Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: tonyb on January 28, 2012, 03:20:PM
-
Anyone changed their minds on guilty / innocent by viewing the forum.
-
I have, as you know.
As for others, i dont know, i know shona thought he was innocent, until she came on here.
-
mine has in thought he was guilty till i came on here.
-
My postion on JB's guilt on joining the forum was c.60% now its nearer 80%.
However; I do believe any withheld information should be on the table and I do believe some of the evidence has been tampered with / distorted or deliberately destroyed.
If you could determine "reasonable doubt" as a % (that would deliver a not guilty vote), what would that % be?
-
60% plus?
Not my strong point!
-
I thought I'd better post mine. I always believed he was innocent but on reflection I believe that a botched investigation,myths,spin,dredful defence didn't make a difference to the correct outcome. You know I trully hope I am wrong but the evidence and proof as released on here lead me to that conclusion. I do however hope they find in favor and order a retrial. However unlikely that may be. Tony, the fucking idiot clown
-
I had an open mind but tended towards guilty until I started reading the material here a year ago. I progressively became convinced that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred. The forum is in my view the best resource for information on the case.
-
I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered". It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is. Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...
-
I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered". It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is. Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...
Good post sc82
-
I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered". It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is. Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...
Spot on. Plus one
-
I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered". It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is. Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...
Mike presents a lot of theories based upon his detailed knowledge of the case evidence. Mike has made it clear that he does that to stimulate debate, and he succeeds in doing that. Just because you may disagree with some of Mike's theories should not in my view affect your overall view on the case. Assess the material here and reach your own overall conclusions. That is what I have done. I have not agreed with all of Mike's ideas but I have to say I find most of them convincing and they accord with my own analysis of the case. Mike's posts on the silencer evidence in particular are very carefully reasoned and are powerful.
-
Sorry that shouldve said "expected to follow the whole "Taff Jones was murdered" theory". Don't get me wrong, I still think the whole case stinks to high heaven and I am still more on the innocent side but I'll be honest and say i'm not 100%. I can still see where some of the "guilty" arguments are coming from. I would say that I hope the CCRC come through for Jeremy. I don't think anyone can seriously say he had a fair trial. On the evidence we've seen, in my opinion, his conviction isn't safe. For me, I've yet to see any concrete evidence of his guilt and in my opinion, for that reason, he shouldn't be in jail. Beyond reasonable doubt and all that :)
-
Mike presents a lot of theories based upon his detailed knowledge of the case evidence. Mike has made it clear that he does that to stimulate debate, and he succeeds in doing that. Just because you may disagree with some of Mike's theories should not in my view affect your overall view on the case. Assess the material here and reach your own overall conclusions. That is what I have done. I have not agreed with all of Mike's ideas but I have to say I find most of them convincing and they accord with my own analysis of the case. Mike's posts on the silencer evidence in particular are very carefully reasoned and are powerful.
I'm going to reply to regards mikes silencer evidence. The Photos he produced and claimed were of widdam fitting it to the rifle after a lot of posting became a re enactment of the event that happened in the armoury and was happy with the use photos of the reconstruction of the scene. When I pointed out the obvious he calls me a fucking idiot and clown. Truth hurts if you spout bullshit. If he stuck with the FACTS and didn't embellish fact wit fiction I think everyone would be happier and better informed
-
60% plus?
Not my strong point!
Hi Andrea - therefore reasonable doubt in your opinion is 60%.
In other words if you only thought Bamber 40% guilty, that would represent enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty?
It must be such a difficult job for a real Jury member - you could either be letting a mass murderer go free or condemn and innocent man to life in prison - not a job for the faint hearted.
If we had the Scottish option of "not proven" in this country I believe JB would have walked, but not as an outright innocent man!
-
Hi Andrea - therefore reasonable doubt in your opinion is 60%.
In other words if you only thought Bamber 40% guilty, that would represent enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty?
It must be such a difficult job for a real Jury member - you could either be letting a mass murderer go free or condemn and innocent man to life in prison - not a job for the faint hearted.
If we had the Scottish option of "not proven" in this country I believe JB would have walked, but not as an outright innocent man!
Told you it wasnt my strong point, maths!
what do you think is more realistic? 90%
-
no i think i meant 60% guilty, oh im confused now. ???
-
Hi Andrea - therefore reasonable doubt in your opinion is 60%.
In other words if you only thought Bamber 40% guilty, that would represent enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty?
It must be such a difficult job for a real Jury member - you could either be letting a mass murderer go free or condemn and innocent man to life in prison - not a job for the faint hearted.
If we had the Scottish option of "not proven" in this country I believe JB would have walked, but not as an outright innocent man!
I'm Scottish and I think Not Proven is utterly pointless! You're either guilty or you're not. There shouldn't be a middle ground - if you have reasonable doubt then it has to be Not guilty in my view
-
Told you it wasn't my strong point, maths!
what do you think is more realistic? 90%
It's okay, it's not a test ;)
I don't know, but if I were to guess at a figure I would say even 60%, maybe 70% guilty could still leave enough room for reasonable doubt and for a vote of not guilty - its a very subjective point. There is no correct answer!
-
Yes, it has. Having read through various reports, trial transcripts and traced all the lawyers
that have been involved through the 26 years, seen the misrepresentation of evidence, fabrication
of evidence and lack of evidence, I am more than pleased to have joined this forum, as it has helped
remove any doubts I had that this is the worst miscarriage of justice in the last 26 years.
-
It's okay, it's not a test ;)
I don't know, but if I were to guess at a figure I would say even 60%, maybe 70% guilty could still leave enough room for reasonable doubt and for a vote of not guilty - its a very subjective point. There is no correct answer!
Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt. The verdict should then be not guilty. You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view. Judges will never put a figure on it.
-
Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt. The verdict should then be not guilty. You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view. Judges will never put a figure on it.
In my opinion, jurors ought to asked on a percentage basis why they returned a verdict of guilty and if it is not 100% each juror should find the defendant 'Not guilty' because there is some doubt, in my view it should be 100% guilty, or nothing at all...
arrive at this conclusion because a judge always tells a jury that if they have any doubt whatsoever, they should find a defendant not guilty?
Perhaps the warning to the jury by the judge should be altered or changed into - if there is less than a 100% chance of guilt, you must find the defendant 'Guilty'...
-
As you may or may not know I am new to this forum although I have viewed it recently on quite a number of occasions as a guest.
I have read all the information on the official Jeremy Bamber website and receive all the latest information on twitter. As a guest on this forum I have been able to read most of the information on this site though obviously the benefit of becoming a member is so the relevant photographs and documentation can be viewed as well.
My opinion at the moment and has been for some time that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and that Sheila Caffell was responsible however I am going to take some time to re-read all of the information provided on this forum but this time with the benefit of the photographs and documents.
