Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Hartley on October 14, 2011, 09:47:AM
-
Her statement which can be viewed in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572)
Is hand written and particularly difficult (for me anyway) to read and consequently isn't discussed as often as it perhaps would be if it was easily legible.
So I have started typing the statement out to allow people to read it more easily, I'm up to page 15 out of 32 so far and will update this post as and when I have the time.
I fully acknowledge that I am having a hard time deciphering Julies handwriting and therefore may very well have made the odd mistake, there are also certain words which I have been unable to recognise and have replaced them with '...??...'. Any mistakes are entirely unintentional, if there is a particular part of the statement which is worth discussing further then please look at the original (as linked to above) to ensure that I have deciphered it correctly, I've separated it into pages (as per the original) to allow you to easily locate a particular section.
If there are any mistakes that you notice then please let me know and I will update it accordingly.
Updated 19/10/11 - 'Corrections from Reader' in Green.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF JULIE MUGFORD DATED 08/08/1985:
PAGE 1
I am 21 years of age and I live at the above address. I am a full time student at the University of London, Goldsmith College.
I am studying education, and have at present a degree in education. I am now studying for a honours degree in the same subject.
I attended Colchester High School for girls and the 6th Form College. Prior to that I attended Altrincham Grammar School for girls. The reason I went to the Colchester School was because my parents moved to the district. I left Colchester High School just before I was eighteen having gained 8 ‘O’ levels and 2 ‘A’ level passes. I have been at the University since then.
Since I have been at university I have had several part time jobs during holiday vacation. One of the jobs was at ‘Sloppy Joes’ pizza restaurant in High Street Colchester. This restaurant also has a separate bar. I commenced working there at the end of November 1983.
The first day I started there as a waitress I met a boy named Jeremy Nevill Bamber.
He was working there as a barman. I got friendly with Jeremy who at that time was living with Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters, Elizabeth Rimington at 2 Tusset Mews, Lexden, Colchester. Malcolm
PAGE 2
and Michael were the owner of ‘Sloppy Joes’ and Elizabeth was the manageress and at that time the girl friend of Malcolm.
Jeremy first invited me out on the Boxing Day of 1983. He invited me round to where he was living and we all had dinner at lunchtime and later I went with Jeremy to meet my parents who live at 11 Scott Drive, Lexden, Colchester. Where I was living at the time.
About a week later Jeremy took me to Tollesbury where we had a walk around and he then took me to meet his parents at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’arcy. I met his parents who I know as June Bamber and Nevill Bamber. I continued the friendship with Jeremy and in January 1984 I went back to college and lived at Rachel McMillan Hall, Deptford which is part of the university accommodation.
Jeremy frequently came to see me and stayed in my room, sometimes he would get up early and drive back to White House Farm to work.
When Jeremy was working in the bar when I first met him I did not know that he was working on the farm and it was only sometime in January 1984 that I realised he was in fact a farmer working on his parents farm. At that time Jeremy was still living in Colchester.
In April 1984 Jeremy moved into 9 Head Street, Goldhanger. This house was purchased for him by his parents. We continued our friendship and in Easter 1984 I spent all the School holiday at Jeremys house. I decorated the house whilst he was working on the farm.
I met his parents frequently but Mrs June Bamber didn’t approve of me being with Jeremy.
At one stage she accused me of being a harlot or loose woman. She offered to buy me a flat in London or Colchester so I
PAGE 3
could go and live there so the neighbours didn’t talk. I declined the offer and I was very offended.
Jeremy only seldom talked about his family and it was not until some months after I first met him that he told me he had a sister who was a top model. He later told me that his sister was forced into marriage by his parents as she had become pregnant and later had been divorced. I knew that his sister had twin boys. I can’t remember when I first met Sheila at the house but I believe it was around Easter time of 1984. I remember that I was at Jeremys house when Jeremy was at work when Mrs Bamber came round with a girl who I later found out was Sheila. Sheila was not introduced to me but both of them came in and looked around the house. The atmosphere was very tense because I believe Mrs Bamber didn’t expect me to be there and she didn’t approve.
I continued my friendship with Jeremy and in June 1984 I went to France for 3 weeks for a working holiday and then returned to live at Goldhanger. In July 1984 I signed on the dole and in September I got casual work which Jeremy arranged for me at North Maldon Growers. I done other picking and sorting jobs on the farm. During the summer I met Sheila and her twin boys Nicholas and Daniel who came to stay at White House Farm.
I got to know her and the twins very well. Sheila would occasionally come to Jeremys house where we would sit, have a chat and a drink. We would occasionally go to Osea Rd Caravan Site in Heybridge, Maldon which I knew the Bambers owned and which Jeremy was interested in.
In October 1984 I returned to my studies in London and continued seeing Jeremy. He came to
PAGE 4
visit me and stay and at times I would stay at his house. It became quite obvious that Jeremy disliked his family and he could not understand why I was so close to mine. He didn’t like Sheila who he thought was crazy. He told me that she had mental problems and had done some horrible things to him in the past.
