Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: chochokeira on November 19, 2011, 11:36:AM
-
"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",
defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.
JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."
Why did Rivlin not immediately challenge this totally untrue claim?
Why did he not tell JM: oh but you most certainly have rehearsed what you are telling us here - over and over and over again, haven't you? Please tell the jury, JM, was it some 31 or 32 sessions of rehearsals that you had in the months leading up this trial?
Why was JM not asked to describe each of those rehearsal sessions and exactly what she had rehearsed during the course of each one?
Why was this line of questioning not followed up? Why weren't the judge and jury made acutely aware that every single nuance of JM's testimony, every sob, every sympathy eliciting glance, every word of every answer, had been honed and rehearsed and cosmetically enhanced over and over and over again?
Why didn't Rivlin engrave on the judge and jury's memories that JM could only give the near word perfect performance they saw before them thanks to the astonishing number of rehearsals she had had?
-
Powell's book describes how JM, who had been reasonably composed during her examination by the prosecution, broke into 'violent sobbing' when the barrister for the defence, Geoffrey Rivlin, began to cross examine her.
This relentless sobbing made the cross examination hellishly difficult for Rivlin, at times it prompted breaks for JM to compose herself - breaks which relieved the pressure on JM wonderfully, breaks of up to 5 minutes that she should never had had. Did this sobbing prompt Rivlin to be too soft on JM?
Under cross examination, JM described how she was prompted to go to the police and how her relationship with Jeremy broke down - not because she had been humiliated and betrayed by this love of her life bedding her friend, not because he had jilted her - she went to the police, solely, she claimed, because her conscience had pricked her into it and because she wanted Jeremy to see what he had done.
In that case, it was JM's concience over the murders which pricked her into attempting to smother Jeremy in his sleep, was it?
Was her conscience too which prompted her to tell Jeremy, 'if I can't have you, no one will?
What utter rubbish! JM's claims were totally contradicted by her actions and the claims she made in court were totally contradicted too by her own words.
JM's statements to the police were even astonishingly contradicted by what JM, on her own admission, had said just days or weeks earlier.
JM should have been closely cross examined about these glaring contradictions between her actions and her words and between the statements she made in and out of court. She should have been confronted with these contradictions.
Yet this line of questioning which begged to be followed appears to have been ignored.
-
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."
Even this statement implies a sort of precognition, that JM certainly has rehearsed what she aims to tell them.
-
Look at what Choch posted with care;
"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",
defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.
JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."
Look at the question posed ....to which a yes or no answer should be given.
JM gives neither answer ...so she does not deny the accusation made by Rivlin. It therefore stands as being a correct accusation and is not denied in anyway shape or form.
Her avoidance is a strong indicator of deception and that is my opinion upon that. She was lying.
Her claim not to have rehearsed evidence when such a suggestion was not made to her can logically lead to the conclusion that indeed she had rehearsed the evidence as its an issue within her own mind she was concerned with.
-
Look at what Choch posted with care;
"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",
defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.
JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."
Look at the question posed ....to which a yes or no answer should be given.
JM gives neither answer ...so she does not deny the accusation made by Rivlin. It therefore stands as being a correct accusation and is not denied in anyway shape or form.
Her avoidance is a strong indicator of deception and that is my opinion upon that. She was lying.
Her claim not to have rehearsed evidence when such a suggestion was not made to her can logically lead to the conclusion that indeed she had rehearsed the evidence as its an issue within her own mind she was concerned with.
I agree, Smiffy. Why did the issue of 'rehearsal' even enter JM's mind at this juncture in the cross examination? Why did she give this completely incongruous reply, one which had nothing whatsoever to do with the question she'd been asked?
Unless she was sweating on the possibility of a question about all of those mysterious rehearsals?
Had the issue of the rehearsals even been addressed during those rehearsals themselves?
Was JM asked, what will you say if the defence asks you why you had so many meetings about your testimony?
Had a reply perhaps been rehearsed to this question - and did JM, when under pressure, blurt it out at the wrong time?
Or did JM decide to raise the issue herself, on her own terms, in the hope that this would prevent Rivlin asking her about these numerous rehearsals?
-
well if you havent rehearsed what your going to say you don't mention the fact.
-
Some very good points Keira.
-
Keira, you have made some very good points. I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached. I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light. Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.
A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal. The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury. The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this. They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into. This was discussed in chambers with the judge. As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.
If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.
-
well if she said that then shes clearly guilty of perjury.
-
I have just found this about geoffrey rivlin qc involvement with corruption. In 1969 after having been a police officer for 15 years, John Alexander Symonds was one of three officers charged with corruption, following a newspaper investigation into bribery at Scotland Yard. I think its operation Countryman. He skipped bail and fled to Morocco. Symonds claimed that he had been 'fitted up' and forced to leave under pain of death, after threatening to expose during any trial "the endemic and systemic corruption within the metroplitan police. The barrister involved with his trial was Geoffrey Rivlin qc, Later to become Justice Rivlin. Your eyes will bang together when you read what John Alexander Symonds says. As I am hopeless on a computer its over to you Bamberista's.
Admin note: I have felt it necessary to censor part of this post for legal reasons.
-
well if she said that then shes clearly guilty of perjury.
As I understand it Julie Mugford was not asked about the NOW deal under oath and did not make a formal witness statement about it, so her lies about the matter did not constitute perjury. It would have been better if this had been tested in cross examination in the absence of the jury, as Julie Mugford would have been under far greater pressure to reveal the truth. However, Geoffrey Rivlin accepted what was reported by prosecution counsel as he presumably was satisfied that proper enquiries had been made.
-
Keira, you have made some very good points. I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached. I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light. Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.
A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal. The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury. The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this. They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into. This was discussed in chambers with the judge. As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.
If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.
Thank you, NGB. You make good points regarding the withholding of information of NOW deal too.
One further issue which I believe the jury was denied knowledge of was the sweeping immunity from prosecution given to JM, immunity which I regard as astonishing.
JM claimed to have been told by Jeremy that he intended to commit five murders and she gave various - conflicting? - explanations regarding why she had failed to notify the police or the family, including the strange claim that she dismissed the murder threats as 'tittle tattle.'
JM admitted to taking part in theft from the caravan park.
She admitted that she and her friend had been involved in a cheque fraud.
Instead of her crimes landing her in court, JM was given immunity from prosecution and was paid the, then, substantial sum of £25,000, sufficient money to purchase a flat and to travel to Australia for an expensive overseas holiday.
Had the jury known of JM's deal with the NOW, of the eye popping immunity she had been given and of the 32 rehearsals JM had had prior to the hearing, isn't it highly likely that this knowledge would have shaken the jury's confidence in JM's testimony to the core?
-
Keira, you have made some very good points. I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached. I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light. Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.
A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal. The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury. The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this. They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into. This was discussed in chambers with the judge. As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.
If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.
Thank you, NGB. You make good points regarding the withholding of information of NOW deal too.
One further issue which I believe the jury was denied knowledge of was the sweeping immunity from prosecution given to JM, immunity which I regard as astonishing.
JM claimed to have been told by Jeremy that he intended to commit five murders and she gave various - conflicting? - explanations regarding why she had failed to notify the police or the family, including the strange claim that she dismissed the murder threats as 'tittle tattle.'
JM admitted to taking part in theft from the caravan park.
She admitted that she and her friend had been involved in a cheque fraud.
Instead of her crimes landing her in court, JM was given immunity from prosecution and was paid the, then, substantial sum of £25,000, sufficient money to purchase a flat and to travel to Australia for an expensive overseas holiday.
Had the jury known of JM's deal with the NOW, of the eye popping immunity she had been given and of the 32 rehearsals JM had had prior to the hearing, isn't it highly likely that this knowledge would have shaken the jury's confidence in JM's testimony to the core?
Yes, I agree with you that this knowledge would have given the 10 jury members who accepted Julie Mugford's evidence cause to reflect upon whether they could be sure she was telling the truth.
-
I really am at a loss that her evidence was not rejected?
-
I really am at a loss that her evidence was not rejected?