What I do believe 100% however is that he did not receive a fair trial so at the very least should be given the opportunity of a re-trial and that all of the documentation held under PII should be made available sooner rather than later so that an informed decision can be made by everyone involved.
I have already made my thoughts about 'Z' known in previous posts but I do think that until Mike or 'Z' is in a position to divulge more information regarding what they supposedly know and/or release the photographs/documentation that is continuously referred to then this information, in my opinion, will not be relevant in me reaching an ultimate decision of guilty or innocent. I am going to concentrate on the facts and leave the rest alone.
-
Can I have one of your cakes please Gillian?
-
Of course you can rochford. Which one do you fancy? :)
-
Of course you can rochford. Which one do you fancy? :)
I'll have the turquoise one at the front please :D
-
I'll have the turquoise one at the front please :D
you might get fat roch.
-
you might get fat roch.
It's a bit late for that Andrea. I'm carrying a death sentence around my waist area already :-[
-
It's yours rochford. Enjoy!!! :)
-
Even 90% belief in guilt leaves 10% doubt and that is a reasonable doubt. The verdict should then be not guilty. You really need to be 99%+ sure of guilt to say that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, in my view. Judges will never put a figure on it.
The problem of course with this case (of which there are many) is that if one finds JB not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then by default SC is guilty.
Whilst there may be a case for reasonable doubt applied to JB's case, it's the same for SC. There is still reasonable doubt that SC did not do it - stale mate!!
-
It's yours rochford. Enjoy!!! :)
Cheers ;)
Regarding the topic of this thread. It seems to me that in the minds of a considerable amount of forum members, by posting about (Z), Mike Tesko has introduced further doubt in relation to his previous claims regarding the now infamous 'photo on the bed'.
'Ali Bongo' is oft cited as yet further proof of Mike relying upon deceits. But 'Ali Bongo' wasn't pro Bamber. He actually introduced doubt about the innocence of Jeremy Bamber.
If you remove 'Z' and you remove 'the photo on the bed' ... that removal doesn't even make a dint in to the case for the defence or the case for Jeremy Bamber's innocence. Since so far, neither the photo nor Z have been verifiable or referenced by the official defence anyway. All the other doubts and anomalies that were there, still remain.
So forgive me, if I don't rush in to the open arms of the guilty camp.
-
The problem of course with this case (of which there are many) is that if one finds JB not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then by default SC is guilty.
Whilst there may be a case for reasonable doubt applied to JB's case, it's the same for SC. There is still reasonable doubt that SC did not do it - stale mate!!
No, because Sheila is not on trial. The question is whether there is a reasonable doubt about Jeremy's guilt. If there is, that does not prove that Sheila was responsible.
-
As you may or may not know I am new to this forum although I have viewed it recently on quite a number of occasions as a guest.
I have read all the information on the official Jeremy Bamber website and receive all the latest information on twitter. As a guest on this forum I have been able to read most of the information on this site though obviously the benefit of becoming a member is so the relevant photographs and documentation can be viewed as well.
My opinion at the moment and has been for some time that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and that Sheila Caffell was responsible however I am going to take some time to re-read all of the information provided on this forum but this time with the benefit of the photographs and documents.
What I do believe 100% however is that he did not receive a fair trial so at the very least should be given the opportunity of a re-trial and that all of the documentation held under PII should be made available sooner rather than later so that an informed decision can be made by everyone involved.
I have already made my thoughts about 'Z' known in previous posts but I do think that until Mike or 'Z' is in a position to divulge more information regarding what they supposedly know and/or release the photographs/documentation that is continuously referred to then this information, in my opinion, will not be relevant in me reaching an ultimate decision of guilty or innocent. I am going to concentrate on the facts and leave the rest alone.
A very well written post Gillian.
-
If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?
-
My position has not changed.
If people are being convicted to many years in prison, is it not of the utmost importance that a full, thorough and honest investigation has taken place, and when it goes to trial, everything is disclosed, not just what the prosecution want the jury to hear and see?.
Everyone should have the right to a fair trial, but if the investigation is a shambles from the start, and then information is being witheld, how can that be fair to anyone?
No one wants guilty people to get away with murder. I also don't want innocent people being locked up for a murder they did not commit, especially when there is no hard evidence against them.
I have yet to find anything that convinces me of JB guilt, in that he murdered 5 members of his family.
-
My position has not changed.
If people are being convicted to many years in prison, is it not of the utmost importance that a full, thorough and honest investigation has taken place, and when it goes to trial, everything is disclosed, not just what the prosecution want the jury to hear and see?.
Everyone should have the right to a fair trial, but if the investigation is a shambles from the start, and then information is being witheld, how can that be fair to anyone?
No one wants guilty people to get away with murder. I also don't want innocent people being locked up for a murder they did not commit, especially when there is no hard evidence against them.
I have yet to find anything that convinces me of JB guilt, in that he murdered 5 members of his family.
Top post and totally agree. I'm being expected to believe that Jeremy Bamber is guilty because he allegedly ate lobster and drank champagne, when he should have been sullen.... Or was it oysters? It seems to me that he is guilty to some people because he burgled the caravan site.
I'm not buying any of this. It's got nowt whatsoever to do with WHF incident.
-
If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?
sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?
-
how would anybody know what he eat ate thats just hear say.
-
sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?
they would try there hardest not to reopen it im sure.
-
they would try there hardest not to reopen it im sure.
well, the fact that 5 people were shot including 2 children, i would have thought it would be in the public interest to find out the perpetrator.
Or would they simply say, well if it wasnt jb then it must be sc? surely it would be investigated again, as far as is possible.
-
No, because Sheila is not on trial. The question is whether there is a reasonable doubt about Jeremy's guilt. If there is, that does not prove that Sheila was responsible.
I think you are slightly missing my point. I know SC was not on trial, but the judge said it was one or the other.
This is more a case of JB/SC, guilty/not guilty in the mind of the thinker, not a court process - if that makes sense?
If I was a juror and I was toying with the thought JB was not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then I would have to believe SC did it - and that one in my mind is more difficult to believe imo.
This to me is part of the dilemma thrown up by this case.
-
well, the fact that 5 people were shot including 2 children, i would have thought it would be in the public interest to find out the perpetrator.
Or would they simply say, well if it wasnt jb then it must be sc? surely it would be investigated again, as far as is possible.
they would do there best to say he was still guilty like they do in most cases.
-
sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?
If JB ever got his conviction quashed I think the prosecution would be screaming for a retrial.
If JB was freed on appeal, having had his conviction quashed, I would hope if anyone that JB and the public would be screaming to have the case reopened, but I doubt it would happen.