He would not tell me what she had exactly done to him. Jeremy resented his parents ruling his life and trying to control as well.
I in fact told him I couldn’t understand why if he hated them so much he just didn’t clear out. He told me he had too much to lose. He didn’t actually say what he had to lose but I guessed that he would lose the farm and caravan site which he told me he would get one day.
Jeremy became very frustrated as he pointed the fact that his parents would not give him things, which he had worked for and had earned. He despised Sheila as she was being kept in a flat in London by her parents with all bills being paid.
All Jeremy wanted was money although I told he was lucky at his age to have got what he had.
During my Christmas vacation of 1984 which was between the beginning of December to the middle of January 1985 I was staying at the house in Goldhanger. At that time I was also working part time at Sloppy Joes in Colchester. During this period, I can’t remember if it was before or after Christmas, Jeremy made mention of killing his whole family. We were sitting in the house and he basically confided that he didn’t think his parents had done enough for him like buying carpets and furniture for his house. I know for a fact that he had to get a loan from the bank to buy things for the house. When I say for a
PAGE 5
Fact I mean that is what he told me.
I know that he had about £800 saved up during the summer period of 1984 which he spent on things for the house but needed extra from the bank to finish furnishing the house.
I remember now that sometime around October or November Jeremy was at home and was very angry about the way he was treated by his parents and in talking to Sheila he wished that he could get rid of them and all the family so he could live his own life. I told him he shouldn’t say such terrible things and I dismissed it as idle talk. From October or November 1984 Jeremy would often complain about his parents and would occasionally mention the fact that he wished they were dead.
I remember now that it was just after Christmas 1984 he expanded on how he could kill the whole family. We came ……??… round the farm and he stated that he would like to kill his parents. He also said that he would have to kill Sheila and the twins as well. I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins. I asked him why kill Sheila and the twins as they had done nothing to him. He told me that he deserved everything and Sheila had done nothing on the farm so she didn’t deserve anything. He also said she was crazy and he would be putting her out of her misery and by killing the twins it would be doing them a favour as they would grow up disturbed because of the way they were being brought up.
I would mention also that prior to Christmas 1984 I had met Sheilas ex-husband who I know as Colin Caffell. I have met him
PAGE 6
At White House Farm when he used to come to collect the twins. I then continued talking to Jeremy and asked him what would Colin feel if the twins were killed. He told me later the twins were a burden to Colin and were like a mill stone round his neck. I knew that Colin was a father and because he was looking after the twins more and more he could not get regular work. Jeremy stated that he would be doing Colin a favour if the twins were dead.
During the conversation I believe that Jeremy meant what he had said although I didn’t really believe he would do it.
From Christmas 1984 till about the end of Jan 1985 Jeremy frequently mentioned the fact that he would like to kill the whole family so he could have everything to himself. He said he would like to commit the perfect murder. He told me that he would have to do it when all the family were there, that is Sheila, the twins and Mr – Mrs Bamber. He said he would go there for supper in the evening and put something in their drinks to make them sleep well and would then shoot them all and afterwards set fire to the house using gin or vodka. He said that he would make it look as if his father was in the lounge with the rest upstairs in bed and that his father had accidentally set the house on fire with a cigarette end when he had fallen to sleep in the chair. The fire would destroy all the evidence. He said that he would have left the house saying goodnight to everyone taking the car back to Goldhanger and either walking or cycling back to the farm via the backroads. He told me that he knew of
PAGE 7
A way of getting in and out of the house without anyone knowing as the front and back doors were always locked. I remember that he said that he would use his mothers sleeping pills to put in the drinks as she was taking them at this time.
At this time I was besotted by him and really didn’t believe what he said.
I frequently told him that I didn’t like what he said.
During the middle of January 1985 commenced teacher practice at Lessness Heath Primary School in Kent. I remained at the school until Easter 1985. During this period I was living at 42 Caterham Road, Lewisham. I in fact left this address for my current address a week ago. I continued seeing Jeremy at his house and he visited me.
I remember now that I have got all my dates wrong and that I started teaching practice in the October of 1984 till Christmas 1984 and therefore the conversations about Jeremy killing his family must have been said between July 1984 and October 1984. I moved into 42 Caterham Rd on 28th Sept 1984.
During the period of my teaching practice I went to my doctor who is a Doctor Reeve of New Cross, London. He is the Doctor to the college. I went there because I was having a rough time of my teaching practice and could not sleep properly. The doctor asked me if I wanted something to calm me down and he prescribed me some mild tranquilisers. I later took one tablet but didn’t take anymore. The weekend after I got the tablets I went down to Goldhanger and told Jeremy about going to the doctors and I showed him the tablets. I told him I was annoyed with the Doctor because
PAGE 8
The doctor hadn’t discussed the problem with me but just prescribed tablets. I showed him the tablets and told him they were big and fat and hard to swallow. Nothing more was said about them and I put the bottle on the microwave in the kitchen.