All of this information was withheld from the Jury, Grahame.
-
There never seems a week go by without Mugford not been among talk threads,
why do i think her payoff was all in to get Jeremy convicted, all seems staged to me and all started the moment she was dumped by Jeremy the offer of such back then a lot of money was all it took .
-
I think Julie Mugford was influenced by several factors which came into play at different stages and I also think that she was carried along by events which she was unable to control. These factors were a need to bolster her self esteem, a desire for revenge, fear and, further down the line, money.
I believe that when jilted by Jeremy Julie told her friend in confidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. Her motives at that stage were probably mixed and confused. Possibly she wanted to bolster her self esteem by demonstrating that Jeremy was completely reprehensible and that she had therefore not lost anything of value as a result of the breakdown in their relationship. Having made the allegation it became hard for her to go back on it. It was her friend who made the initial contact with the police so at that point I believe fear must have kicked in as a motive, coupled with a desire for revenge. We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders. She was offered immunity from prosecution on all matters, but only on condition that she followed through with her account and gave evidence against Jeremy. There was then no going back. Further down the line the News of the World deal was concluded which gave the additional incentive of money.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'? But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works? If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control.
This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber. Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'? But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works? If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control.
This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber. Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.
I think your suggestion is likely to be correct. There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'? But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works? If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control.
This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber. Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.
I think your suggestion is likely to be correct. There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty.
Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case? I can see the point he is making. I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened. This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up. Why was Jones not simply removed?
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'? But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works? If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control.
This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber. Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.
I think your suggestion is likely to be correct. There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty.
Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case? I can see the point he is making. I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened. This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up. Why was Jones not simply removed?
It is very difficult now to work out how this played out within Essex Police. Stan Jones was very vocal about his views. The pressure brought to bear by the family created real problems for the police. It was clear that the family were not going to be fobbed off. They had confidence in Stan Jones and he seemed to regard this case as his personal crusade. ACC Simpson may have felt he had little choice other than to let Stan Jones run with it.
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail. However he stopped early in on in his project.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I've always seen Jones as the lynch pin of this.
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'? But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works? If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control.
This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber. Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.
I think your suggestion is likely to be correct. There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty.
Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case? I can see the point he is making. I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened. This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up. Why was Jones not simply removed?
It is very difficult now to work out how this played out within Essex Police. Stan Jones was very vocal about his views. The pressure brought to bear by the family created real problems for the police. It was clear that the family were not going to be fobbed off. They had confidence in Stan Jones and he seemed to regard this case as his personal crusade. ACC Simpson may have felt he had little choice other than to let Stan Jones run with it.
On the one hand I can see how three seemingly separate strands of suspicion coming together regarding Bamber's guilt looks bad for the defence and presents massive hurdles for the defence to get over. They're still trying to climb over these hurdles 26 years on. On the other I see a split police force regarding knowledge of what took place at WHF, being forced in to the dynamics of working against each other, by a bent copper who is also doing his utmost to merge the other two separate strands of suspicion together (Mugford + Relatives / Silencer). The figure of DS Stan Jones really does seem crucial to this case.
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I've always seen Jones as the lynch pin of this.
I now agree.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Despite the fact that Mugford was coerced to come forward by her friend, when she did come forward, fact of the matter is, that despite these revelations made by Mugford, or by someone else on her behalf, Jeremy was not originally charged, with the murders, but was simply released on bail, pending the case of burglary at Osea road, Camp site...
In this respect...role adopted by police, and the coming forward of Mugford with information (around about the same time), suggests that there was a link between both, which did not have the desired effect immediately, but was one which appears to be a unified effort later on, once Jeremy was re-arrested, and charged with the murders...
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
Forum is doing pretty good from the pro perspective. However, we have lost all members of the opposition. Credible posters like Curious Essex. We have also lost the spectacle of Mike Tesko vs Hartley which makes for an excellent read. We now seem to have only Vidvic making the odd foray on to the forum. I'm not sure what this says about the state of play.
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
I have had experience of this on a number of occasions. When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence. It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question. Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel. For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial. The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues. Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible. Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail. However he stopped early in on in his project.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html
TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:
"Jeremy Bamber
Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant
After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.
Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!
For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated
No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children - sometimes, on a part-time basis
At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.
It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
Forum is doing pretty good from the pro perspective. However, we have lost all members of the opposition. Credible posters like Curious Essex. We have also lost the spectacle of Mike Tesko vs Hartley which makes for an excellent read. We now seem to have only Vidvic making the odd foray on to the forum. I'm not sure what this says about the state of play.
It says to me they are:
1. Sulking
2. Colluding in this
3. Will return
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail. However he stopped early in on in his project.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html
TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:
"Jeremy Bamber
Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant
After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.
Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!
For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated
No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children - sometimes, on a part-time basis
At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.
It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue
Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained. The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this
7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85 "
9/8/85 "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "
And so on, all the way through August / September '85. The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.
-
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders
The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned. If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber. For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence. If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other. I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly? This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely. ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.
Despite the fact that Mugford was coerced to come forward by her friend, when she did come forward, fact of the matter is, that despite these revelations made by Mugford, or by someone else on her behalf, Jeremy was not originally charged, with the murders, but was simply released on bail, pending the case of burglary at Osea road, Camp site...
In this respect...role adopted by police, and the coming forward of Mugford with information (around about the same time), suggests that there was a link between both, which did not have the desired effect immediately, but was one which appears to be a unified effort later on, once Jeremy was re-arrested, and charged with the murders...
That is true. The police did not think they had enough evidence even after Julie Mugford came forward. What clinched it for them was the evidence of the blood on the baffles of the silencer. I believe the report from the FSS at Huntingdon was received while Jeremy was on bail and on holiday in France. With this evidence and Julie Mugford's evidence the DPP authorised the prosecution for murder and Jeremy was rearrested on his return to Dover.
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail. However he stopped early in on in his project.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html
TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:
"Jeremy Bamber
Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant
After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.
Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!
For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated
No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children - sometimes, on a part-time basis
At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.
It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue
Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained. The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this
7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85 "
9/8/85 "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "
And so on, all the way through August / September '85. The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.
That's what I would like to see too, Rocky, a chronological summary in the form of bullet points, not long winded on each point, merely an aid to memory. Perhaps we could all do one together? How about you starting a topic on it and we all contribute. If anyone disagrees with a point, they could perhaps put a - one line - alternative view of the point below the main point?
-
The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward. So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.
I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this. He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.
I think we need a time line thread. key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened. I could put one together but I'm working on a video? Any other takers?
The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail. However he stopped early in on in his project.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html
TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:
"Jeremy Bamber
Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant
After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.
Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!
For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated
No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children - sometimes, on a part-time basis
At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.
It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue
Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained. The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this
7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85 "
9/8/85 "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "
And so on, all the way through August / September '85. The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.
That's what I would like to see too, Rocky, a chronological summary in the form of bullet points, not long winded on each point, merely an aid to memory. Perhaps we could all do one together? How about you starting a topic on it and we all contribute. If anyone disagrees with a point, they could perhaps put a - one line - alternative view of the point below the main point?
Not a bad idea. I expect it would be tricky but worth a pop. I think the original thread would be like a draft, because it would get messy.
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views. Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well. I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully. To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.
My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction. On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done. Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family. I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate. I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!
Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal. As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing. He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time. Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here.
I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post. As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so.
I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks. I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case. I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute. Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view. We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.
-
It says to me they are:
1. Sulking
2. Colluding in this
3. Will return
You could be right in some cases. There seemed to be tonnes of them before though. But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now. Occasional visitors only. Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?
I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views. Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well. I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully. To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.
My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction. On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done. Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family. I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate. I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!
Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal. As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing. He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time. Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here.
I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post. As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so.
I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks. I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case. I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute. Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view. We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.
Think you've summed it up nicely there Neil. Would love to see that particular relative post or any for that matter but cant see it happening.
-
It says to me they are:
1. Sulking
2. Colluding in this
3. Will return
You could be right in some cases. There seemed to be tonnes of them before though. But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now. Occasional visitors only. Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?