It isnt automatic that when a murder conviction is quashed that the murder case is reopened.
-
If jeremy ever got an appeal and won, would the case have to be reopened then?
No, the case would not be reopened.
-
Listen to you lot! Where is your courage? Are you now so unsure because JB had a fair triai?
I have not changed my stance at all. I have never said that I am 100% of JBs innocense, but I will not change midtrack,
Try telling me that the extended family were not bias, and I will laugh in your face.
The buffoon has got to you. I will have none of it.
If the buffoon has no connection to the family how do you explain his in depth knowledge. and his passion in defending the family. The bufoon also has a habit of belittling any dissenters.
The high and mighty bafoon made my mind up yonks ago.
-
No, the case would not be reopened.
So would they just say" well sc did it then"? wouldnt it be in the public interest to find out who slaughtered this family? i find that shocking really.
-
I think you are slightly missing my point. I know SC was not on trial, but the judge said it was one or the other.
This is more a case of JB/SC, guilty/not guilty in the mind of the thinker, not a court process - if that makes sense?
If I was a juror and I was toying with the thought JB was not guilty by way of reasonable doubt, then I would have to believe SC did it - and that one in my mind is more difficult to believe imo.
This to me is part of the dilemma thrown up by this case.
If you had doubt about Jeremy's guilt that means you would think it is possible that Sheila was responsible. You might also have reasonable doubt about Sheila. You do not have to be sure Sheila was responsible to have a reasonable doubt about Jeremy.
-
sorry to bump this up, but if jeremy was freed on appeal, would the case have to be reopened?
No.
-
I saw your previous answer Neil, thanks.
-
there is a slim chance that it could be neither of them.
-
Listen to you lot! Where is your courage? Are you now so unsure because JB had a fair triai?
I have not changed my stance at all. I have never said that I am 100% of JBs innocense, but I will not change midtrack,
Try telling me that the extended family were not bias, and I will laugh in your face.
The buffoon has got to you. I will have none of it.
If the buffoon has no connection to the family how do you explain his in depth knowledge. and his passion in defending the family. The bufoon also has a habit of belittling any dissenters.
The high and mighty bafoon made my mind up yonks ago.
buddy that is simply not fair
Mikes not a buffoon
-
buddy that is simply not fair
Mikes not a buffoon
I was not speaking of Mike tony. I was speaking of the true BUFFOON
-
there is a slim chance that it could be neither of them.
That is what i mean nugnug, if it isnt jb or sc, then the shooter should be brought to justice.
-
I was not speaking of Mike tony. I was speaking of the true BUFFOON
many apologies to you both...
-
So would they just say" well sc did it then"? wouldnt it be in the public interest to find out who slaughtered this family? i find that shocking really.
The view would be that on the evidence it was probably either Jeremy or Sheila who was responsible and since Jeremy's conviction is unsafe and Sheila is dead there is nothing more which can be done to arrive at a conclusive answer. Bear in mind that the new evidence may go further than simply establishing doubt about Jeremy's guilt. It may actually be strongly suggestive of Sheila being responsible.
-
What are his chances of a refferal ngb, in your opinion?
-
there is a slim chance that it could be neither of them.
There is but after all the time which has passed it would be impossible to obtain any evidence about this.
-
What are his chances of a refferal ngb, in your opinion?
Good in my opinion. I believe significant progress has been made in the last few weeks.
-
That is what i mean nugnug, if it isnt jb or sc, then the shooter should be brought to justice.
Andrea many murderers are never caught some are found out too late after they have died, perhaps that person running away on that night can answer your question.
-
I think:
There is no doubt significant doubt in the current conviction, therefore JB should have his conviction quashed.
To much water has gone under the bridge to have a fair retrial.
There are too many people with too much to lose to have a retrial.
Therefore CPS will not reprosecute.
JB will be technically innocent, but not in the eyes of many people.
EP/family will suggest "everyone knows who did it".
A rather messy court case will be dragged out over the inheritence.
Not a nice outcome, but I think it is approximately what we'll see.
-
Anyone changed their minds on guilty / innocent by viewing the forum.
Twenty six years ago, when EP first suddenly dropped Sheila as the suspected murderer and charged Jeremy for killing his family, I recall watching the news reports of the case and feeling there was something most odd about the case. My family in D'Arcy and nearby villages told me at the time that they didn't believe that Jeremy had done it. My knowledge of the case was then insufficient to form an opinion, but I trusted my family's judgment. So I suppose I was a 'don't know', more inclined towards Jeremy's innocence than guilt.
Over the past year or two, however, I've begun reading about the case for my research into the Blackwater villages. I've become convinced by all that I've read that Jeremy has never had either a fair trial or a fair Appeal. That plays on my conscience, as I am part of the state and society that have kept Jeremy Bamber imprisoned for all of those years without ever allowing him what every member of our society has a right to: justice. I want justice for Jeremy, I want him to have a fair hearing and my views in this respect will not change.
Also, the more I read and learn of this case in the various books that are available and on this forum, the more convinced I become that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and the victim of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice of the past century.
So, yes, I've change from a being a confused 'don't know' to believing Jeremy is innocent.
-
My postion on JB's guilt on joining the forum was c.60% now its nearer 80%.
However; I do believe any withheld information should be on the table and I do believe some of the evidence has been tampered with / distorted or deliberately destroyed.
If you could determine "reasonable doubt" as a % (that would deliver a not guilty vote), what would that % be?
I have demonstrated reasonable doubt many times.
-
I don't know any more. When i first came here I was very much on the fence. I try to look at it from all sides. I then started to be much more on the innocent side. In the last few weeks I've become very confused and I must be honest that is very much to do with the whole Z situation, and now we're expected to follow the "Taff Jones was murdered". It just makes those who are pro Bamber look like fools. I'm starting to feel like I need to see much more evidence instead of heresay and Mike insisting its true because he says it is. Oh god, I'm going to get lynched now ...
They think wer're fools anyway.
-
Mike presents a lot of theories based upon his detailed knowledge of the case evidence. Mike has made it clear that he does that to stimulate debate, and he succeeds in doing that. Just because you may disagree with some of Mike's theories should not in my view affect your overall view on the case. Assess the material here and reach your own overall conclusions. That is what I have done. I have not agreed with all of Mike's ideas but I have to say I find most of them convincing and they accord with my own analysis of the case. Mike's posts on the silencer evidence in particular are very carefully reasoned and are powerful.
What I can't understand is people saying that they've changed their views from innocent to guilty just because of what Mike has been saying. Don't they have a mind of their own for goodness sake?