A few days later Jeremy phoned me at my house and told me that he was going to take some of the pills I had bought him. For some reason or another he had it in his mind I had bought the pills especially for him so he could use them on his parents. This is not true and I had no idea why he should think this. He told me that he was going to take some of the pills to see what effect they had on him and if they tasted in drink. Although you might find it hard to believe, I really thought that he was …???… a charade and I didn’t want to believe what he was saying as I didn’t think he would carry his threats out. A few days later I believe it was at the weekend when I went to Goldhanger he told me the pills were useless and didn’t have the desired effects. I told Jeremy that I didn’t like him talking about stupid things and I suppose for about 6 weeks up to late November 1984 he did not mention about killing his family.
Just prior to Christmas 1984 Jeremy asked me to marry him and after I told him I thought he was joking and he said he wasn’t. I said I would marry him. We decided we would go to a registry office after Christmas, not tell anyone and get married. I remember a few days later that Jeremy came home from work and said that his parents had
PAGE 9
Told him that it was about time he got married, he said that because they control him to get married he wouldn’t, because he decided that it was his decision.
At this time it appeared as if Jeremy was getting on worse with his parents. He constantly told me they were nagging him about not working hard enough on the farm or caravan site and that he wasn’t seeing them enough. I would add here that although I encouraged Jeremy to see his parents more often, I at that time did not go to the farm as I knew Mrs Bamber didn’t approve of our relationship.
We did however go to the farm on Boxing Day 1984 for the day and I felt as if the Bambers were really trying to accept me. I should also add that the Bambers and my parents came to Goldhanger on Christmas Day.
From Christmas 1984 till about March 1985 Jeremy appeared to be more ?content? and appeared by what he said to be getting on better with his parents. I did not see them much and I always got the feeling although they liked me, Jeremy didn’t particularly like me seeing them. He didn’t say why and I didn’t ask.
I remember that in March 1985 Sheila went into a mental hospital and when she came out she went and stayed at the farm with the twins. I didn’t see her or the twins at the farm, although she phoned me up and Jeremy went and brought her to the house. I got on well with Sheila but Jeremy said he found her ?frightening?. I arranged to see Sheila in London which never materialised.
Just before Easter 1985 Jeremy mentioned about
PAGE 10
Killing his family again. He not mentioned this for about 2 months. He said that his original plan was not fool proof because of the drugs and he didn’t know how to administer it. He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded. He then said that as they lived on a farm it might be acceptable but then he dismissed that idea. I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful. He said he had changed his mind about burning it down because it might have been seen too quickly and the evidence would not have been destroyed.
He also dismissed the fire because there were valuables in the house which would be lost. He told me the house insurance was low. He mentioned about a pigeon clock and china and silver which he thought were valuable. He said that the only other way that he could do it was to shoot them. He told me that he was always thinking about it on his tractor.
He said he had to plan it so it was fool proof. He was trying to find a way of getting in and out of the house without trace as the outside doors were always locked. This was all he said at that stage and he would have to think more about it. I still didn’t believe he could carry it through.
About June 1985 whilst I was out in the car with Jeremy he told me that he was being pressurised by his parents and he hoped that Sheila was coming to stay. He said that he would use a cycle to do it and would do a trial run to see how long it would take. He thought it would take………..?? (The rest of this page is missing, it looks like she could be saying 15 minutes to me).
PAGE 11
He said he had found a way in through a downstairs window which I think he might have said was a kitchen window. He said they would all be shot. He told me he could get out of the house through a window which the latch would close when the window was closed. He said as you close the window the latch drops down making it look as if the window had never been opened.
I got very upset and insisted that he did not mention it again.
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985.
I was at my home in Lewisham when Jeremy phoned me about 10pm.
He said to me ‘ Hi honey’ I’ve just phoned up to ask how you are. I said to him I have had a wonderful day at work and that I was really happy and I wanted to make him happy. I asked him how his day had been and he said ‘ As best as can be expected’ as he had spent all day on the tractor; …???… it had been sunny and he had spent all day inside. I assume that he meant he was inside the cab of the tractor all day.
I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never. I told him not to be so stupid and that he was only saying this because he had had a bad day on the tractor. He also told me that he had only just got back from work and had had supper with his parents and Sheila and the twins and that was why he late in phoning me.
PAGE 12
I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out. I remember that he told me that he had been on the phone 17 minutes and I said words to the effect ‘oh I am sorry do you want me to go now’ he just said that he hadn’t got anything else to say. We both said goodbye and put the phone down. I remember now that he said words to the effect that I might be hearing from him later. I thought nothing of this.
I believe that prior to Jeremy phoning me up I had been smoking marijuana and I suppose because of this I was quite flippant on the phone with Jeremy.