YES! Sorry for shouting, I couldn't keep it in.
-
It says to me they are:
1. Sulking
2. Colluding in this
3. Will return
You could be right in some cases. There seemed to be tonnes of them before though. But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now. Occasional visitors only. Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?
YES! Sorry for shouting, I couldn't keep it in.
They all left en masse...a coincidence?
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views. Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well. I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully. To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.
My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction. On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done. Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family. I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate. I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!
Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal. As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing. He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time. Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here.
I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post. As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so.
I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks. I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case. I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute. Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view. We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.
Good points, NGB.
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
I have had experience of this on a number of occasions. When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence. It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question. Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel. For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial. The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues. Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible. Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.
I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.
Never again! ;D
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
I have had experience of this on a number of occasions. When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence. It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question. Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel. For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial. The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues. Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible. Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.
I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.
Never again! ;D
Aha! but was it a moral victory for them? ;) Are their consciences really clear before God and themselves? If a legal victory is not a moral victory as well, then it is not true justice. The two should go together. The one thing that will finally excuse or condemn us is our conscience. Unfortunately there is such a thing as a "seared" conscience.
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrased?
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.
-
Nick - I hope you will carry on posting. I still think there is some time to go before the CCRC announce their final decision.
-
Nick please keep posting impartial posters are rare
I am going to keep posting on twitter people should come and have a look at the forum
There is no better source than this
-
Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.
Did you believe they were faking it?
Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?
Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?
Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic
Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable
I have had experience of this on a number of occasions. When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence. It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question. Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel. For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial. The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues. Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible. Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.
I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.
Never again! ;D
Aha! but was it a moral victory for them? ;) Are their consciences really clear before God and themselves? If a legal victory is not a moral victory as well, then it is not true justice. The two should go together. The one thing that will finally excuse or condemn us is our conscience. Unfortunately there is such a thing as a "seared" conscience.
I sympathise with everyone concerned in the case, Grahame. Modern employment law, while providing a vital platform of rights and protection for staff, can be a minefield for small employers. The nuns were entitled to expect a reasonable standard of conduct from their staff, for the sake of their residents if not for the nuns themselves. They did not, however, understand or follow the correct disciplinary and dismissal procedures. A warning and support for this employee would have been the appropriate response, not dismissal.
The nuns were lovely people who had dedicated their lives to the care of the sick - yet the same was true of the nurse who was dismissed. I felt the law was unnecessarily heavy handed with the convent, a reinstatement order - issued by ACAS, for example - coupled with employment rights' training might have been a far better way to have dealt with the case.
That the law tends to be so tough with those - employers for example - who do not follow correct statutory procedures to the letter, is all the more reason why the law should be equally scrupulous in applying its own procedures to itself.
In Jeremy's case, however, the law, to its great shame, has failed to do that and, as a result, Jeremy has been denied a fair trial.
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.
The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.
One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).
The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.
The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.
The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.
The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.
The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.
But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! ::)
It should all be over by Christmas ;)
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.
The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.
One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).
The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.
The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.
The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.
The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.
The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.
But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! ::)
It should all be over by Christmas ;)
I very much doubt it!
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.
The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.
One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).
The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.
The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.
The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.
The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.
The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.
But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! ::)
It should all be over by Christmas ;)
I very much doubt it!
I didn't say which one ;)
That was the comment they made about the First World War - and we know it unfortunately wasn't over by that first Christmas :P
-
Keira
You are right en masse!
There is something in it I am sure!
One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'
Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left
We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny
Something has happened
I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.
Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?
Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).
Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved
This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.
I think JB might get out, based on -
1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.
2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).
3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.
4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.
I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!
I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now .
There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.
The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.
One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).
The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.
The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.
The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.
The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.
The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.
But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! ::)
It should all be over by Christmas ;)
I very much doubt it!
I didn't say which one ;)
That was the comment they made about the First World War - and we know it unfortunately wasn't over by that first Christmas :P
It didn't last for 26 years either. :)
-
The statistics involving cases the CCrc has handled are horrendous
Anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice has a mammoth task
-
The statistics involving cases the CCrc has handled are horrendous
Anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice has a mammoth task
Very true.
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
P.S Shona, i am sorry i missed your last pm but i was logged on but not actually at my P.C and missed it, if that makes sense. Please get in touch on my e-mail account.
-
simong
I think this would be a good time for you and Paul to come back to the forum.
Things change on a daily basis with this case and you have probably read what has been going on with the campaign centre.
I am only interested in the truth and I have only ever been interested in the truth and at the moment I am horrified about what is going on supposedly on Jeremys say so.
I am going to canvass for some more people to join the forum even if they are anti Bamber as there is still much to discuss
If you think I am confident of Jeremys case being referred I am not, and if the police, CCrc read the forum, Bambertweets and Jeremys blog things do not seem clear cut at all,
This is still a brilliant forum and the only place where we can debate openly
-
The statistics involving cases the CCrc has handled are horrendous
Anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice has a mammoth task
In fact they have probably made it more difficult to obtain an appeal than it was before? The reason? They are part of the appeal process and not independent of it.
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
P.S Shona, i am sorry i missed your last pm but i was logged on but not actually at my P.C and missed it, if that makes sense. Please get in touch on my e-mail account.
Hmm, I wonder when that last pm was? Because if she had deleted her account then you would not have received it anyway. You say that it is not personal to you and that it is not a question of one upmanship with you? Come on simong, that is the whole point of a debate to get one over on the opposition. It is in man's nature to be on the winning side. You also say that it has been that the debates have become personal. Yes probably they have? But I will also add that it has by no means been one sided and on the whole what with john lamberton wading in in his various guises constantly stirring things up with all his abuse towards the pro bamber team. Added to the fact that some of those anti bambers have gone over to his forum indicates to me that what they really want is the illusion that they can actually win an argument. Because with all the new evidence that has come to light, not only have they refused to acknowledge this new evidence that completely shatters their whole argument that JB is guilty. But they simply will not budge from the original trial "evidence". But also choose rather to speculate and philosophise about what they think that Sheila Caffell could or could not do.
You know what I think? I think john lamberton has set up his forum because there he can feel safe in the fact that he can post abuse about various members here on this forum without suffering the shame of defeat. You see Hartley also pm'd me as well and I am fully aware of his views, which are that he feels that he cannot contribute any more to the forum. He added that he may or may not be back. But the real reason that most of the anti bamber brigade have left is that they can only reiterate and produce the same old stale arguments. In other words they have left because they have run out of steam as Bob said.
-
simong
I think this would be a good time for you and Paul to come back to the forum.
Things change on a daily basis with this case and you have probably read what has been going on with the campaign centre.
I am only interested in the truth and I have only ever been interested in the truth and at the moment I am horrified about what is going on supposedly on Jeremys say so.
I am going to canvass for some more people to join the forum even if they are anti Bamber as there is still much to discuss
If you think I am confident of Jeremys case being referred I am not, and if the police, CCrc read the forum, Bambertweets and Jeremys blog things do not seem clear cut at all,
This is still a brilliant forum and the only place where we can debate openly
Keep up the brilliant work Jackie. For those who campaign for a good cause are better than those who campaign against it.
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
P.S Shona, i am sorry i missed your last pm but i was logged on but not actually at my P.C and missed it, if that makes sense. Please get in touch on my e-mail account.
Hmm, I wonder when that last pm was? Because if she had deleted her account then you would not have received it anyway. You say that it is not personal to you and that it is not a question of one upmanship with you? Come on simong, that is the whole point of a debate to get one over on the opposition. It is in man's nature to be on the winning side. You also say that it has been that the debates have become personal. Yes probably they have? But I will also add that it has by no means been one sided and on the whole what with john lamberton wading in in his various guises constantly stirring things up with all his abuse towards the pro bamber team. Added to the fact that some of those anti bambers have gone over to his forum indicates to me that what they really want is the illusion that they can actually win an argument. Because with all the new evidence that has come to light, not only have they refused to acknowledge this new evidence that completely shatters their whole argument that JB is guilty. But they simply will not budge from the original trial "evidence". But also choose rather to speculate and philosophise about what they think that Sheila Caffell could or could not do.