-
I'll have the turquoise one at the front please :D
I'll catch the others when they fall
-
You're very welcome to them Grahame as long as you save one for me. :)
-
I stand with Buddy on this one. I started out believing 26 years ago that Jeremy was innocent. I am now 110% of his innocence. Why I came to that 110% in favour of Jeremy was something said by Campion. That if he had just committed 5 murders he would under no circumstances be as calm as he was in the presence of the police. I have seen soldiers, men trained for combat as high as a kite after they had been in a battle zone. The adrenalin rush would have been so much after being in that situation that he would not have been able to stop shaking. To my mind it was utterly impossible that he could have been that good an actor.
I have also established before that there was absolutely no evidence at all forensic or otherwise to connect Jeremy to the scene of the crime. The who case was built entirely upon the words of Julie Mugford without any kind of proof from an independent witness at all. Even the trial judge told the jury not to rely upon Julie Mugford's evidence alone.
But unfortunately he made the grave error of referring to the silencer and the blood inside it. Thereby creating the myth that a silencer was used. This evidence again was based entirely on the words of the relatives who said they found the silencer in the gun cupboard. Again no independent witnesses at all to corroborate their find.
You cannot tell me that when the police looked in the gun cupboard that they missed seeing the silencer in there? So this so called silencer evidence is not even backed up by the police. The conclusion is that the whole trial should have been deemed a mistrial by the first appeal court. Since then each successive appeal court, plus the CCRC have perpetuated the myth that Jeremy committed the murders.
Therefore without any kind of evidence to the contrary Sheila must by default be the murderer. I have not only established reasonable doubt I have also proved Jeremy's innocence.
-
What I can't understand is people saying that they've changed their views from innocent to guilty just because of what Mike has been saying. Don't they have a mind of their own for goodness sake?
Its because it made me question everything that mike has posted, and i also started looking the other side of the coin so to speak.
when i first became interested in this case and started looking on the net for info, all i ever seemed to find were pro bamber sites, so i only got to see one side of the argument.
Since joining this forum i have been able to see both sides of the argument, so it wasnt just a matter of mike mentioning Z.
-
Its because it made me question everything that mike has posted, and i also started looking the other side of the coin so to speak.
when i first became interested in this case and started looking on the net for info, all i ever seemed to find were pro bamber sites, so i only got to see one side of the argument.
Since joining this forum i have been able to see both sides of the argument, so it wasnt just a matter of mike mentioning Z.
I thought that, that was one of the reasons that made you doubt?
-
You mean z one of the reasons?
-
I stand with Buddy on this one. I started out believing 26 years ago that Jeremy was innocent. I am now 110% of his innocence. Why I came to that 110% in favour of Jeremy was something said by Campion. That if he had just committed 5 murders he would under no circumstances be as calm as he was in the presence of the police. I have seen soldiers, men trained for combat as high as a kite after they had been in a battle zone. The adrenalin rush would have been so much after being in that situation that he would not have been able to stop shaking. To my mind it was utterly impossible that he could have been that good an actor.
I have also established before that there was absolutely no evidence at all forensic or otherwise to connect Jeremy to the scene of the crime. The who case was built entirely upon the words of Julie Mugford without any kind of proof from an independent witness at all. Even the trial judge told the jury not to rely upon Julie Mugford's evidence alone.
But unfortunately he made the grave error of referring to the silencer and the blood inside it. Thereby creating the myth that a silencer was used. This evidence again was based entirely on the words of the relatives who said they found the silencer in the gun cupboard. Again no independent witnesses at all to corroborate their find.
You cannot tell me that when the police looked in the gun cupboard that they missed seeing the silencer in there? So this so called silencer evidence is not even backed up by the police. The conclusion is that the whole trial should have been deemed a mistrial by the first appeal court. Since then each successive appeal court, plus the CCRC have perpetuated the myth that Jeremy committed the murders.
Therefore without any kind of evidence to the contrary Sheila must by default be the murderer. I have not only established reasonable doubt I have also proved Jeremy's innocence.
Excellent post, Grahame.
-
This may be a dumb question but here goes...
When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.
So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?
-
This may be a dumb question but here goes...
When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.
So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?
If i did not any better Andrea you sound unsure !, when the relatives were deputised we have more parts of the jigsaw puzzle do you not think, this may explain why hartley joins in and out he is trying to get the message through that there is nothing more to discuss he sounds very sure of himself even i am not that bold.
-
No, people are asking why the silencer wasnt found, i dont think they were looking for it because they thouight at the time that it hadnt been used.
-
This may be a dumb question but here goes...
When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.
So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?
Then why accept it from Jeremy's extended family prior to JM's allegations? The same argument applies.
It was the job of the police to investigate the deaths at WHF. It was not their role to presume anything. As I understand it, they were required to thoroughly examine the scene for soc evidence then to search the scene in order to gather all possible portable evidence which could have been used in or involved with the murders- even if they found strong evidence of four murders and a suicide. This would surely have required the police to remove all firearms and associated equipment plus any other portable evidence.
-
No, people are asking why the silencer wasnt found, i dont think they were looking for it because they thouight at the time that it hadnt been used.
The silencer was not where it should be ? the relatives had no right to touch that item they should have left it right there as Keira says quite rightly they are not the law not then or now without that silencer JB would have remained a free man, if it was not used jb is innocent .
-
The silencer was not where it should be ? the relatives had no right to touch that item they should have left it right there as Keira says quite rightly they are not the law not then or now without that silencer JB would have remained a free man, if it was not used jb is innocent .
Exactly, Mertol. Five people died in that house in the most brutal manner. The police had no right to presume anything about those deaths. Their job was to conduct a meticulous investigation to determine what happened. It was not their job to leap to conclusions, even if the scene appeared to strongly suggest certain conclusions.
...unless, of course, they knew without a shadow of doubt what had happened at WHF.
-
Its very unlikely the public will ever see the pictures of the deceased in full, that i can understand quite well, but i have based on what i have seen and im quite certain June recieved the worst of the shots that night, was there a struggle downstairs with Ralph, why could he have not been beated after he died, if June recieved the worst of the shots then why ? was forcing the twins to kneel and pray with her anything to do with it.
-
No, people are asking why the silencer wasnt found, i dont think they were looking for it because they thouight at the time that it hadnt been used.
Three policeman made statement's saying they searched the gun cupboard !!
-
Its very unlikely the public will ever see the pictures of the deceased in full, that i can understand quite well, but i have based on what i have seen and im quite certain June recieved the worst of the shots that night, was there a struggle downstairs with Ralph, why could he have not been beated after he died, if June recieved the worst of the shots then why ? was forcing the twins to kneel and pray with her anything to do with it.
Nevill seems to have been first shot upstairs, hence the extra bullet cases and blood on the stairwell wall. He was then shot downstairs. I doubt if Nevill put up much of a struggle as, from what I've read of people who have severe gunshot wounds, the strength drains out of them fairly quickly.