I suppose I went to be that night about 11:15pm time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine, Susan Battersby who was with me then, it was about 3:15am, I was woken up by another house mate Douglas Dale who told me that Jeremy was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said hello. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake. He said everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm.
I told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said.
PAGE 13
In my view he was telling me they were all dead. I immediately got out of bed and I spoke to my friend Susan. I don’t know if she came into my room or we met on the landing. She was very cross and complained about Jeremy phoning at a stupid time. She asked me what was wrong as apparently I looked concerned. I told her that I didn’t know but there was something wrong at the farm.
She said again what was wrong. We then all went back to our beds. I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am.
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family.
About 5??? the same day Wednesday 7th August 1985 I again received a telephone call from a call box. I answered the phone in the house and Jeremy spoke.
He said to have only got the 10p don’t go to work. A police car will be coming to pick you up. He said I will explain to you later when I see you. I got showered and dressed, and later a police car picked me up and I went to Goldhanger. At the house I met Jeremy who appeared upset. DS Jones told me what had happened although I already knew. DS Jones allowed me a few minutes with Jeremy in the living room where we hugged and kissed. Whilst we were kissing he whispered in my ear and said ‘I should have been an actor’ he then gave a slight …???…
I didn't say anything to him then about him doing it. During the course of the day the police came to the house taking
PAGE 14
statements from Jeremy and other people.
About 8:30 the same day DS Jones and DC Clarke left the house leaving Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I then said to Jeremy ‘Did you do it’
He said ‘ No I couldn’t have done it, Mathew did it’. I knew to whom he was referring.
Crossed out partial sentence: He said that Mathew had phoned him from the farm, which I took to be White House Farm, that morning and
He said before he had phoned me that morning Mathew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he should think for his age was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Mathew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a …???… …???… and had fired 7 shots into him.
I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Mathew where the gun was going to be , how to get into the house. He said this and which bedroom they had all been sleeping in as Sheila and the twins …??… slept in different rooms when they
PAGE 15
visited the farm. He also told Mathew how to leave the house so it appears locked, and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked how much he paid Mathew and he said £2000.
Jeremy said that he told him that he was going out of the country and it would be in both their interest if they didn’t know where he had gone. I did mention to Jeremy where he could get £2000 as I knew he hadn’t got it. Jeremy told me that he had to find a way of getting it without the police finding out or the accountant.
I forgot to tell you about a phone in the house when Jeremy changed his plan from burning the house down to shooting the family, he told me that he was going to make it look as is Sheila was responsible and the grounds would be that she was mad having been in a mental hospital. He also told me that there would be a phone call made from the house because the last phone call made would be recorded.
He said the call would be made from the White House to his house. He didn’t say who would make it or why. I know there was a portable phone in the house with a memory key which when pressed would phone back to the last number called.
The conversation regarding the phone took place when he changed his plans in April time this year. I would like to add that the conversation I had with Jeremy the day the Police ….(can’t read much more)
........... To be continued.......
-
Utter bollocks I don't think there is one person on this forum that believe a word of that but just something I would like the man who knows everything Hartley, Julie Mugford mentions she ended up the Colchester area because her parents moved there.
Quite an important point which will become clear later was that Mugfords real father
-
Utter bollocks I don't think there is one person on this forum that believe a word of that but just something I would like the man who knows everything Hartley, Julie Mugford mentions she ended up the Colchester area because her parents moved there.
Quite an important point which will become clear later was that Mugfords real father
As well as that may be, I haven't commented at all on the contents of her statement, I am simply providing it so that people can read it for themselves.
Whatever opinions anybody has about the contents of her statement, it is clearly a very important aspect of this case.
-
I've been looking at those words Jeremy was supposed to have said,
He said "everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm."
And am wondering if she is reinterpreting his words with the wisdom of hindsight? And not in the spirit of the way they were actually said. Firstly the reason he phoned and woke her up about 3.15am was probably just after his father phoned him. He was concerned so he thought to phone his girlfriend and sound her out? She picks up the phone and the first words she hears are, "Everything is going well. Don't worry. Something's wrong at the farm". Could be interpreted, "Now everything's ok so I don't want you to worry. But I think somethings wrong at the farm". Her response was, "It's probably nothing to worry about. Go back to bed". Said like that his words don't sound so cryptic. The way Mugsy said it sound very cryptic and throws doubt upon Jeremy's innocence.
-
I'll also add that her grammar and spelling is appalling in this statement, so it is often quite difficult to comprehend quite what she is trying to say in parts of this statement.
Reader would have a field day. :D
-
Hartley I did not mention that you commented on Mugfords statement but as you bought it up you have said you believe her so that probably means you are the only one on here that does.