You know what I think? I think john lamberton has set up his forum because there he can feel safe in the fact that he can post abuse about various members here on this forum without suffering the shame of defeat. You see Hartley also pm'd me as well and I am fully aware of his views, which are that he feels that he cannot contribute any more to the forum. He added that he may or may not be back. But the real reason that most of the anti bamber brigade have left is that they can only reiterate and produce the same old stale arguments. In other words they have left because they have run out of steam as Bob said.
Shona has not deleted her account, she is simply not posting here any more. She seems to prefer the Lamberton forum, upon the basis that she does not get attacked there. If she feels more comfortable doing that fair enough, but she will not experience any genuine debate there. There are only contemptuous attacks on Bamber and his arguments coupled with sneering personal attacks on members of this forum. The Lamberton forum only exists to attack this forum and it feeds off this forum. We know that most of the posters there are Lamberton himself but if members here want to participate there good luck to them.
I take on board what Simong says about anti Bamber members feeling this forum is a hostile environment. I do not entirely accept that this is the reason for Hartley leaving as he has done so several times before then reregistered. Nevertheless I accept that as moderators/administrators we have not done enough to ensure a level playing field and ensure that posters do not feel driven away by personal attacks. If Grahame and I are honest I think we should accept that we have been more willing to intervene when pro Bamber posters have been attacked than anti Bamber posters. If that has meant that some of our regulars no longer want to post I am sorry. All I can say is that if these posters choose to return I will do my best to ensure that they get a fair and respectful hearing and do not become the subject of personal attacks. I have not discussed this with Grahame but I believe that he will support me in this. It is certainly my understanding of the way Mike Tesko wants his forum to be moderated.
Nothing I have said above relates to the trolls from the facebook guilty page who have periodically attacked this forum. They are not interested in debate and they are not welcome here. Lamberton himself is banned here as he is on most other forums and that will remain the case.
I hope Simong will decide to post here again and I endorse what Jackie has said. I do believe that the forum can once again become a venue for frank and vigorous discussion of all viewpoints on the case, and on other topics. I urge everyone to give this a try. I will do my best.
-
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
Nice to hear from you Si. How's your brother doing? I hope he is well and that he might pay the forum a visit. When there are no guilty posters around, I feel I have to do their job for them! I think the only argument that remains as a line to follow for the guilty argument, is a scenario where JB knew more about the night in question than he has let on. This might tie in with Julie Mugford's eventual approach to police and any queries that surround the sequence of phone calls. I've never been able to buy the third party accomplice scenario however. So for me, the only alternative would imply some kind of Jeremy / Sheila pact or manipulation scenario. I've never gone to 100% innocence in my stance on the case. Though I am probably hovering around 90%. As for the old guilty posters, I think they could sometimes be prone to getting personal also. But we wont hold that against them eh. We all get burnt out on here from time to time. I hope they return to posting at some point.
Cheers...
-
Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.
Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.
Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict
Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives
He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible
It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'
It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery
I agree with your first, second and third points. Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates. Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position. And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine. I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.
I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating. I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives. They might disagree but that's how I see it.
I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
P.S Shona, i am sorry i missed your last pm but i was logged on but not actually at my P.C and missed it, if that makes sense. Please get in touch on my e-mail account.
Hmm, I wonder when that last pm was? Because if she had deleted her account then you would not have received it anyway. You say that it is not personal to you and that it is not a question of one upmanship with you? Come on simong, that is the whole point of a debate to get one over on the opposition. It is in man's nature to be on the winning side. You also say that it has been that the debates have become personal. Yes probably they have? But I will also add that it has by no means been one sided and on the whole what with john lamberton wading in in his various guises constantly stirring things up with all his abuse towards the pro bamber team. Added to the fact that some of those anti bambers have gone over to his forum indicates to me that what they really want is the illusion that they can actually win an argument. Because with all the new evidence that has come to light, not only have they refused to acknowledge this new evidence that completely shatters their whole argument that JB is guilty. But they simply will not budge from the original trial "evidence". But also choose rather to speculate and philosophise about what they think that Sheila Caffell could or could not do.
You know what I think? I think john lamberton has set up his forum because there he can feel safe in the fact that he can post abuse about various members here on this forum without suffering the shame of defeat. You see Hartley also pm'd me as well and I am fully aware of his views, which are that he feels that he cannot contribute any more to the forum. He added that he may or may not be back. But the real reason that most of the anti bamber brigade have left is that they can only reiterate and produce the same old stale arguments. In other words they have left because they have run out of steam as Bob said.
Shona has not deleted her account, she is simply not posting here any more. She seems to prefer the Lamberton forum, upon the basis that she does not get attacked there. If she feels more comfortable doing that fair enough, but she will not experience any genuine debate there. There are only contemptuous attacks on Bamber and his arguments coupled with sneering personal attacks on members of this forum. The Lamberton forum only exists to attack this forum and it feeds off this forum. We know that most of the posters there are Lamberton himself but if members here want to participate there good luck to them.
I take on board what Simong says about anti Bamber members feeling this forum is a hostile environment. I do not entirely accept that this is the reason for Hartley leaving as he has done so several times before then reregistered. Nevertheless I accept that as moderators/administrators we have not done enough to ensure a level playing field and ensure that posters do not feel driven away by personal attacks. If Grahame and I are honest I think we should accept that we have been more willing to intervene when pro Bamber posters have been attacked than anti Bamber posters. If that has meant that some of our regulars no longer want to post I am sorry. All I can say is that if these posters choose to return I will do my best to ensure that they get a fair and respectful hearing and do not become the subject of personal attacks. I have not discussed this with Grahame but I believe that he will support me in this. It is certainly my understanding of the way Mike Tesko wants his forum to be moderated.
Nothing I have said above relates to the trolls from the facebook guilty page who have periodically attacked this forum. They are not interested in debate and they are not welcome here. Lamberton himself is banned here as he is on most other forums and that will remain the case.
I hope Simong will decide to post here again and I endorse what Jackie has said. I do believe that the forum can once again become a venue for frank and vigorous discussion of all viewpoints on the case, and on other topics. I urge everyone to give this a try. I will do my best.
I don't think you're giving yourself the credit you deserve there, NGB. It's my view that you went out of your way to be tolerant to posters of all viewpoints, whether anti, pro or neutral. That's far from easy to do at times when some members seemed intent on all out warfare or when trolls were bombarding us with posts.
Hartley had nothing to complain about. During the last few weeks of his membership he became highly abusive towards Mike and other members, yet he was not banned. Inevitably, some members - and I was one of them - became sick of these offensive posts of Hartley's and challenged them: that, in my opinion, was what peed off Hartley, he cannot bear being challenged.
-
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
Nice to hear from you Si. How's your brother doing? I hope he is well and that he might pay the forum a visit. When there are no guilty posters around, I feel I have to do their job for them! I think the only argument that remains as a line to follow for the guilty argument, is a scenario where JB knew more about the night in question than he has let on. This might tie in with Julie Mugford's eventual approach to police and any queries that surround the sequence of phone calls. I've never been able to buy the third party accomplice scenario however. So for me, the only alternative would imply some kind of Jeremy / Sheila pact or manipulation scenario. I've never gone to 100% innocence in my stance on the case. Though I am probably hovering around 90%. As for the old guilty posters, I think they could sometimes be prone to getting personal also. But we wont hold that against them eh. We all get burnt out on here from time to time. I hope they return to posting at some point.
Cheers...
Hold on Dave, Mugford did not aproach the police did she. Batterby done that, or am I mistaken?
-
Even though Jeremy had supossibly spilled his guts to her Mugford never blew the whistle.
Does'nt ring true to me.
She viewed the bodies and saw the carnage, yet still stuck by JB.
The woman is an out and out liar.
-
Cliff, what do you think Battersby's motivation was to drag Mugford to the police?