-
Three policeman made statement's saying they searched the gun cupboard !!
Exactly, Jon. Which begs the question: why didn't they find it?
-
Exactly, Jon. Which begs the question: why didn't they find it?
They never found it as it was not there !! It is not rocket science !
-
The late of the night/1st hours of the morning would have slowed down any response, if the police were happy with 4 murders and a suicide why was the relatives not ? what prompted them to turn columbo ? of course it had nothing to do with the fact that in time Jeremy would have become very wealthy was it ? what deal was struck with mugford, these and other points keep me firmly in my view Jeremy did not kill his family. For Jeremy or anyone else finding someone more pretty than mugford would have not been any problem,far from it , but as soon as she is dumped everything changes.
-
They never found it as it was not there !! It is not rocket science !
It's hard to reach any other conclusion, isn't it? Of course, EP claimed that the reason they failed to find the silencer was that they didn't really look inside the cupboard when they searched it. All three of them are supposed to have searched a gun cupboard at a murder scene yet not looked very hard...hmm.
-
It's hard to reach any other conclusion, isn't it? Of course, EP claimed that the reason they failed to find the silencer was that they didn't really look inside the cupboard when they searched it. All three of them are supposed to have searched a gun cupboard at a murder scene yet not looked very hard...hmm.
Maybe it wasn't there when the police searched the scene
Maybe the murderer came back and replaced it after the search had been completed?
-
Maybe it wasn't there when the police searched the scene
Maybe the murderer came back and replaced it after the search had been completed?
Okay, let's run with that.
You're the killer. You climb out of WHF's kitchen window, heart going like the clappers, run to the estuary and grab you mother's sit up beg bicycle that you left by the - crumbling, twisting, pot holed, well rained on and muddy - sea wall, strewn with clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen.
Then you cycle like a bat out of hell...right over the edge of the sea wall onto the rocks below. When you come round the bike's had it, so you run the rest of the way home.
No..?
Okay, you walk home. Forget the fact that the police's own timing of how long this would take showed it would leave you impossibly short of time to call the police when you need to.
Unsurprisingly, it's not until the next day that you notice you left the silencer in the pocket of the trousers that you changed out of the previous night. Gawd, the police'll know she was murdered because the silencer's missing. So you wait until nightfall and return the silencer to WHF. You hide it well back in the gun cupboard.
But later, at home, you ask yourself, "Why did I do that? The police have already searched the place, they'll know Sheila was murdered, I have to get it back!"
So, off you again.
Or do you? Because part way there you're conflicted again. Should you take it, or should you leave it?
-
It's hard to reach any other conclusion, isn't it? Of course, EP claimed that the reason they failed to find the silencer was that they didn't really look inside the cupboard when they searched it. All three of them are supposed to have searched a gun cupboard at a murder scene yet not looked very hard...hmm.
But they weren't looking for a silencer and it was boxed.
-
But they weren't looking for a silencer and it was boxed.
Thats what i said earlier Vic, the rifle was found on sheila with out silencer attached, so they wont look for it if they dont think it was used.
-
This may be a dumb question but here goes...
When police wre called to WHF, they were led to believe shiela had gone crazy with a gun, when they stormed whf they found everyone dead, and shiela with the rifle without silencer attatched.
So why would they look for the silencer in the begining if they didnt think it was used?
Well, the point is they went to the gun cupboard. You could ask why they looked there in the first place? But they retrieved other items from the cupboard. One should ask why? It also goes to show that they had it right in the first place. It was the relatives that kept on and on about the silencer, not the police.
-
But they weren't looking for a silencer and it was boxed.
Hi Vic,
Great to have you back.
Okay, you're the last of the officers to search the gun cupboard.
" 'Ere, Bonz, did you look in the boxes?"
" What boxes?"
" Bl**dy Nora, if you wan' a job done do it yourse....Ere, Bonz, there's silencer in this box. Better record it, eh?"
-
The silencer was not where it should be ? the relatives had no right to touch that item they should have left it right there as Keira says quite rightly they are not the law not then or now without that silencer JB would have remained a free man, if it was not used jb is innocent .
We have yet to establish that it was found by the relatives or if it is just a false story that has been accepted and built upon?
-
Thats what i said earlier Vic, the rifle was found on sheila with out silencer attached, so they wont look for it if they dont think it was used.
Hi Andrea,
You did say that, and I suggested that they were bound by the rule book to follow Standard scene of crime procedure: it was more than their jobs were worth to fail to comply with this. With five people dead at WHF, they would hardly commit a disciplinary offence by ignoring obligatory standard procedure, would they?
...Unless for some reason they were absolutely certain that Sheila was the murderer.
-
if you found a blood stained silencer in a cupboard wouldn't the normal course of action be to phone the police and get them down there.
-
But they weren't looking for a silencer and it was boxed.
Why not? The relatives were. We should perhaps ask them why they were looking for it in the first place? Also I recall the comment made by David Boutflour (in Ann Eaton's statement) who when he allegedly found it in the gun cupboard said immediately, This must be the silencer.
-
if you found a blood stained silencer in a cupboard wouldn't the normal course of action be to phone the police and get them down there.
Which of course begs the question did they actually find it in the gun cupboard in the first place?
-
Thats what i said earlier Vic, the rifle was found on sheila with out silencer attached, so they wont look for it if they dont think it was used.
It's not a question of looking for a silencer, Andrea, it's a question of doing a thorough scene of crime search. Three officers rightly regarded that gun cupboard as requiring to be searched. It's inconceivable that one of them would not have searched inside any boxes in there.
-
It's not a question of looking for a silencer, Andrea, it's a question of doing a thorough scene of crime search. Three officers rightly regarded that gun cupboard as requiring to be searched. It's inconceivable that one of them would not have searched inside any boxes in there.
It just isn't logical is it? It is much more believable that if it had been there the police would have found it, rather that believe the relative's story of David Boultflour opening the gun cupboard door and exclaiming almost immediately, Oh look this must be the silencer to the gun. Now tell me what is the story which has common sense stamped all over it?
-
Would love to see a series of CSI Essex .
-
If there are a few things here it perhaps these, the relatives might think i fell out a box of corn flakes, the silencer seems to enter the rather than been a part of it, like the shopkeeper in the fancy dress shop in Mr Benn presto and he appears by magic . no one would be that simple to use such a device and put it back it would be taken from the scene altogether with the rifle.
-
But they weren't looking for a silencer and it was boxed.
Are they not allowed to look in boxes ? Why do you believe AE never mentioned ' silencer ' in her first statement ? Did DB call EP to tell them to come and pick a 'silencer ' up in September , like the police log show's ? Why do you believe there is at least two signed exhibit labels' with different signature's on them ? Is there a simple explanation for this Vidvic ?
