
-
Yes, it just seems a bit odd hiding the silencer in the gun cupboard only to tell the police a few hours later about its existence, Steve!
Can you explain this?
I think he had to, questions were raised about it by the Police, what did you want him to say there wasn’t one?
-
But it was all sown up, Steve. On that first morning it was murder/suicide. Why would they be looking for anything/anyone else?
They wouldn't, but if it happened to be in plain view and bloodied it would surely attract attention.
-
Why was he trying to hide it, Steve?
He thought the relatives might have remarked on its absence.
-
The two things that have always blared out to me in the case.
The police's failure even to discover the silencer in a cursory search. On the morning of 7.8.85.
And Jeremy Bamber alleging police foul play prior to any arrest. Ref the Gerard Wiggins WS.
The latter was probably just bravado. And what a way to deflect attention from himself. The first point is more problematical: did I read somewhere that the cupboard was looked into by three different police officers, or am I mistaken on that also?
-
Yes, it just seems a bit odd hiding the silencer in the gun cupboard only to tell the police a few hours later about its existence, Steve!
Can you explain this?
I don't recall Bamber mentioning it to police. Was it in his first statement?
-
££££
... and why would it have been Jeremy?
££££
-
I don't recall Bamber mentioning it to police. Was it in his first statement?
Anne says it was brought up by the Police during questioning about his recollection of the events the night before Steve.
-
It was first brought up while he was being questioned by the Police, when Bamber was telling them about him loading the rifle and going to shoot the rabbits, the silencer and sights were brought up at this point, that was probably after 12 noon on the day of the murders, it was just brought up in the conversation. Stan would have been in on the questioning he’d probably seen the rifle on top of Sheila. I think as the story goes, Anne went home later that evening and told Pargeter who made the statement that he’d seen them on the rifle the week before? This is without checking in detail, but it was just routine questioning about his movements and how he left the rifle?
But it seems to say in the books that JB volunteered the info about the sights and silencer, HB.
It says his story never changed, that he went outside to shoot rabbits with the rifle 'minus sights and silencer'
Therefore, JB himself told the police about the existence of the silencer just hours after the murder without being prompted to do so. Why would he do this if he had hidden the silencer in the hope of it being missed by the police?
You see, the police are blamed for not finding the silencer in the days after the murder, yet they certainly knew it existed, didn't they? Does this mean they simply had no interest in taking it as a crime scene exhibit? Must do surely, after all, Taff returned the following day to question JB further about the silencer, no doubt prompted by AP and the relatives, yet Taff didn't even try to accertain where the silencer was!
This whole situation involving the silencer at that time just seems odd, doesn't it?
Anyway, the fact is, why did JB hide the silencer and tell the police of its existence a few hours later?
Makes no sense!
-
But it seems to say in the books that JB volunteered the info about the sights and silencer, HB.
It says his story never changed, that he went outside to shoot rabbits with the rifle 'minus sights and silencer'
Therefore, JB himself told the police about the existence of the silencer just hours after the murder without being prompted to do so. Why would he do this if he had hidden the silencer in the hope of it being missed by the police?
You see, the police are blamed for not finding the silencer in the days after the murder, yet they certainly knew it existed, didn't they? Does this mean they simply had no interest in taking it as a crime scene exhibit? Must do surely, after all, Taff returned the following day to question JB further about the silencer, no doubt prompted by AP and the relatives, yet Taff didn't even try to accertain where the silencer was!
This whole situation involving the silencer at that time just seems odd, doesn't it?
Anyway, the fact is, why did JB hide the silencer and tell the police of its existence a few hours later?
Makes no sense!
JB is said to. have claimed it important to tell as much of the truth as possible..
-
But it seems to say in the books that JB volunteered the info about the sights and silencer, HB.
It says his story never changed, that he went outside to shoot rabbits with the rifle 'minus sights and silencer'
Therefore, JB himself told the police about the existence of the silencer just hours after the murder without being prompted to do so. Why would he do this if he had hidden the silencer in the hope of it being missed by the police?