-
Hey Rochy, Hope you are well Sir. Just thought i would clear up any conspiracy involving the disappearing posters who offered an alternative viewpoint.
The last time i spoke to Hartley by pm (about three or four weeks ago) he seemed exasperated by the forum and couldn't see the point of posting anymore. Nothing to do with the strength of argument against, being pissed off or a change in his opinion of the case, just lethargy. I think it is a real shame as his knowledge of the case was excellent.
I have spoken to Bob and Shona by pm and they seemed sick of posting and things turning personal all the time. I am sure Shona would word that last sentence better but i hope you get the gist. As an observer of the forum it has been interesting to watch as one counter arguer leaves the forum, the Pro Bamber forum members debate more vehemently with the next person with an alternative opinion until, well, we are now as extinct as the Dodo! Although this seems a criticism, it really isn't. The pro JB forum members are very sincere in their belief in a miscarriage of justice. The subject seems very personal to you and the proactive way you have tried to help JB's cause is a credit to you all.
For us with an alternative viewpoint, it just isn't so personal. If Jeremy Bamber gets an appeal and wins his freedom, then i wish him all the best. I speak for myself but posting on here has never been about oneupmanship with you pro JB'ers. I certainly won't be gloating if the CCRC reject his application. This is a man's life we are talking about. I also won't be upset if he succeeds in his application.
It is a shame that all the guys who offered an alternative argument have gone. I am sure that a lot of you will feel that personal battles have been won and we have retreated into a corner to die or lick our wounds. Personally i feel that us guys have disappeared not through the strength of your argument but because of the atmosphere of the debate.
In closing, I have always had a lot of respect for Mike, in that he allowed us guys to join in and post on this forum. I also feel by doing so, it added a lot of credence to the forum.
All the best
Si
Nice to hear from you Si. How's your brother doing? I hope he is well and that he might pay the forum a visit. When there are no guilty posters around, I feel I have to do their job for them! I think the only argument that remains as a line to follow for the guilty argument, is a scenario where JB knew more about the night in question than he has let on. This might tie in with Julie Mugford's eventual approach to police and any queries that surround the sequence of phone calls. I've never been able to buy the third party accomplice scenario however. So for me, the only alternative would imply some kind of Jeremy / Sheila pact or manipulation scenario. I've never gone to 100% innocence in my stance on the case. Though I am probably hovering around 90%. As for the old guilty posters, I think they could sometimes be prone to getting personal also. But we wont hold that against them eh. We all get burnt out on here from time to time. I hope they return to posting at some point.
Cheers...
Hold on Dave, Mugford did not aproach the police did she. Batterby done that, or am I mistaken?
Good point, Cliff
-
Cliff, what do you think Battersby's motivation was to drag Mugford to the police?
TBH Dave I think Mugford told her porkies, and things snowballed, and she had no way out.
She could not bear to tell Battersby that JB had dumped her, so came up with a story.
Lets be honest here, it got them BOTH off the hook for their past transgressions.
Speaking of which the bank manager stated that the pair of them were with a police officer when they confessed their sins to him. Did he not have to contact the police to say that the bank were not going to take further action.
You try fiddling the bank, and see if they will turn a blind eye. The cops were up to their necks in it.
-
Cliff, what do you think Battersby's motivation was to drag Mugford to the police?
Perhaps after JM was jilted by Jeremy and began to allege whatever she did allege to Battersby and others regarding Jeremy and the murders - I'm still far from clear or happy about these allegations - Battersby became concerned that JM might end up being forced to speak to the police and that the cheque fraud might be investigated as a result? Perhaps Battersby was concerned that she could become of interest to the police if the truth of the cheque fraud emerged? Did she decide to preempt matters?
-
I wonder if Battersby, and Mugford still keep in contact. I bet they don't.
-
Cliff, what do you think Battersby's motivation was to drag Mugford to the police?
Perhaps after JM was jilted by Jeremy and began to allege whatever she did allege to Battersby and others regarding Jeremy and the murders - I'm still far from clear or happy about these allegations - Battersby became concerned that JM might end up being forced to speak to the police and that the cheque fraud might be investigated as a result? Perhaps Battersby was concerned that she could become of interest to the police if the truth of the cheque fraud emerged? Did she decide to preempt matters?
That, Keira, is a very good point!
-
That is a good point, but we should not lose track, that it was not Mugford who went to the cops. Why not.
-
I have just found this about geoffrey rivlin qc involvement with corruption. In 1969 after having been a police officer for 15 years, John Alexander Symonds was one of three officers charged with corruption, following a newspaper investigation into bribery at Scotland Yard. I think its operation Countryman. He skipped bail and fled to Morocco. Symonds claimed that he had been 'fitted up' and forced to leave under pain of death, after threatening to expose during any trial "the endemic and systemic corruption within the metroplitan police. The barrister involved with his trial was Geoffrey Rivlin qc, Later to become Justice Rivlin. Your eyes will bang together when you read what John Alexander Symonds says. As I am hopeless on a computer its over to you Bamberista's.
Admin note: I have felt it necessary to censor part of this post for legal reasons.
Campion, are you please able to direct us to any further info on this?
-
Hello Rochford, If you look up JOHN ALEXANDER SYMONDS on the internet, you will see he calls himself the ' the romeo spy' .Under the heading of Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, now retired, to be poly graphed' is picture of him with a caption, which I quote;- ' this horsehair wig accentuates the shape of my beak.' It is believed Symonds was awhistleblower on the Countryman fiasco, and he consequently got 6 years for his attempts to eradicate corruption in the Metropolitan Police.
-
Very interesting more on this please
-
Hello Rochford, If you look up JOHN ALEXANDER SYMONDS on the internet, you will see he calls himself the ' the romeo spy' .Under the heading of Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, now retired, to be poly graphed' is picture of him with a caption, which I quote;- ' this horsehair wig accentuates the shape of my beak.' It is believed Symonds was awhistleblower on the Countryman fiasco, and he consequently got 6 years for his attempts to eradicate corruption in the Metropolitan Police.
I have wondered about your references to Rivlin. I had wondered whether Humphrey also hinted at Rivlin.
I will check out your directions above. Your posts are a bit cryptic.
-
Hello Rochford, If you look up JOHN ALEXANDER SYMONDS on the internet, you will see he calls himself the ' the romeo spy' .Under the heading of Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, now retired, to be poly graphed' is picture of him with a caption, which I quote;- ' this horsehair wig accentuates the shape of my beak.' It is believed Symonds was awhistleblower on the Countryman fiasco, and he consequently got 6 years for his attempts to eradicate corruption in the Metropolitan Police.
I have wondered about your references to Rivlin. I had wondered whether Humphrey also hinted at Rivlin.
I will check out your directions above. Your posts are a bit cryptic.
He certainly isn't a fan of QC Rivlin...
http://www.johnalexandersymonds.com/Pages/judge_geoffrey_rivlin_qc_polygraph_lie_detector_test.htm
-
Hi, Rochford - When you say I'm being cryptic I hope I'm right to take it as acompliment. there r 2 of me. A recent clue in the Daily Mail X-word was POLICE RAID BUNGLE- MAGAZINE , 10 letters. My 1st thought was NEWSCORPS, then SILENCER, but, of course the solution was PERIODICAL. This led me to think of the S.T, mag article of the interview by DJ with JB in Full Sutton and the ensuing furore wth support for the relatives from both their local M.P.s and indeed from the P.M. . Could it be there is a SUPERINJUNCTION in force on this matter. If such a Judge made law is in place, it would be akin to partaking in Muay Thai, Siamese kickboxing, with both hands tied behind ones back, blindfolded and with legs shackled. Can light be thrown this. It subscribes to Hartley's message ;- FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM - Let justice be done tho' the heavens fall. This appears to be Lord Denning's dictum. I prefer FIAT LUX Genesis 1;3 and FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA Matthew 6;10 thus ;- Let There Be Light and Thy Will Be Done. Alternatively SI COELI VAULTUM FRACTATA, WILL THE RUINS STRIKE HIM UNAFRAID. eureka.