-
Would love to see a series of CSI Essex .
Now that would be a challenge fpr any producer? ;D
-
One undeniable fact needs to be considered. ALL so called evidence upon which Jeremy came from all those who hated him.
-
Would love to see a series of CSI Essex .
Do not be suprised if csi type forensics finish this once and for all, beyond the comprehension of clowns EP.
-
Do not be suprised if csi type forensics finish this once and for all, beyond the comprehension of clowns EP.
This is the thing Mertol.Jeremy pushes for every scientific test that is possible.Any one of these tests could backfire and prove his guilt and he must know this.He knows damn well that he was not there that night and did not pull that trigger!
-
This is the thing Mertol.Jeremy pushes for every scientific test that is possible.Any one of these tests could backfire and prove his guilt and he must know this.He knows damn well that he was not there that night and did not pull that trigger!
Or, he knows something we don't?
-
Or, he knows something we don't?
Such as?
-
This is the thing Mertol.Jeremy pushes for every scientific test that is possible.Any one of these tests could backfire and prove his guilt and he must know this.He knows damn well that he was not there that night and did not pull that trigger!
He is tyler he is on the edge on the north face if you want my gut view, he is rather like Taylor played by charlton heston in the 1st planet of the apes film on the beach on horseback he is about to face his destiny.
-
There was never any conclusive proof that JB was guilty. There was so much doubt and assumption that he was convicted on GUESS WORK
-
Such as?
Because he was there, he would know if the police or the case against him had errors. He can then attack the errors.
-
Or, he knows something we don't?
Vic, do you agree the scratchmarks issue is very interesting? If Jeremy Bamber was involved in a struggle in the kitchen with Ralph, during which a silencer sratched the Aga mantle, why would Jeremy focus upon the scratches as being a fabricated piece of evidence?
Now it could be argued that a guilty Jeremy knows that the scratchmarks were not the result of what took place on the night of the murders. And that this is the reason why he has persued the issue. But where does that leave the scratchmarks themselves, as a piece of convicting evidence? Not in a good place.
We come full circle if we accept that the scratchmarks are not undone in terms of credibility, i.e. because of the provisonal decision and the rejection of Suthersts methodology. As we have to ask again, why has Jeremy focussed upon them?
-
Yes, I see your argument. There is a pattern though of the defence seeing something that on closer inspection doesn't add up as any kind of defence.
-
Yes, I see your argument. There is a pattern though of the defence seeing something that on closer inspection doesn't add up as any kind of defence.
Do you have any sympathy for the view that some of their efforts have been thwarted by obstruction? For example, the sene and event logs, which I believe begins with the phone logs. 'Message passed from son' could be construed as inconclusive upon closer inspection. Yet the FSS has written two letters to the defence (2007) and (2011) expressing that the log has been tampered with. (I am unsure of the details of this alleged tampering / editing).
However, despite having the power to obtain originals via S17 of the Criminal Appeals Act, the CCRC refuse to do so, despite several requests.
-
Its very unlikely the public will ever see the pictures of the deceased in full, that i can understand quite well, but i have based on what i have seen and im quite certain June recieved the worst of the shots that night, was there a struggle downstairs with Ralph, why could he have not been beated after he died, if June recieved the worst of the shots then why ? was forcing the twins to kneel and pray with her anything to do with it.
I think Nevill received the worst of the shots that night (horrible though it is to have to assess the relative suffering between the victims).
-
Okay, let's run with that.
You're the killer. You climb out of WHF's kitchen window, heart going like the clappers, run to the estuary and grab you mother's sit up beg bicycle that you left by the - crumbling, twisting, pot holed, well rained on and muddy - sea wall, strewn with clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen.
Then you cycle like a bat out of hell...right over the edge of the sea wall onto the rocks below. When you come round the bike's had it, so you run the rest of the way home.
No..?
Okay, you walk home. Forget the fact that the police's own timing of how long this would take showed it would leave you impossibly short of time to call the police when you need to.
Unsurprisingly, it's not until the next day that you notice you left the silencer in the pocket of the trousers that you changed out of the previous night. Gawd, the police'll know she was murdered because the silencer's missing. So you wait until nightfall and return the silencer to WHF. You hide it well back in the gun cupboard.
But later, at home, you ask yourself, "Why did I do that? The police have already searched the place, they'll know Sheila was murdered, I have to get it back!"
So, off you again.
Or do you? Because part way there you're conflicted again. Should you take it, or should you leave it?
You seem to think JB would therefore be responsible? not another member of the family that would profit,so to speak from the discovery of a contaminated silencer. I would imagine a Gun Expert may of come up with the "too long with a silencer fitted" theory ? I don't think you should discount any possibility, don't you agree Choc?
-
You seem to think JB would therefore be responsible? not another member of the family that would profit,so to speak from the discovery of a contaminated silencer. I would imagine a Gun Expert may of come up with the "too long with a silencer fitted" theory ? I don't think you should discount any possibility, don't you agree Choc?
I mean, was the silencer ever in WHF ? Was it ever found at the Farm. Why not say it was found at the farm and bought home for safe keeping Dad ?......
You see Choc,if you read and absorb my post I never refer to JB. You just assumed. I would assume that's why you introduced "mothers bike" to reinforce the JB guilty theory. But then,assumption is the mother of all cock ups...... ;)
-
I mean, was the silencer ever in WHF ? Was it ever found at the Farm. Why not say it was found at the farm and bought home for safe keeping Dad ?......
You see Choc,if you read and absorb my post I never refer to JB. You just assumed. I would assume that's why you introduced "mothers bike" to reinforce the JB guilty theory. But then,assumption is the mother of all cock ups...... ;)
Has it been mentioned that JB was seen actually shooting this gun with the silencer attached? Or did he prefer to shoot it without the silencer? I haven't ever seen this question explored ay any time?
-
Do you have any sympathy for the view that some of their efforts have been thwarted by obstruction? For example, the sene and event logs, which I believe begins with the phone logs. 'Message passed from son' could be construed as inconclusive upon closer inspection. Yet the FSS has written two letters to the defence (2007) and (2011) expressing that the log has been tampered with. (I am unsure of the details of this alleged tampering / editing).
However, despite having the power to obtain originals via S17 of the Criminal Appeals Act, the CCRC refuse to do so, despite several requests.
Where are the letters? Are they posted on here?
We were led to believe that the alleged phone call from Nevill to the police was from witheld documents, yet on some versions we see a chelmsford court stamp, on others it's photoshopped out.
The police witheld photographs which the defence now claim to show police offers acting the fool at WHF on the day of the murders.....so far, none of the released pictures does anything to help the defence.