You see, the police are blamed for not finding the silencer in the days after the murder, yet they certainly knew it existed, didn't they? Does this mean they simply had no interest in taking it as a crime scene exhibit? Must do surely, after all, Taff returned the following day to question JB further about the silencer, no doubt prompted by AP and the relatives, yet Taff didn't even try to accertain where the silencer was!
This whole situation involving the silencer at that time just seems odd, doesn't it?
Anyway, the fact is, why did JB hide the silencer and tell the police of its existence a few hours later?
Makes no sense!
Im just going by Anne’s statement snow who was there listening and taking notes, she clearly says questions were raised about the silencer and sights to the gun, to which Bamber replied (this meaning a question has been put to him) that the silencer and sights had to be removed to fit in the gun cupboard. So to me it looks like a question has been put to him? It was next day on 5he 8th of August when Pargater arrived and wanted to know off Anne about the state of the rifle.
Without checking, I think when he’s arrested he’s very vague about the silencer, not knowing where it was kept.
Another point I will make, I’ve chatted with a gun enthusiast and he assures me that the rifle with the silencer fitted wouldn’t make any difference with noise even in the house even if it was fitted, another thing that shocked me, how tiny the actual bullet is in size once it’s fired and it leaves the shell.
-
But it seems to say in the books that JB volunteered the info about the sights and silencer, HB.
It says his story never changed, that he went outside to shoot rabbits with the rifle 'minus sights and silencer'
Therefore, JB himself told the police about the existence of the silencer just hours after the murder without being prompted to do so. Why would he do this if he had hidden the silencer in the hope of it being missed by the police?
You see, the police are blamed for not finding the silencer in the days after the murder, yet they certainly knew it existed, didn't they? Does this mean they simply had no interest in taking it as a crime scene exhibit? Must do surely, after all, Taff returned the following day to question JB further about the silencer, no doubt prompted by AP and the relatives, yet Taff didn't even try to accertain where the silencer was!
This whole situation involving the silencer at that time just seems odd, doesn't it?
Anyway, the fact is, why did JB hide the silencer and tell the police of its existence a few hours later?
Makes no sense!
Well it seems to say to me in Anne’s statement ( although she is a little contradictory) that the Police put the question to him, by saying Jeremy replies with, so once he’s asked about the Silencer, he’s got to address why it wasn’t on the rifle along with the sights while he went out to shoot rabbits.
-
JB is said to. have claimed it important to tell as much of the truth as possible..
But why would JB tell the police about the silencer if he knew that it may be stained with Sheilas blood, Jane?
How did he know the police wouldn't request to see it?
The theory of JB 'hiding' the silencer doesn't really hold water, does it?
Seems to me, if he's guilty he simply used the silencer and replaced it without worrying about it being found. Funny that he didn't notice or indeed worry about the scratch, red paint and blood on it though, which Dave's attention was drawn to right away!
-
JB is said to. have claimed it important to tell as much of the truth as possible..
I think Bamber would have grasped at this stage that the Police were treating it as murder suicide, he would have been informed that the bodies had been removed from the house to the morgue, he was in control at this stage. Anne recounts as the interview progressed the police were telling Jeremy that Sheila must have had a brainstorm when she was told she wasn’t a fit mother.
-
Im just going by Anne’s statement snow who was there listening and taking notes, she clearly says questions were raised about the silencer and sights to the gun, to which Bamber replied (this meaning a question has been put to him) that the silencer and sights had to be removed to fit in the gun cupboard. So to me it looks like a question has been put to him? It was next day on 5he 8th of August when Pargater arrived and wanted to know off Anne about the state of the rifle.
Without checking, I think when he’s arrested he’s very vague about the silencer, not knowing where it was kept.
Another point I will make, I’ve chatted with a gun enthusiast and he assures me that the rifle with the silencer fitted wouldn’t make any difference with noise even in the house even if it was fitted, another thing that shocked me, how tiny the actual bullet is in size once it’s fired and it leaves the shell.