I do need to bring something up as I am so furious for many months I had many had many heated debates up against you and John Lamberton. I don't know if I can dig them out but for a long time you supported each other. I don't know if you are still in contact with this person but he has sunk to a new low recently over comments made about Mike T. Maybe you could get him to stop it. I doubt I have ever come across such a vile person but I suppose Mugford, Huntley, Hindley, Brady to name a few.
He will never get his conviction overturned ever, because I will make sure of that infact when I am not so busy with other pressing matters I will deal with him because I am going to make him famous. John Lamberton is going to be more famous than Jeremy Bamber.Everyone is going to know who he is and what he has done.
He has got his fan base on the guilty page and his own forum membership one.I will put myself and my 2000 followers (nearly all legal people and journos) and we will see which one of us causes the most damage in publicity.
As for the things hehas said about me it's like water off a ducks back because I am beyond excited at the moment for what has happened but can't be released just yet.
Hartley I think over the next few weeks you might wish you had chosen your friends more wisely but maybe you are a loyal friend and don't mind a bit of prison visiting.
Going back to my original question I would like it confirmed if Julies father was in fact her stepfather.
-
Jackie, yet again you are making the thread into your own personal soapbox, there are threads on that topic in the off topic boards which you can use.
-
I'll also add that her grammar and spelling is appalling in this statement, so it is often quite difficult to comprehend quite what she is trying to say in parts of this statement.
Reader would have a field day. :D
Hartley, I don't think that this is JM handwriting. She has signed and dated the statement at the begining and end, and also initialled any errors throughout the statement, BUT yet her signature and initials looks nothing like the handwriting on the actual statement.
-
I'll also add that her grammar and spelling is appalling in this statement, so it is often quite difficult to comprehend quite what she is trying to say in parts of this statement.
Reader would have a field day. :D
Hartley, I don't think that this is JM handwriting. She has signed and dated the statement at the begining and end, and also initialled any errors throughout the statement, BUT yet her signature and initials looks nothing like the handwriting on the actual statement.
Yes I know that's been suggested and is why I linked to the original thread in which Mike suggested it.
-
I'll also add that her grammar and spelling is appalling in this statement, so it is often quite difficult to comprehend quite what she is trying to say in parts of this statement.
Reader would have a field day. :D
Hartley, I don't think that this is JM handwriting. She has signed and dated the statement at the begining and end, and also initialled any errors throughout the statement, BUT yet her signature and initials looks nothing like the handwriting on the actual statement.
Yes I know that's been suggested and is why I linked to the original thread in which Mike suggested it.
You have taken on a very time consuming and head numbing task, much appreciated. :)
-
Yes if I'd have realised when I started then I wouldn't have done so. >:(
-
Now I wonder might that be a policeman written that up
I wonder good at fairy stories though
-
Now I wonder might that be a policeman written that up
I wonder good at fairy stories though
You're not quite with the program dear, have a look at the thread which contains the original statement linked to in my original post in this thread.
-
I'll also add that her grammar and spelling is appalling in this statement, so it is often quite difficult to comprehend quite what she is trying to say in parts of this statement.
Reader would have a field day. :D
Hartley, I don't think that this is JM handwriting. She has signed and dated the statement at the begining and end, and also initialled any errors throughout the statement, BUT yet her signature and initials looks nothing like the handwriting on the actual statement.
It is not JM's handwriting. The statement was written by a police officer and then signed by JM. The poor spelling and grammar are therefore not a reflection of the words actually used by JM.
-
I don't understand is it JM statements or not and Hartley don't call me dear I don't like it because I use that as a term of affection when I write someone a letter.
Whoever the person is has a very good imagination
-
I don't understand is it JM statements or not and Hartley don't call me dear I don't like it because I use that as a term of affection when I write someone a letter.
Whoever the person is has a very good imagination
Sorry dear err Jackie, yes it's JM's statement. It's simply that it iwas written down by the interviewing police officer and then signed by Julie.
-
I am trying to get my head round Whiddons statement. It seems that a lot of people had some sort of input. This was the first time that he was an exhibits officer, and was learning on the hoof.[so to speak]
IMO he was in the dark on a number of things, with items being changed without his knowlege, so followed the official line.
DS Jones comes to the fore in a lot of this, and I think he was totally corrupt.
I think he was a snot gobbling git who was way above his station, but licked the arse of Ainsly.
The amount of interviews he had with ugly guts suggest that he had a one tracked mind, and was determined to get Jeremy.
Wonder what the wanker does now? Probably NCP car park, as long as he has a limp.
Even the lady who examined the silencers was not happy, because numbers had been changed without her knowlege.
Things will soon come crashing down around their lugholes, and they will all plead ignorance.
They all had their chance to come clean, but decided to carry on with the lie.
Judgement day is nigh, and some smelly knickers are in the offing. [not bloodstained knickers].
Where will Miss Marples go then.
I reckon she will find another silencer, or maybe a telescopic sight.
I understand the food in Holloway is quite palatable, but the Christmas decorations are naff. Still it will only be for twenty years. Happy days.