Mike says there is a photo of sheila on the bed with one wound. This is not one of the released pictures.
How many of the witheld photos were from the autopsy and mortuary?
There is a pattern of big headlines, then minimal effect......
-
Has it been mentioned that JB was seen actually shooting this gun with the silencer attached? Or did he prefer to shoot it without the silencer? I haven't ever seen this question explored ay any time?
Yes but with at least 2 silencers not found at WHF,so to speak, we're any silencers there,to be not found. If there not found by the police I would think it is sound to believe there wasn't any silencers on site.I mean,they would of logged it into evidence,surely? Or is it logged at scene the day of the murders?
-
Yes but with at least 2 silencers not found at WHF,so to speak, we're any silencers there,to be not found. If there not found by the police I would think it is sound to believe there wasn't any silencers on site.I mean,they would of logged it into evidence,surely? Or is it logged at scene the day of the murders?
I thought Mike said that the police found a silencer at the farm? But I can't remember where he wrote it or if there were any records of that?
-
I thought Mike said that the police found a silencer at the farm? But I can't remember where he wrote it or if there were any records of that?
Well,if there's one silencer logged at scene that's 3 silencers. 1 at scene. 2 with relatives. 3 paperweight on Taffs desk. ? Or are 2 & 3 the same silencer.
-
Well,if there's one silencer logged at scene that's 3 silencers. 1 at scene. 2 with relatives. 3 paperweight on Taffs desk. ? Or are 2 & 3 the same silencer.
Unless the original silencer, which was not then seen as a piece of damning evidence was substituted with the one the relatives allegedly found at the scene.
As for myself I think the finding of and the importance of the silencer is a myth deliberately concocted by the relatives.
Why do I suggest that? Quite simply that they had absolutely no independent witnesses to verify that they had found it in the first place. Therefore this item should never have been registered or labelled as any kind of evidence. And if what I say is true, then this logically means that the whole trial was a gross miscarriage of justice?
-
Where are the letters? Are they posted on here?
We were led to believe that the alleged phone call from Nevill to the police was from witheld documents, yet on some versions we see a chelmsford court stamp, on others it's photoshopped out.
The police witheld photographs which the defence now claim to show police offers acting the fool at WHF on the day of the murders.....so far, none of the released pictures does anything to help the defence.
Mike says there is a photo of sheila on the bed with one wound. This is not one of the released pictures.
How many of the witheld photos were from the autopsy and mortuary?
There is a pattern of big headlines, then minimal effect......
I cant answer your query re the photographs, except to state there has been argument on the forum that more than one camera has been used to take SOC photos and that 8 negatives were cut from a strip. I recall Neil challenging the credibilty of EP's explanation for this. The defence seem to have been interested in finding photographs of the downstairs toilet. I do not know how helpful the recently released batch of photographs was to the defence.
I've never thought it was a good idea for Jeremy to persue the 'horseplay' photos any further than lodging an initial complaint, which in itself I feel is reasonable.
The phone log in court is written about in the archive section I think.
It was the campaign team who provided reference to the letters from the FSS. Reference to the second letter is also included in one of the recent campaign documents, 'Freedom Fortnight' I think. Therefore I do not believe that either of the letters are in Mike's possession.
-
Unless the original silencer, which was not then seen as a piece of damning evidence was substituted with the one the relatives allegedly found at the scene.
As for myself I think the finding of and the importance of the silencer is a myth deliberately concocted by the relatives.
Why do I suggest that? Quite simply that they had absolutely no independent witnesses to verify that they had found it in the first place. Therefore this item should never have been registered or labelled as any kind of evidence. And if what I say is true, then this logically means that the whole trial was a gross miscarriage of justice?
I disagree that the item should not have been labelled and admitted to evidence.If all the silencers had been labelled and admitted to evidence it is easier to trace the lineage of the piece of evidence you would assume. the label swapping theory I can go with that also
I also find it an amazingly poor defence team that didn't get the silencer evidence thrown out
-
I disagree that the item should not have been labelled and admitted to evidence.If all the silencers had been labelled and admitted to evidence it is easier to trace the lineage of the piece of evidence you would assume. the label swapping theory I can go with that also
I also find it an amazingly poor defence team that didn't get the silencer evidence thrown out
I agree with you. But why blame Jeremy for his poor defence team?
-
I agree with you. But why blame Jeremy for his poor defence team?
In a way I agree Grahame
From personal experience with lawyers they are mostly useless.they have cost me a small fortune over the years.i tend not to use them now.read all the small print and read it again is my Mantra
-
Sorry ,didn't answer the question... Why? Who appointed the defence team, and I suppose being green and wet behind the ears he an be forgiven for being overawed by the proceedings ?
-
Sorry ,didn't answer the question... Why? Who appointed the defence team, and I suppose being green and wet behind the ears he an be forgiven for being overawed by the proceedings ?
Jeremy was completely out of his depth, never having been involved in criminal proceedings before. He relied upon the advice he was given. He appointed Kingsley Napley and Co as his solicitors, and then relied upon their advice in relation to the choice of counsel. Two things worked against him here. First, originally Sir David Napley was going to handle the defence (you may remember he succesfully represented Jeremy Thorpe), but he became ill and could not continue. Second, Kingsley Napley did not normally accept cases on legal aid. They were therefore hampered in the preparation of the defence case.
-
I have changed from initially believing 75% not guilty, 25% guilty, to 95% not guilty, 5% guilty. So I still have some doubts.
What mainly changed my stance was reading about Sheila´s illness. She was sicker than most people realize. She was violent, she thought her six year old boys were the Devil´s children and that they were capable of raping her and killing her! Her medication at the time was begging for a disaster - many, many people have killed and acted out extremely violently after having their Haloperidol dose cut down drastically or taken away alltogether, Andrea Yates being one of them.
I also think about how peaceful Sheila looked in death. Why this peaceful look on her face?
I imagine that it would have been a daunting task for someone coming from the outside to kill five people single handedly. I can only see it happening if there were two intruders at least.
It would have been easier for Sheila. She was in the house. First the twins (and why were they shot so many times? It seems "personal"), then there were only two left to kill.
If you believe Jeremy is innocent, you have to believe that Julie Mugford is a vile liar. It is hard to stomach, BUT she is in fact a proven liar - it is on paper. She also had a lot to gain by lying. There is no doubt there was a deal with the police not to prosecute her for the caravan park robbery and the check-fraud. She also had a lot to gain financially - 25.000£ for the newspaper interview upon Jeremy being found guilty. That´s a lot of money for a young girl.
Her third motive for lying is that Jeremy had dumped her (and she hadn´t said a thing about those AWFUL murders until then???!!!)
She did say, if I can´t have you, no one will.