But the fact is, HB, either the police found a silencer and enquired about it, or JB told them that one existed surely?
A rifle doesn't come with a silencer as you know, so if the police didn't find one then they would have no reason whatsoever to question JB about one, would they?
-
But why would JB tell the police about the silencer if he knew that it may be stained with Sheilas blood, Jane?
How did he know the police wouldn't request to see it?
The theory of JB 'hiding' the silencer doesn't really hold water, does it?
Seems to me, if he's guilty he simply used the silencer and replaced it without worrying about it being found. Funny that he didn't notice or indeed worry about the scratch, red paint and blood on it though, which Dave's attention was drawn to right away!
If he’s questioned about the silencer he’s going to tell the police about it. Again what do you expect him to say, there wasn’t one. If someone told me they’d gone to shoot rabbits the night before a murder, it would probably lead to the question was the silencer and sights on the rifle when you left it, it was probably the Rabbit story that prompted the discussion about the silencer.
-
The latter was probably just bravado. And what a way to deflect attention from himself. The first point is more problematical: did I read somewhere that the cupboard was looked into by three different police officers, or am I mistaken on that also?
I doubt it was bravado, the conversation took place when the mantra was accepted murder suicide.
-
But the fact is, HB, either the police found a silencer and enquired about it, or JB told them that one existed surely?
A rifle doesn't come with a silencer as you know, so if the police didn't find one then they would have no reason whatsoever to question JB about one, would they?
Again, I say it was probably the fact Bamber told them he’d loaded the rifle to shoot rabbits, it’s natural then to think shooting rabbits with a rifle requires sights and silencer, especially because he said there was more than one rabbit. I looked at the gun enthusiast gun collection, silencers were attached to his rifles, and to be honest they looked natural like this.
-
Well it seems to say to me in Anne’s statement ( although she is a little contradictory) that the Police put the question to him, by saying Jeremy replies with, so once he’s asked about the Silencer, he’s got to address why it wasn’t on the rifle along with the sights while he went out to shoot rabbits.
Well again, how could the police start a conversation about a silencer unless they had found one, HB? Which has always been denied!
-
If he’s questioned about the silencer he’s going to tell the police about it. Again what do you expect him to say, there wasn’t one. If someone told me they’d gone to shoot rabbits the night before a murder, it would probably lead to the question was the silencer and sights on the rifle when you left it, it was probably the Rabbit story that prompted the discussion about the silencer.
Again, it would have to be JB who mentioned the existence of a silencer, HB.
-
Well again, how could the police start a conversation about a silencer unless they had found one, HB? Which has always been denied!
Simply because they were asking him the state he left the rifle in, was it loaded, where about was it left, was there sights on it, was the silencer on it. The conversation also asked about the sights not just the silencer, yet the sights had no bearing on the case. It’s just a natural questioning by the police to a person who was the last to see or hear from the victims, and was the person who supposedly left the murder weapon out, so yes they’re going to ask him questions about the state he left it.
-
Again, it would have to be JB who mentioned the existence of a silencer, HB.
Again, he had to say that the silencer existed if it was put to him. So yes I agree he would have said it existed.
-
Simply because they were asking him the state he left the rifle in, was it loaded, where about was it left, was there sights on it, was the silencer on it. The conversation also asked about the sights not just the silencer, yet the sights had no bearing on the case. It’s just a natural questioning by the police to a person who was the last to see or hear from the victims, and was the person who supposedly left the murder weapon out, so yes they’re going to ask him questions about the state he left it.
But being asked about the state of the rifle still didn't mean that JB had to tell the police about the existence of sights nor a silencer did it, HB?
-
But it seems to say in the books that JB volunteered the info about the sights and silencer, HB.