-
Cliff, I've seldom commented on this forum and have never applauded or smited (can you say smite in the past tense? Maybe it should be smote?) .. anyway a +1 for your last comment.
-
Cliff I didn't think it was possible to love you anymore than I do already.
Jeremy got convicted on the word of muggy and the silencer evidence
What a sad example of Britsh Justice round them all up and have them all squeezed together in the dock including Muggy
What a good day for British Justice and poor Sheila maybe we have learnt something about how tortured she was and there was nobody to understand what she was going through
-
Have any of you ever given a statement to the police? Well unfortunately I had to and I can tell you that even today, never mind it 1985, my initial statement was hand written by a police officer and all I was required to do was sign and date at the end.
-
Have any of you ever given a statement to the police? Well unfortunately I had to and I can tell you that even today, never mind it 1985, my initial statement was hand written by a police officer and all I was required to do was sign and date at the end.
Me too. I dictated it, checked it through at the end, then signed it. It took ages.
-
i bet it didnt take 30 coaching sessions and was all hearsay that sent your ex boyfriend who had dumped you with the outcome of him spending a lifetime in prison
In all her statements not one single piece of evidence, nothing to say he had one single scratch on him from Ralph
You cant have it both ways
Jeremy and sheila didnt have a scratch on them
-
Why do people not believe her statement - it fits the facts and if Mcdonald was the killer it implies there would be no scratches on JB or Sheila.....
-
Why do people not believe her statement - it fits the facts and if Mcdonald was the killer it implies there would be no scratches on JB or Sheila.....
The only problem being that Macdonald was not the killer. Or he'd be banged up with Jeremy.
-
Why do people not believe her statement - it fits the facts and if Mcdonald was the killer it implies there would be no scratches on JB or Sheila.....
Which statement are you refering to, she made so many!
-
boheme most normal people wouldnt continue going out with someone if they kept saying they hated their parents and was going to get rid of them not once more than once.
most normal girls wouldnt go on holiday once they knew their boyfriend was responsible for the death of two little boys and three adults.
when did she know it wasnt a hoax or a joke when she shook them in the mortuary and they didnt wake up
normal girls dont try to smother their boyfriend just because they are not in love with them and just to top it off although she didnt really need anything she went up and down oxford street with a stolen cheque book
i wonder why i dont believe her?
-
That is what I was trying to say. How many ways can you tell the truth/lies?
-
Why do people not believe her statement - it fits the facts and if Mcdonald was the killer it implies there would be no scratches on JB or Sheila.....
McDonald was not the killer. Stan Jones was initially convinced that he was the killer because of what Julie Mugford had told him. He wanted McDonald to be the killer as that provided a neat solution to the problems presented by the evidence in the case. However, McDonald provided a cast iron alibi and there was not a shred of evidence connecting him to the murders. McDonald had nothing in his background to suggest that he was someone who could have been hired to murder a family of five including two women and two young children.
-
Why do people not believe her statement - it fits the facts and if Mcdonald was the killer it implies there would be no scratches on JB or Sheila.....
McDonald was not the killer. Stan Jones was initially convinced that he was the killer because of what Julie Mugford had told him. He wanted McDonald to be the killer as that provided a neat solution to the problems presented by the evidence in the case. However, McDonald provided a cast iron alibi and there was not a shred of evidence connecting him to the murders. McDonald had nothing in his background to suggest that he was someone who could have been hired to murder a family of five including two women and two young children.
The question should rather be why do people believe her statement. For she said that Macdonald was the killer. If that was a lie then we must assume that the rest of her statement was a lie.
-
I suppose that people who believe her statement do not think it's a lie, they think she is being truthful when reciting what Jeremy told her and that it was Jeremy who was telling her lies about McDonald.
-
I suppose that people who believe her statement do not think it's a lie, they think she is being truthful when reciting what Jeremy told her and that it was Jeremy who was telling her lies about McDonald.
Mugford took every opportunity to twist everything in favor of her telling the truth, irrespective of whether it was the truth or not?
She was and is a very manipulative individual, like so many police informants who seek to take advantage of everything to make sure they do not get proseuted for anything and everything they have done for which they should have been prosecuted for...
-
Reader would have a field day.
I have some clarifications (shown in context in bold below) that you could put in your version if you agree with them.
End of page 6: he would have left the house
Page 9 -> Jeremy didn't particularly like
End of page 9: Jeremy mentioned about
Page 10: pigeon clock and china and silver
Page 13: Jeremy who appeared upset.
End of page 13: I didn't say anything
On page 14, there is a crossed out partial sentence: He said that Mathew had phoned him from the farm, which I took to be White House Farm, that morning and
That crossed out sentence is followed by: He said that before he had phoned me that morning Mathew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about
-
Julie worked for North Maldon Growers in Goldhanger, not the greengrocers!