-
Definitely a compliment
-
Hi, Rochford - When you say I'm being cryptic I hope I'm right to take it as acompliment. there r 2 of me. A recent clue in the Daily Mail X-word was POLICE RAID BUNGLE- MAGAZINE , 10 letters. My 1st thought was NEWSCORPS, then SILENCER, but, of course the solution was PERIODICAL. This led me to think of the S.T, mag article of the interview by DJ with JB in Full Sutton and the ensuing furore wth support for the relatives from both their local M.P.s and indeed from the P.M. . Could it be there is a SUPERINJUNCTION in force on this matter. If such a Judge made law is in place, it would be akin to partaking in Muay Thai, Siamese kickboxing, with both hands tied behind ones back, blindfolded and with legs shackled. Can light be thrown this. It subscribes to Hartley's message ;- FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM - Let justice be done tho' the heavens fall. This appears to be Lord Denning's dictum. I prefer FIAT LUX Genesis 1;3 and FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA Matthew 6;10 thus ;- Let There Be Light and Thy Will Be Done. Alternatively SI COELI VAULTUM FRACTATA, WILL THE RUINS STRIKE HIM UNAFRAID. eureka.
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
-
Hi, Rochford - When you say I'm being cryptic I hope I'm right to take it as acompliment. there r 2 of me. A recent clue in the Daily Mail X-word was POLICE RAID BUNGLE- MAGAZINE , 10 letters. My 1st thought was NEWSCORPS, then SILENCER, but, of course the solution was PERIODICAL. This led me to think of the S.T, mag article of the interview by DJ with JB in Full Sutton and the ensuing furore wth support for the relatives from both their local M.P.s and indeed from the P.M. . Could it be there is a SUPERINJUNCTION in force on this matter. If such a Judge made law is in place, it would be akin to partaking in Muay Thai, Siamese kickboxing, with both hands tied behind ones back, blindfolded and with legs shackled. Can light be thrown this. It subscribes to Hartley's message ;- FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM - Let justice be done tho' the heavens fall. This appears to be Lord Denning's dictum. I prefer FIAT LUX Genesis 1;3 and FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA Matthew 6;10 thus ;- Let There Be Light and Thy Will Be Done. Alternatively SI COELI VAULTUM FRACTATA, WILL THE RUINS STRIKE HIM UNAFRAID. eureka.
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
What would legal fee's be to take out such an injunction ?
-
Hi, Rochford - When you say I'm being cryptic I hope I'm right to take it as acompliment. there r 2 of me. A recent clue in the Daily Mail X-word was POLICE RAID BUNGLE- MAGAZINE , 10 letters. My 1st thought was NEWSCORPS, then SILENCER, but, of course the solution was PERIODICAL. This led me to think of the S.T, mag article of the interview by DJ with JB in Full Sutton and the ensuing furore wth support for the relatives from both their local M.P.s and indeed from the P.M. . Could it be there is a SUPERINJUNCTION in force on this matter. If such a Judge made law is in place, it would be akin to partaking in Muay Thai, Siamese kickboxing, with both hands tied behind ones back, blindfolded and with legs shackled. Can light be thrown this. It subscribes to Hartley's message ;- FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM - Let justice be done tho' the heavens fall. This appears to be Lord Denning's dictum. I prefer FIAT LUX Genesis 1;3 and FIAT VOLUNTAS TUA Matthew 6;10 thus ;- Let There Be Light and Thy Will Be Done. Alternatively SI COELI VAULTUM FRACTATA, WILL THE RUINS STRIKE HIM UNAFRAID. eureka.
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
What would legal fee's be to take out such an injunction ?
It depends upon the reasons behind the injunction requested as this affects the work involved in preparing the case. It also depends upon the firm of solicitors used. A big London firm would obviously charge far more than a smaller provincial firm. The High Court will only grant a so called superinjunction in exceptional circumstances so the application needs to be thoroughly prepared and presented. My guess is that £25,000 would be the minimum cost and it could be as much as £100,000.
-
If there is a superinjunction in place I would hope there is not a post here referring to it - that could be expensive!
-
If there is a superinjunction in place I would hope there is not a post here referring to it - that could be expensive!
It is a chicken and egg situation. Since we have no knowledge of a superinjunction yet, we are not bound by it. It one exists and it is brought to our intention we are then bound by it. We would need to know what we are precluding from mentioning.
Breach of an injunction is a contempt of court. The consequences of that are very serious, far more so than in relation to defamation. When I was involved in legal monitoring for a newspaper and a publishing house I was always more concerned about contempt than I was about libel (although obviously libel was potentially very expensive and therefore important).
If we learn more about the superinjunction suggested here we can decide how much we can say about it.
-
If there is a superinjunction in place I would hope there is not a post here referring to it - that could be expensive!
It is a chicken and egg situation. Since we have no knowledge of a superinjunction yet, we are not bound by it. It one exists and it is brought to our intention we are then bound by it. We would need to know what we are precluding from mentioning.
Breach of an injunction is a contempt of court. The consequences of that are very serious, far more so than in relation to defamation. When I was involved in legal monitoring for a newspaper and a publishing house I was always more concerned about contempt than I was about libel (although obviously libel was potentially very expensive and therefore important).
If we learn more about the superinjunction suggested here we can decide how much we can say about it.
Ryan Giggs had a superinjunction , the masses ignored it !!
-
But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.
-
But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.
Almost, but not quite true. What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction. A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named. It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced. However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure and allegations about his private life. To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it. That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.
I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case. If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.
-
But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.
Almost, but not quite true. What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction. A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named. It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced. However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure and allegations about his private life. To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it. That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.
I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case. If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.
What you are talking about is an 'anonymised injunction'. Super-injunctions were defined by Lord Neuberger in his report to the committee as follows (bolding mine):
A super-injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from: (i) publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private; and, (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf
-
But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.
Almost, but not quite true. What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction. A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named. It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced. However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure and allegations about his private life. To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it. That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.
I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case. If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.
What you are talking about is an 'anonymised injunction'. Super-injunctions were defined by Lord Neuberger in his report to the committee as follows (bolding mine):
A super-injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from: (i) publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private; and, (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf
The two are usually combined. The point remains that we are not bound by the injunction unless we know that it exists and also know what its terms are. The injunction will have named defendants/respondents and can bind others who know of its terms. If we learn information about someone we are not necessarily in contempt of court by publishing that information on a forum such as this, even though the person passing on the information may be in contempt of court in having breached the injunction. It all depends on the particular situation and facts.
I am still interested to know if there is in fact an injunction in force protecting someone connected with this case. If I receive information initially by PM I can decide what can be posted here.
-
Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?
-
I think you're missing my point NGB, or maybe I'm not making it very clearly. If you, or any other poster, somehow comes into the knowledge that a relative has a super-injunction you (or they) are prohibited from reporting that knowledge, and that would include posting it on this board. If you remember, this conversation was about your recollection of having seen a poster do just that. A super-injunction is an extension of an anonymised injunction, in that in addition to the injunction and anonymity orders there is an order prohibiting publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings - and that order is typically made 'against the world' (contra mundum).
That said, I seriously doubt there is a super-injunction in place in this case as they are apparently very rare beasts.
-
Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?
They usually are a waste of money as the internet is impossible to censor effectively. The person taking out the injunction aims to keep the information secret by targeting those people who have the information and who are considered likely to publish it. In order to try to limit the spread of the information the persons against the injunction is targeted are prohibited even from referring to the existence of the injunction. The person taking out the injunction thereby hopes that dissemination of the information will be prevented and they therefore do not wish other people to know about the injunction. The problem with that of course is that people who do not know about the injunction are not bound by it, so if the sensitive information becomes available to such people they may publish it without risk of being found in contempt of court. They can of course still be liable to proceedings for libel or slander.
-
Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?
You would think so wouldn't you? But this is why you will not see the media saying so-and-so has obtained a super-injunction. Remember that the main body of the injunction is to prevent one party from doing what the other doesn't like, and that remains as an oder between those two parties. The 'super' part just prevents everyone else from reporting the fact that the first order exists.