It says his story never changed, that he went outside to shoot rabbits with the rifle 'minus sights and silencer'
Therefore, JB himself told the police about the existence of the silencer just hours after the murder without being prompted to do so. Why would he do this if he had hidden the silencer in the hope of it being missed by the police?
You see, the police are blamed for not finding the silencer in the days after the murder, yet they certainly knew it existed, didn't they? Does this mean they simply had no interest in taking it as a crime scene exhibit? Must do surely, after all, Taff returned the following day to question JB further about the silencer, no doubt prompted by AP and the relatives, yet Taff didn't even try to accertain where the silencer was!
This whole situation involving the silencer at that time just seems odd, doesn't it?
Anyway, the fact is, why did JB hide the silencer and tell the police of its existence a few hours later?
Makes no sense!
I wonder why it was necessary for him to make a second statement the day after the murders. In that he says he joined in the discussion held in the kitchen and suggested Sheila take a holiday. This does raise eyebrows as he was not known for concern for his sister's welfare. Julie tells a different and to my mind more realistic tale, namely that he was the one who instigated the conversation about adoption and told her the twins would be taken from her as an unfit mother.
-
I wonder why it was necessary for him to make a second statement the day after the murders. In his second statement he says he joined in the discussion held in the kitchen and suggested Sheila take a holiday. This does raise eyebrows as he was not known for his concern for his sister's welfare. Julie tells a different and to my mind more realistic tale, namely that he was the one who instigated the conversation about adoption and told her the twins would be taken from her as an unfit mother.
He's gone over things in his head Steve and thought about things he wants to add. There is one point which stands out for me, he’s asked if Sheila had seen him load the rifle, and in his first statement he never mentions this, so in his second statement he makes a point of adding the fact Sheila would have had a view of him loading the rifle magazine.
-
But the fact is, HB, either the police found a silencer and enquired about it, or JB told them that one existed surely?
A rifle doesn't come with a silencer as you know, so if the police didn't find one then they would have no reason whatsoever to question JB about one, would they?
That rifle needed a silencer and sights.
The relatives were sitting in on conversations from an early stage. So may have mentioned that rifle needed sights and silencer.
The raid team may have mentioned the rifle had no sights or silencer which was unusual.
The police would have seen the rifle on Sheila. An officer with basic knowledge may know it came with sights and silencer.
When the officers did an inventory of the gun cupboard, they would have seen sights and a silencer.
Bamber may have said he rushed our to shoot the rabbits and did not have time to put the sights and silencer on.
-
But being asked about the state of the rifle still didn't mean that JB had to tell the police about the existence of sights nor a silencer did it, HB?
Well if he’s asked about the sights and silencer, something that’s normally fitted for shooting Rabbits and then he denies of their existence, don’t you think it looks rather suspicious? So I would say he had to say that they had sights and silencers and he gave a reason why they were not on the rifle.
-
That rifle needed a silencer and sights.
The relatives were sitting in on conversations from an early stage. So may have mentioned that rifle needed sights and silencer.
The raid team may have mentioned the rifle had no sights or silencer which was unusual.
The police would have seen the rifle on Sheila. An officer with basic knowledge may know it came with sights and silencer.
When the officers did an inventory of the gun cupboard, they would have seen sights and a silencer.
Bamber may have said he rushed our to shoot the rabbits and did not have time to put the sights and silencer on.
I think because he’d come up with the Rabbit story, it triggered a question about sights and silencers.
-
Well again, how could the police start a conversation about a silencer unless they had found one, HB? Which has always been denied!
So your saying the police couldn’t start a conversation about the silencer unless they’d already found a silencer? Are you SERIOUS? They are allowed to ask whatever questions they want, he wasn’t a suspect at this stage, they’re not treating him as the murderer or trying to catch him out, he’s helping an inquiry, he’s the last person to see his family, he’s the last person alive that handled the MURDER weapon, they want to know how HE left the rifle that’s all.
-
That rifle needed a silencer and sights.
The relatives were sitting in on conversations from an early stage. So may have mentioned that rifle needed sights and silencer.