-
Julie worked for North Maldon Growers in Goldhanger, not the greengrocers!
Where does it say that tonker?
-
Reader would have a field day.
I have some clarifications (shown in context in bold below) that you could put in your version if you agree with them.
End of page 6: he would have left the house
Page 9 -> Jeremy didn't particularly like
End of page 9: Jeremy mentioned about
Page 10: pigeon clock and china and silver
Page 13: Jeremy who appeared upset.
End of page 13: I didn't say anything
On page 14, there is a crossed out partial sentence: He said that Mathew had phoned him from the farm, which I took to be White House Farm, that morning and
That crossed out sentence is followed by: He said that before he had phoned me that morning Mathew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about
Thank you Reader, I will update accordingly.
-
Julie worked for North Maldon Growers in Goldhanger, not the greengrocers!
Tonker. I wonder if you would introduce yourself in the foyer please? Thank you. :)
-
i caught tonker smiting someone the other night, bloody cheek :o
-
A few people have mentioned that the signature and body of text are different - I believe witnesses don't write their own statements. They are transcribed from tape and the witness just signs them
-
A few people have mentioned that the signature and body of text are different - I believe witnesses don't write their own statements. They are transcribed from tape and the witness just signs them
They're not normally transcribed, but the police generally write them and then the witness reads them back and signs them.
-
They're not normally transcribed, but the police generally write them and then the witness reads them back and signs them.
Beg to differ....that might have been the case a long time ago....but now the interview is taped, transcribed and the interviewee gets a copy of the statement and tapes....I also believe this to be the case in the 80's too.....might depend on the Counties... :) :) :)
-
Beg to differ....that might have been the case a long time ago....but now the interview is taped, transcribed and the interviewee gets a copy of the statement and tapes....I also believe this to be the case in the 80's too.....might depend on the Counties... :) :) :)
I have given several here in Essex, and the way I describe is the way they've always done it. Interviews are routinely taped and transcribed, are you mixing them up?
-
Beg to differ....that might have been the case a long time ago....but now the interview is taped, transcribed and the interviewee gets a copy of the statement and tapes....I also believe this to be the case in the 80's too.....might depend on the Counties... :) :) :)
The audio tape recording of interviewss with suspected persons was introduced under PACE which cam about in the mid 1980's and after Jeremy was interviewed as a suspect.
Interviews with witnesses at that time were not audio taped. However, it is the case certain categories of interviews with witnesses are video recorded. These categories include child witnesses, vulnerable victims, intimidated witnesses etc. The video recordings can then be used in a court of law as the evidence in chief although the witness needs to be available for cross examination in court via video link.
Feel free to google the Police And Criminal Evidence Act along with the Childrens Act and Achieving Best Evidence.
Given the time frame of the White House Farm murders, for which Jeremy was convicted, the interviews at that time would have been recorded by contemporaneous / hand written notes which would have then been signed by those who had been interviewed / made the statement etc. It is those hand written signed statements notes which could later be typed up.
-
Given the time frame of the White House Farm murders, for which Jeremy was convicted, the interviews at that time would have been recorded by contemporaneous / hand written notes which would have then been signed by those who had been interviewed / made the statement etc. It is those hand written signed statements notes which could later be typed up.
Curious... how much would you pay to get your hands on those handwritten notes from the interviews? I bet the handwritten SOC register would go for a few bob also. And the audio recordings of the phone call/s?
-
Curious... how much would you pay to get your hands on those handwritten notes from the interviews? I bet the handwritten SOC register would go for a few bob also. And the audio recordings of the phone call/s?
I'd like a few hours amonst their records.
-
Curious... how much would you pay to get your hands on those handwritten notes from the interviews? I bet the handwritten SOC register would go for a few bob also. And the audio recordings of the phone call/s?
Phone call recording were destroyed/recorded over.
-
Phone call recording were destroyed/recorded over.
Isn't that claim contested? I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped? Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use. Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... ;)
Also, why on earth in an incident of this magnitude would destruction or re-recording take place? The official version is that it was routine re-recording? A cynic might suggest that given the track record for this case, the absence of audio material is beneficial to the prosecution but not the defence.
-
Isn't that claim contested? I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped? Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use. Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... ;)
Also, why on earth in an incident of this magnitude would destruction or re-recording take place? The official version is that it was routine re-recording? A cynic might suggest that given the track record for this case, the absence of audio material is beneficial to the prosecution but not the defence.
I'm not sure Rochy, that is what was listed in the Dickinson report. It says recordings kept for a month, if they are not requested by then they get destroyed/recorded over.
I'm not sure I recall seeing this contested, I'll have a dig around.
I'm sure you would say it is somewhat convenient that the case changed exactly one month later on 07/09/85 to five murders rather than four murders and a suicide. ;)
-
I'm not sure Rochy, that is what was listed in the Dickinson report. It says recordings kept for a month, if they are not requested by then they get destroyed/recorded over.