-
I think you're missing my point NGB, or maybe I'm not making it very clearly. If you, or any other poster, somehow comes into the knowledge that a relative has a super-injunction you (or they) are prohibited from reporting that knowledge, and that would include posting it on this board. If you remember, this conversation was about your recollection of having seen a poster do just that. A super-injunction is an extension of an anonymised injunction, in that in addition to the injunction and anonymity orders there is an order prohibiting publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings - and that order is typically made 'against the world' (contra mundum).
That said, I seriously doubt there is a super-injunction in place in this case as they are apparently very rare beasts.
I think you have made your points very clearly and in reality I do not believe that we are in disagreement about the issues. In the example you give if we became aware of an injunction prohibiting certain facts being published, including the existence of the injunction itself, we could be held in contempt if we published the information. However as you will be aware (you have I suspect a legal background) contempt of court is criminal in nature even though administered in this type of case through the civil courts. It would be necessary to prove that we knew not only that there was an injunction restraining the publication of specific information, but also that it covered the identity of the person who obtained the injunction and the existence of the injunction itself. If we receive information that family member XX has obtained an injunction restraining publication of allegations against that person, unless we also received information of additional "gagging" provisions attached to the injunction we would be free to publish the fact that the injunction had been obtained. I accept that we would have to take great care in this. A High Court judge is unlikely to have much of a sense of humour if he believes an injunction has been deliberately flouted.
At the moment this is all academic but if there is further information we can (carefully) assess how best to proceed.
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
-
Anyone still awake? :)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. All this is going over my head. In the wild west there wuz nothin a 6 gun couldn't solve.
-
It was 'Ron Cook' who posted an excerpt from an article in the Daily Star (?) regarding a list of current super injunctions.
In that list was an entry worded similar to below:
'Information relating to a police investigation"
-
It was 'Ron Cook' who posted an excerpt from an article in the Daily Star (?) regarding a list of current super injunctions.
In that list was an entry worded similar to below:
'Information relating to a police investigation"
Thank you Rochford, yes that was the post I was trying to remember. It looks as if I have taken 2+2 and made 5.
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
How would Ron Cook have found out?
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
... and if once found it's 'super', keep our traps shut ;)
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
How would Ron Cook have found out?
He may have put two and two together and just surmised? Or he may know something that we don't?
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
... and if once found it's 'super', keep our traps shut ;)
Or.....leak it anonymously to a foreign paper. ;)
-
Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!
What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).
But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).
So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.
If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.
Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:
I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives. It would be interesting to hear more about this.
Anyone still awake? :)
Yes, I am still awake. I agree with your summary. Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!
How would Ron Cook have found out?
He may have put two and two together and just surmised? Or he may know something that we don't?
He must have known because he published a list?
-
It was in the daily paper. An article. I wonder if wiki-leaks knows anything about this case?
-
It was in the daily paper. An article. I wonder if wiki-leaks knows anything about this case?
Do you reckon it would be an idea to contact them?
-
Hi
I just looked at the story and expected more coverage of the case
It just seems to add up
Mark
-
What do you think Mike ?
-
Since the theme of the enigmatic, anonysed? superinjunction has become silent, may I return to the original topic. According to Wilkes Ch. 15, STAN, the 'knife' was at home at No 1, Letsby Avenue, planning an evening out with his good lady. He had a call from Witham P.S., informing him that LIZZZ RIMMINGTON wished to speak to him. Not much appears tobe known about her. SHE HAD LIVED WITH Matthew MacDonald, and used to socilalise with him and JB and Christine? She had put the bubble in to JM that she had had JB plus afew more squeaks. At the time of the call she was living with Malcolm Waters of SLOPPY JOES. Back at Ch. 15, Stan says to his wife, Ibet this is Julie coming forward. - LIZ, STAN HERE HAVE YOU GOT JULIE WITH YOU ? YES' He immediately rushes up the A12 in his white trainers to Malcolm's HOUSE IN cOLCHESTER. He meets them, and straightaway asks J ULIE - 'DID JEREMY DO IT'. YES, she said, and STANsmiled a reassuring smile. iT GETS BETTER .......................
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
Well foow foow is not some Chinese person. He is referring to woof woof. ;)
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
Fair point. The only part I really don't follow is: who spoke to Stan the man?
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
Fair point. The only part I really don't follow is: who spoke to Stan the man?
Foow Foow, or Wilkes?
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
Fair point. The only part I really don't follow is: who spoke to Stan the man?
Foow Foow, or Wilkes?
It's Stan the man, isn't it? So where does Foow Foow come into it?
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
Fair point. The only part I really don't follow is: who spoke to Stan the man?
Foow Foow, or Wilkes?
No. Woof woof as I said. As Jeremy calls him. Journalist?
-
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)
If she said that, that is exactly what she did. (No surprise!) Her thirty-something meetings with the Essex police, hmmm, wonder what they were for?
-
How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES. No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES. hmm hmm FOOW FOOW
Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?
I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword. ;D
Fair point. The only part I really don't follow is: who spoke to Stan the man?
Foow Foow, or Wilkes?
No. Woof woof as I said. As Jeremy calls him. Journalist?
I understand who Foow Foow is, I'm just trying to use the lingo.
So where does Foow Foow - or Woof Woof - come into it?
-
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)
If she said that, that is exactly what she did. (No surprise!) Her thirty-something meetings with the Essex police, hmmm, wonder what they were for?
Hi, Abs! Good to see you.
Exactly
-
Hi chocho!! I see we can´t +1 anymore, so you get one in my mind.
-
Hi chocho!! I see we can´t +1 anymore, so you get one in my mind.
Same here, I'm sending +1 in my mind to you!
-
KEIRA, That is the Question 2 B or not 2B. ?? iT'S 'X' 'Y' and / or 'Z' . i.e. MUGGY , LIZzz, possiby one other party. GRAHAME is right-on,- FOOW FOOW can be reversed, unlike BOB and RADAR, otherwise RAINWATERBUT-RWB- , where poor Mr Page allegedly had a heart attack before immersing himself in water. Soget insurance and Christian internment.
-
Apologies ALL, re earlier POST. Buddy's OUIJA board made . CRYSTAL BALL's up in SPELLing. LZzzz' surname has only 1 'm' as in her namesake STELLA R . . . . .ton', former S . . CHIEF and author. Hmm Hmm Hmm. Very fine Coaching Stan, did he travel up the A12 by stagec...ch ?
-
Campion wants me to post this:
-
So one minute she's talking about McDonald being the 'hitman', then next she doesn't believe that and says JB is responsible!
-
So one minute she's talking about McDonald being the 'hitman', then next she doesn't believe that and says JB is responsible!
I think there must be a certain amount of poetic licence with a number of these published works, they have to be a good read in order to sell.
On this particular point, Julie didn't ever say it was Mcdonald, she said that Jeremy told her that it was Mcdonald. That's a very distinct and important detail.
-
So one minute she's talking about McDonald being the 'hitman', then next she doesn't believe that and says JB is responsible!
I think there must be a certain amount of poetic licence with a number of these published works, they have to be a good read in order to sell.
On this particular point, Julie didn't ever say it was Mcdonald, she said that Jeremy told her that it was Mcdonald. That's a very distinct and important detail.
A regular line when someone was telling lies to spin trouble I have come across is "using someone told me" as an excuse"....so anything wrong etc can be offloaded by the spinner of the false story. If the person is named that said the story then often they are the target of the lie.
-
So one minute she's talking about McDonald being the 'hitman', then next she doesn't believe that and says JB is responsible!
I think there must be a certain amount of poetic licence with a number of these published works, they have to be a good read in order to sell.
On this particular point, Julie didn't ever say it was Mcdonald, she said that Jeremy told her that it was Mcdonald. That's a very distinct and important detail.
A regular line when someone was telling lies to spin trouble I have come across is "using someone told me" as an excuse"....so anything wrong etc can be offloaded by the spinner of the false story. If the person is named that said the story then often they are the target of the lie.
It's q good job I've decided not to comment on 'Agent Z' then.