The raid team may have mentioned the rifle had no sights or silencer which was unusual.
The police would have seen the rifle on Sheila. An officer with basic knowledge may know it came with sights and silencer.
When the officers did an inventory of the gun cupboard, they would have seen sights and a silencer.
Bamber may have said he rushed our to shoot the rabbits and did not have time to put the sights and silencer on.
Thank you, Adam.
BUT!! Pure unfounded speculation!
-
I think because he’d come up with the Rabbit story, it triggered a question about sights and silencers.
Again, pure speculation, HB!
-
So your saying the police couldn’t start a conversation about the silencer unless they’d already found a silencer? Are you SERIOUS? They are allowed to ask whatever questions they want, he wasn’t a suspect at this stage, they’re not treating him as the murderer or trying to catch him out, he’s helping an inquiry, he’s the last person to see his family, he’s the last person alive that handled the MURDER weapon, they want to know how HE left the rifle that’s all.
They simply wanted to know if he left it loaded and ready to shoot, HB, thats all!
-
They simply wanted to know if he left it loaded and ready to shoot, HB, thats all!
No they didn’t, they wanted to know where he left it, did anyone see him load the magazine, did he actually shoot at the rabbits, how many bullets did he load, how many were left in the Magazine and questions were brought up about the silencer and sights.
-
Again, pure speculation, HB!
Ha Ha something your not very good at.
-
Thank you, Adam.
BUT!! Pure unfounded speculation!
Don't try to be the Pontificator your not Snow, at least try.
-
Don't try to be the Pontificator your not Snow, at least try.
But there can be no denying that the available evidence points to JB voluntarily telling the police about the silencers existence, HB, suggesting he had no fears about it being seized as an exhibit, hence it has to follow that JB did not try to hide the silencer in the gun cupboard!
-
But there can be no denying that the available evidence points to JB voluntarily telling the police about the silencers existence, HB, suggesting he had no fears about it being seized as an exhibit, hence it has to follow that JB did not try to hide the silencer in the gun cupboard!
I'm not sure how you arrive at JB having "no fears". The situation was as it was. It was of his making. Adhering to his own claim that it was always best to tell as much of the truth as possible, he just had to run with it and hope he'd done enough to cover himself. I can't help but think there may have been times when a change of underwear may have been necessary?
-
But there can be no denying that the available evidence points to JB voluntarily telling the police about the silencers existence, HB, suggesting he had no fears about it being seized as an exhibit, hence it has to follow that JB did not try to hide the silencer in the gun cupboard!
Sorry I misunderstood you, yes he did give voluntarily evidence about the silencers existence once he’d been questioned and placed to give an unavoidable answer, but if your saying he gave evidence before being questioned, please post this evidence. You say you’ve seen the evidence, I think in a book please share it and put us out of our misery Snow.
-
I am not sure is this link has been posted yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0DNU1aTGVQ
It is a lengthy Sonia programme on Youtube dealing with the Jeremy Bamber case. It includes a discussion with Philip Walker about the New Yorker podcasts.
-
Gazette interview with Heidi Blake:
-
Daily Mail article.
-
Gazette interview with Heidi Blake:
What do you think happened at 6.09, ngb?
Or are you just waiting to see if any more documentation surfaces first?
-
What do you think happened at 6.09, ngb?
Or are you just waiting to see if any more documentation surfaces first?
Just noticed that I made that last post at 6.09 talking about the 6.09 call!
-
Makes a change, phillip on Sonia's show. It does get more views than the 100+ podcasts him & Yvonne did.
Where is Yvonne?
-
The 6.09am call has already been rejected by the CCRC. They probably had a lot more information than is online.
The audio will not change this. But keeps Bamber in the media.
-
The 6.09am call has already been rejected by the CCRC. They probably had a lot more information than is online.
The audio will not change this. But keeps Bamber in the media.
Wonder why they rejected the Aga evidence, Adam?