I'm not sure I recall seeing this contested, I'll have a dig around.
I'm sure you would say it is somewhat convenient that the case changed exactly one month later on 07/09/85 to five murders rather than four murders and a suicide. ;)
Have you been seconded to the innocent camp or something? ::) You're doing my work for me.
-
Have you been seconded to the innocent camp or something? ::) You're doing my work for me.
Just trying to save time. ;D
-
Isn't that claim contested? I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped? Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use. Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... ;)
It seems it is contested by Mike and in GDS's wireless log and echoed by Andrew Hunter, although like everything else, it's simply defence allegations without supporting evidence.
The defence appear to be arguing that they didn't know about the recordings until Bonnett made a statement in 2001 indicating that calls were routinely recorded, the defence then goes on to complain that the tapes should be disclosed, alleging that they are being withheld in order to keep Jeremy in prison.
The police (as mentioned above), indicate in the Dickinson report that the recordings were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.
Mike has then produced this document below, citing it as proof that the recordings were still around a month and six days after the murders, although the reality is that it simply indicates that the police first sought the tapes a month and six days after the murders, which fits in with the explanation that they were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1549.0;attach=7336;image)
That's about all I can dig up at the moment. :-\
-
It seems it is contested by Mike and in GDS's wireless log and echoed by Andrew Hunter, although like everything else, it's simply defence allegations without supporting evidence.
The defence appear to be arguing that they didn't know about the recordings until Bonnett made a statement in 2001 indicating that calls were routinely recorded, the defence then goes on to complain that the tapes should be disclosed, alleging that they are being withheld in order to keep Jeremy in prison.
The police (as mentioned above), indicate in the Dickinson report that the recordings were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.
Mike has then produced this document below, citing it as proof that the recordings were still around a month and six days after the murders, although the reality is that it simply indicates that the police first sought the tapes a month and six days after the murders, which fits in with the explanation that they were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1549.0;attach=7336;image)
That's about all I can dig up at the moment. :-\
Efficient as ever 'H'. Thanks for digging this up. I seemed to recall that I had read somewhere it stated copies had been made of the recording and that it was these copies which the defence were after.
-
Efficient as ever 'H'. Thanks for digging this up. I seemed to recall that I had read somewhere it stated copies had been made of the recording and that it was these copies which the defence were after.
You may be thinking of video recordings?
I don't believe there are any references to copies of the audio tapes, if you can find any then it would be big hit against what is being claimed in the Dickinson Report.
-
You may be thinking of video recordings?
I don't believe there are any references to copies of the audio tapes, if you can find any then it would be big hit against what is being claimed in the Dickinson Report.
They'd be worth a few bob?
-
They'd be worth a few bob?
I'm not sure that comparing our Bob to a few cassette tapes is very fair. :P
They probably wouldn't be worth anything, if they still existed then they would simply confirm what has already been documented by Bonnett, West and Jeremy.
-
I'm not sure that comparing our Bob to a few cassette tapes is very fair. :P
They probably wouldn't be worth anything, if they still existed then they would simply confirm what has already been documented by Bonnett, West and Jeremy.
Possibly, possibly not.
-
Possibly, possibly not.
Well Jeremys version matches Wests, and Wests version matches Bonnetts, so what could possibly be different to what has been recorded?
-
Well Jeremys version matches Wests, and Wests version matches Bonnetts, so what could possibly be different to what has been recorded?
We'll never know. Which document is classed as page one of the event log? Is that one of the documents that the defence allege the FSS state has been tampered with?
-
We'll never know. Which document is classed as page one of the event log? Is that one of the documents that the defence allege the FSS state has been tampered with?
That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.
-
That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.
I'm not sure what you mean ???
-
That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.
Of course it is going to be taken seriously elsewhere, that's why people come to this forum, to find things out, you are talking nonsense, you do not know what you are talking about...
-
I'm not sure what you mean ???
All of these tricks and deception from Mike (which is without a shadow of a doubt, what they are), may fool a few lay people on the forum but it's not going to fool the CCRC or Court of Appeal.
-
All of these tricks and deception from Mike (which is without a shadow of a doubt, what they are), may fool a few lay people on the forum but it's not going to fool the CCRC or Court of Appeal.
What's that got to do with 2007 & 2011 forensic science letters re the logs? All I'm trying to ascertain is whether the tampering refers the phone log.
-
What's that got to do with 2007 & 2011 forensic science letters re the logs? All I'm trying to ascertain is whether the tampering refers the phone log.
Nothing suggests that it does.
-
Nothing suggests that it does.
It must refer to the logs at the scene then. My mistake. There's that many terms:
Wireless Message Log
Essex Police Communications Log
Scene & Event Log
Police Radio Log
-
All of these tricks and deception from Mike (which is without a shadow of a doubt, what they are), may fool a few lay people on the forum but it's not going to fool the CCRC or Court of Appeal.
"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"...