-
I have changed from initially believing 75% not guilty, 25% guilty, to 95% not guilty, 5% guilty. So I still have some doubts.
What mainly changed my stance was reading about Sheila´s illness. She was sicker than most people realize. She was violent, she thought her six year old boys were the Devil´s children and that they were capable of raping her and killing her! Her medication at the time was begging for a disaster - many, many people have killed and acted out extremely violently after having their Haloperidol dose cut down drastically or taken away alltogether, Andrea Yates being one of them.
I also think about how peaceful Sheila looked in death. Why this peaceful look on her face?
I imagine that it would have been a daunting task for someone coming from the outside to kill five people single handedly. I can only see it happening if there were two intruders at least.
It would have been easier for Sheila. She was in the house. First the twins (and why were they shot so many times? It seems "personal"), then there were only two left to kill.
If you believe Jeremy is innocent, you have to believe that Julie Mugford is a vile liar. It is hard to stomach, BUT she is in fact a proven liar - it is on paper. She also had a lot to gain by lying. There is no doubt there was a deal with the police not to prosecute her for the caravan park robbery and the check-fraud. She also had a lot to gain financially - 25.000£ for the newspaper interview upon Jeremy being found guilty. That´s a lot of money for a young girl.
Her third motive for lying is that Jeremy had dumped her (and she hadn´t said a thing about those AWFUL murders until then???!!!)
She did say, if I can´t have you, no one will.
A good post Abs.
-
Thank you, ngb
-
why is there no tear stains on Sheilas face ? or eyeliner /lash run, to believe Jeremy is guilty is saying the money mugford recieved is out of this , what would mugford do for money, anything.
-
Are they not allowed to look in boxes ? Why do you believe AE never mentioned ' silencer ' in her first statement ? Did DB call EP to tell them to come and pick a 'silencer ' up in September , like the police log show's ? Why do you believe there is at least two signed exhibit labels' with different signature's on them ? Is there a simple explanation for this Vidvic ?
Any chance you can answer here Vid ?
-
Jon,
If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.
Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.
I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.
-
Jon,
If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.
Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.
I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.
Thank's for the reply , what do you make of DB calling EP and asking them to pick a 'silencer ' up in September ? We are then led to believe that when EP arrived , he gave them a ' sight ' do you think this is credible , when you put it next to the fact three policemen searched the cupboard and never found the ' silencer ' , does there come a point where you start to doubt anything ?
-
Jon,
If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.
Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.
I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.
i quite like this post.the discription of the cupboard now allows me to visulise it.I still however,believe the silencer should not have been recovered by relatives.This is of course assuming (of which I dont like doing) that Vic is not distorting the facts. ie. "up to his shoulder" because his arms are amputated above the elbow,if you catch my drift.....
-
Thank's for the reply , what do you make of DB calling EP and asking them to pick a 'silencer ' up in September ? We are then led to believe that when EP arrived , he gave them a ' sight ' do you think this is credible , when you put it next to the fact three policemen searched the cupboard and never found the ' silencer ' , does there come a point where you start to doubt anything ?
It appears the family found the silencer easily enough! In fact was it not found at the front of the cupboard? It was certyainly not stashed away as you would have us believe.
-
Then and now police officers employed at huge cost to the taxpayer seem then unable to look thourough on that day nothing has changed really as it ? same problem everywhere.
-
Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.
I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.
Vic, there is no appeal and there may not be an appeal. But many from both sides do seem to accept that the discovery, provenance, handling and labelling of the silencer is dubious. What stands out above all else to me is that this was THE major exhibit that sent a man to prison, possibly unto death. There are posters from your side of the fence who have no link to the family. They wouldn't touch the silencer with a dirty stick. But the two posters who are linked to the family, cannot countenance any foul play from them.
-
Vic, there is no appeal and there may not be an appeal. But many from both sides do seem to accept that the discovery, provenance, handling and labelling of the silencer is dubious. What stands out above all else to me is that this was THE major exhibit that sent a man to prison, possibly unto death. There are posters from your side of the fence who have no link to the family. They wouldn't touch the silencer with a dirty stick. But the two posters who are linked to the family, cannot countenance any foul play from them.
I agree totally in that the case was handled appallingly. This is what some members of this forum refuse to accept is that the 'family' were and are as pissed off about the police as the pro-bambers. Obviously though, they believe that if the police had done a better job and had not destroyed evidence then the science is there now to convict Bamber beyond any doubt. I do believe that the labeling was covered in 2002? Maybe I'm wrong?
-
the couldent have been that pissed off with the police they went to dinner with them and gave them presents not something you really do to someone you are pissed off with.
-
the couldent have been that pissed off with the police they went to dinner with them and gave them presents not something you really do to someone you are pissed off with.
dont forget the scotch, the world looks better after a drop,presents not quite i was thinking something altogether different
-
Why not? The relatives were. We should perhaps ask them why they were looking for it in the first place? Also I recall the comment made by David Boutflour (in Ann Eaton's statement) who when he allegedly found it in the gun cupboard said immediately, This must be the silencer.
Exactly . What were the reasons . What made the relatives believe the silencer was so important . It does not add up unless they were aware of CSI techniques of the time ( ere take this silencer and scratch the aga surround ).
-
I agree totally in that the case was handled appallingly. This is what some members of this forum refuse to accept is that the 'family' were and are as pissed off about the police as the pro-bambers. Obviously though, they believe that if the police had done a better job and had not destroyed evidence then the science is there now to convict Bamber beyond any doubt. I do believe that the labeling was covered in 2002? Maybe I'm wrong?
Vic there is enough information on this forum to undermine the exhibit's credibility in the minds of some guilty camp posters. As far as I am aware, these forum members both past and present, are not linked to JB's relatives. But by definition they have come to suspect that a guilty or somehow culpable Jeremy Bamber was framed with fabricated evidence.
-
I believe they were suspicious of why the sight had been removed. The rifle was usually used with the sights and couldn't understand why jeremy had removed it to shoot rabbits as it took quite a bit of setting up.
-
Jon,
If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.
Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.
I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.
Vic, What I said of the family about allegedly finding the silencer was not a personal opinion as to whether they were lying or not. It was that there were no independent witnesses to corroborate their story. The way the court should have looked at the so called evidence. It was not a judgment of character, because I have never met the family or JB. But a court should look at cold hard evidence, not judge if people are being honest. Unfortunately this case seemed to judge Jeremy in that way and not by cold hard evidence?
-
I believe they were suspicious of why the sight had been removed. The rifle was usually used with the sights and couldn't understand why jeremy had removed it to shoot rabbits as it took quite a bit of setting up.
So what difference would the presence of the sights make if he was guilty?
-
So what difference would the presence of the sights make if he was guilty?
None...