They only had the info that Philip Boyce produced, nothing else.
It was brand new evidence that blew the police scenario out of the water!
-
The CCRC will have Milbank's 1985 WS.
Burrell's, Jean Rowe's, the raid teams 1985 WS's & the crime scene photos confirn the phone was off it's cradle from 4.00am onwards.
-
I am not sure is this link has been posted yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0DNU1aTGVQ
It is a lengthy Sonia programme on Youtube dealing with the Jeremy Bamber case. It includes a discussion with Philip Walker about the New Yorker podcasts.
I must say the Campaign Team have improved their presentation, though the content as usual is suspect:
Jeremy not dialling 999 because Nevill knew Witham police? So why doesn't Nevill telephone them himself? No mention of the hiatus between calls.
The fostering allegation: surely Barbara Wilson has got the wrong end of the stick: wealthy farmers and pillars of the community involving the Local Authority in the upbringing of their grandchildren..I can't see it myself.
30:00 in: "We've been talking to Sheila.." Philip Walker does have a tendency to overegg the pudding, and this is one of his classic howlers. Either Sheila had opened the door to allow this conversation to happen or she was speaking from an open window or had stepped outside White House Farm. So why wasn't this event witnessed by more than a couple of people, and if it was how was it kept a secret?
No mention of the target shooting practice with Sheila or the conversation with PC Lay about buying a £38000 Porsche.
Jeremy is in deep shock, yet neither Poulton nor Walker mention he was able to drive Michael Clark and Stan Jones to his home address.
36:00 Police shot Sheila. Ludicrous, so not worthy of comment.
Jeremy had to sell heirlooms because of death duties. I'd like to inform Walker one has six months to pay, ample time for probate to be granted.
June's engagement ring. Claims Walker: "It's a shocking tale on all levels." Not so, as Pamela was her sister, and requested some of her jewellery. No mention that Jeremy went against his mother's wishes and had her cremated.
Ann and David's comportment and behaviour post-conviction is quite irrelevant, gossipy as it may be.
The Mabel Speakman will: the changing of the will was done legally, with solicitor Basil Cock in attendance.
"Jeremy Bamber is in the safety of a prison cell" Well, some would say at taxpayers' expense. Remember, he had dragged Peter and Ann up to Full Sutton on the pretext of a land hearing, then backed off at the last minute. By the way: none of the Boutflours relish the prospect of Jeremy Bamber heading to Essex, a gun about his person..
"Julie had another go.." What on earth does Philip Walker mean?
-
Julie was fully on board and complicit with Bamber.
Bamber in the immediate aftermath made many solo trips accountants here there etc whilst leaving Julie in the company of CID and the relatives
He wouldn't have done so if she wasn't in my view.
-
I
"Julie had another go.." What on earth does Philip Walker mean?
He is referring to her naming Matthew McDonald as the hitman who later was found to have a concrete alibi, before she gave the tale of solo killer Jeremy.
-
Where is Yvonne?
You would be full of glee if she had changed stance wouldn't you? Go on admit it.
-
He is referring to her naming Matthew McDonald as the hitman who later was found to have a concrete alibi, before she gave the tale of solo killer Jeremy.
Julies WS still has MM in it. Saying he mentions him after the massacre.
Her WS says before the massacre he was doing it himself.
-
Julies WS still has MM in it. Saying he mentions him after the massacre.
Her WS says before the massacre he was doing it himself.
Will have to re read Julie's WS.
Can recall Julie mentioning a lull when he never talked about it.
She also did say he made no mention of it the weekend before Colin's party, which is strange for me because I believe he would have been hyped up and chewing her ear off about it.
-
He is referring to her naming Matthew McDonald as the hitman who later was found to have a concrete alibi, before she gave the tale of solo killer Jeremy.
But they weren't separate statements: the Matthew McDonald story came from the mouth of Jeremy Bamber, which was then related by Julie. Philip Walker might have been referring to Julie's very first statement, but he didn't make that clear.