-
"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",
defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.
JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:
"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."
Why did Rivlin not immediately challenge this totally untrue claim?
Why did he not tell JM: oh but you most certainly have rehearsed what you are telling us here - over and over and over again, haven't you? Please tell the jury, JM, was it some 31 or 32 sessions of rehearsals that you had in the months leading up this trial?
Why was JM not asked to describe each of those rehearsal sessions and exactly what she had rehearsed during the course of each one?
Why was this line of questioning not followed up? Why weren't the judge and jury made acutely aware that every single nuance of JM's testimony, every sob, every sympathy eliciting glance, every word of every answer, had been honed and rehearsed and cosmetically enhanced over and over and over again?
Why didn't Rivlin engrave on the judge and jury's memories that JM could only give the near word perfect performance they saw before them thanks to the astonishing number of rehearsals she had had?
Julie Mugford was telling the truth. As I've stated elsewhere; it's quite possible the 30 odd sessions referred to, were her receiving support, following her experiences with her run in of an extremely disordered and dangerous man.
-
I think there must be a certain amount of poetic licence with a number of these published works, they have to be a good read in order to sell.
On this particular point, Julie didn't ever say it was Mcdonald, she said that Jeremy told her that it was Mcdonald. That's a very distinct and important detail.
Agreed! Amazing how these facts have been manipulated and distorted over the years.
-
I think there must be a certain amount of poetic licence with a number of these published works, they have to be a good read in order to sell.
On this particular point, Julie didn't ever say it was Mcdonald, she said that Jeremy told her that it was Mcdonald. That's a very distinct and important detail.
A regular line when someone was telling lies to spin trouble I have come across is "using someone told me" as an excuse"....so anything wrong etc can be offloaded by the spinner of the false story. If the person is named that said the story then often they are the target of the lie.
Julie Mugford would not have been aware of Jeremy Bambers tactics. It would most probably have taken her some time to realise his true intentions; presuming of course she did.
It's these distortions Bamber has relied on ,and put his spin on, in order to confuse his supporters.
He didn't however confuse the jury.
-
Considering a jury member nodded off,it must have been quite boring.
-
Julie Mugford was telling the truth. As I've stated elsewhere; it's quite possible the 30 odd sessions referred to, were her receiving support, following her experiences with her run in of an extremely disordered and dangerous man.
Please read up on the case evidence. The agenda of those 30 sessions has already been established.
Seriously Stephanie your embarrassing yourself.
-
So one minute she's talking about McDonald being the 'hitman', then next she doesn't believe that and says JB is responsible!
No different to me once believing SH's claims that others had been responsible!
-
Julie Mugford was telling the truth. As I've stated elsewhere; it's quite possible the 30 odd sessions referred to, were her receiving support, following her experiences with her run in of an extremely disordered and dangerous man.
Hi Stephanie,
I was interested in your comments which I just picked up on. Basically, whether Mugford lied or not, has no bearing on the possibility, probability, impossibility, or improbability of Jeremy having shot and killed his sister? Of course, you are entitled to your opinion like the rest of us. Having said this, it beggars belief that Cops who investigated these killings deliberately withheld the contents of key police message logs which were recorded spontaneously in real time, information which challenges the very nature of the prosecutions case against Bamber. It didn't stop there, either, they lied and decieved the court which tried the matter about who had taken all the photographs of Sheila Caffells body 'insitu' inside the bedroom. Sheila was reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, onward and her body was certainly not upstairs anywhere prior to 8.10am. The rifle which fired the fatal shot that killed her was sighted leaning against a first floor window by WPC Julia Jeapes prior to the armed officers making their approach to enter the farmhouse. Now, armed with this information, it must be obvious to even the most bias persons in favour of Bambers guilt that he could not have shot and killed his sister. People can hate or dislike him, or both, as much as they like, but the solid truth of the matter is, that Bamber had no input into the contents of these key police message logs which by 7.37am had his sister downstairs in the kitchen, and by 8.10am she was not upstairs in the main bedroom, otherwise cops would have found four bodies upstairs by that stage not the three bodies which is recorded. People need to look at the bigger picture in this case, not concentrate or focus on the thoughts and ideas that relatives, or Julie Mugford had in their minds. The stark facts in this case all boil down to the circumstances surrounding the death of Bambers sister in the main bedroom by use of the family owned rifle. Was it possible for Bamber to have got possession of that rifle from the bedroom window after 7.15am, and use it to shoot dead his sister on the bedroom floor, then stage her death scene there on the bedroom floor at some point after 8.10am, oh and remove a silencer from the guns barrel and take it to another part of the farmhouse to conceal it, without any of the multitude of police officers present at the scene by 8.10am, both inside and outside the farmhouse? No, he could not possibly have got into the farmhouse after 8.10am, on that first morning of the police investigation, to grab the rifle from a first floor window and shoot his sister dead, and stage his sister's body to fool them into accepting that she had committed suicide? Impossible, since by 8.10am, cops had found five bodies, two bodies in the kitchen by 7.37am, one of these two deaths was known to be a murder, the other death known to be a suicide, by 7.45am. Only three bodies upstairs, all murders. Rifle confirmed as resting against a first floor window from an occasion prior to the firearm officers gaining access to the farmhouse. How did Bamber obtain the rifle from a first floor window after 7.15am, and how did he manage to shoot dead his sister on the main bedroom floor and stage her death scene there with the gun at any stage after 8.10am? You know that he couldn't have, having benefit to all this police evidence that was kept back from the defence and the jury at Bambers trial?
-
Agreed! Amazing how these facts have been manipulated and distorted over the years.
Hi Stephanie,
The only people who have manipulated the truth are Essex Police, the relatives and Julie Mugford. You can choose to disagree, that's fine. The facts are stark, Sheila was in the kitchen at 7.37 and 7.38am, she was not in the main bedroom by 8.10am. This information is recorded in withheld police records. The prosecution used slyness and dishonesty in its approach to the jury. Imagine the consequences of withholding that crucial information about Sheila being in the kitchen from 7.37 am, and more importantly only three bodies upstairs by 8.10am. The rifle which was used to kill Sheila at a first floor window by 7.15am, which somehow found its way onto Sheila's body on the main bedroom floor in time for 'DC Oakey' (25) and then PC Bird (SOCO) to photograph it. Anybody can introduce scenarios, but the stark fact of the matter is/was that Bamber could not have shot and killed his sister with the family owned rifle, and staged her death scene in that bedroom after 8.10am. Impossible, couldn't have happened, didn't happen. I have spent over two and a half decades studying this case, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that Bamber could not possibly have shot his sister with the rifle from the first floor window, and staged her body on the bedroom floor prior to the arrival of the occupants of CA07 at the scene prior to 3.48am at the scene. How then did the only rifle recovered from upstairs in the farmhouse end up at a first floor window by 7.15am, and how come Sheila was in the kitchen at 7.37am, and could not possibly have been upstairs anywhere until some time after 8.10am?
Bamber himself, has been accused of many things, but in this case for all his faults he could not possibly have had any involvement in his sister's death, or the stage managing of it...
The guy is innocent, and nothing Mugford, or the relatives, or any bent copper can say, or has said can realistically paint him as the killer. People want to stop making excuses for the police in this investigation and the dishonest role played out by the CPS in his prosecution. These people have acted like common criminals. They had all this key information all along, and they concealed it, hid it away, and deliberately sought to mislead the jury regarding it...
-
Key points, not to be ignored - rifle that was used to shoot and kill Bambers sister was at a first floor window prior to firearm officers entering the farmhouse. Sheila's body in the kitchen before it ends up on the floor of the bedroom, with the rifle from the first floor window in her possession. Two bodies downstairs (7.37am), three bodies upstairs (8.10am) which ended up being transformed into one body in kitchen, four bodies upstairs in bedrooms by 8.44am...
Don't try to fool yourself into thinking that Bamber could have had anything whatsoever to do with the death of his sister.
He didn't, he couldn't have...
Impossible...
There is more chance of any of you being responsible for shooting and killing her, and staging her death scene...
Think...