-
But they weren't separate statements: the Matthew McDonald story came from the mouth of Jeremy Bamber, which was then related by Julie. Philip Walker might have been referring to Julie's very first statement, but he didn't make that clear.
He is referring to what I am meaning trust me, he said the same on the Shaun Attwood podcast.
Julie Mugford says Jeremy Bamber named MM, Bamber of course denies doing so.
-
EP knew this girl was fully on board with this.
Remember she was only key because the man was denying his culpability. EP DPP ultised her and looked over her own misendevours because she was willing to testify again Bamber, who was on trial for x5 murder.
Her WS for me heavily minimize things. Never have bought her. Never will. Accept that she made an impact as a witness and Rivlin failed to put her on the ropes.
Being a fly on the wall to the conversations between Jeremy and Julie pre massacre would have been interesting.
-
A bit risky Bamber telling Julie beforehand he is going to use MM. She may meet him beforehand & ask him.
But a good idea to use a proxy afterwards. Supporters have always said Julie can't be believed as MM did not commit the massacre. But have never said why Julie would invent MM if she wanted to frame Bamber.
-
A bit risky Bamber telling Julie beforehand he is going to use MM. She may meet him beforehand & ask him.
But a good idea to use a proxy afterwards. Supporters have always said Julie can't be believed as MM did not commit the massacre. But have never said why Julie would invent MM if she wanted to frame Bamber.
Why as a proxy?
You do realise that you don't have to pull a trigger to be done for murder? In fact organising the thing ( conspiracy) is treated more harshly by the judiciary
Don't believe he was trying to " Soften the blow " So Julie would feel better he hadnt shot two little boys to death. She would still be keenly aware he had organised it.
MM was also Bambers friend, not Julie's.
-
A bit risky Bamber telling Julie beforehand he is going to use MM. She may meet him beforehand & ask him.
My partners best friend knows every mundane aspect of my life as she will discuss it with her on the phone. It what's girls and women do, they love to gossip.
Very shocked that Julie didn't confide in anybody who is able to recollect pre massacre about Jeremy's strange and weird ramblings.
-
Why as a proxy?
You do realise that you don't have to pull a trigger to be done for murder? In fact organising the thing ( conspiracy) is treated more harshly by the judiciary
Don't believe he was trying to " Soften the blow " So Julie would feel better he hadnt shot two little boys to death. She would still be keenly aware he had organised it.
MM was also Bambers friend, not Julie's.
He was softening the blow to Julie. As her WS says Bamber said 'he couldn't' when asked if he had killed everyone.
There was also a chance the police may not believe her if she approached them & MM had an alibi. However by the 7th September EP were closing in.
-
A bit risky Bamber telling Julie beforehand he is going to use MM. She may meet him beforehand & ask him.
He wouldn't have had a chance too. According to Julie's WS.
Julie says the first time she had any inkling he was going to commit murder was when he phoned her at 10pm that night. She was in Lewisham, he in Gold hanger.
Granted she says he had talked about it for some time prior. But certainly by her own admittance no mention the weekend prior.
-
Why as a proxy?
You do realise that you don't have to pull a trigger to be done for murder? In fact organising the thing ( conspiracy) is treated more harshly by the judiciary
Don't believe he was trying to " Soften the blow " So Julie would feel better he hadnt shot two little boys to death. She would still be keenly aware he had organised it.
MM was also Bambers friend, not Julie's.
Maybe to start with, as they both shared a cannabis habit. But after Malcolm dallied with Suzette Jeremy was furious, and I think any bond they had ended there and then.
-
If you wanted to bear false witness against Jeremy I don't know why you'd overcomplicate by bringing in a hitman. To me it lends credibility to her statement.
-
If you wanted to bear false witness against Jeremy I don't know why you'd overcomplicate by bringing in a hitman. To me it lends credibility to her statement.
Yes it does, and Jeremy habitually uses scapegoats to compensate for his own shortcomings.