Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Kaldin on February 03, 2011, 05:07:PM
-
In the Appeal document it says that Jeremy called Julie at about 9.50 on the evening of 6th August.
At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never".
In the same document it also says that Jeremy said he left the farm at around 10pm. If he did ring her at 9.50 and he's telling the truth about when he left the farm, it means that he must have called Julie from the farm. Would he really have stood there and pretty much told her he was going to murder his entire family when any of then could have heard him say that?
If he did ring her and say that, was he at the farm at all? In fact, did any other witnesses say they knew he was at the farm that evening?
-
Does Jeremy at any point mention or draw reference to any of the telphone calls from the Farm Secretary at 9.30 pm and Pamela Boutflour at 10.00 pm?
The first response to my posting on The timing and sequence of telephone calls etc. details
The farm secretary, Barbara Wilson, phoned Neville at about 9.30 pm, and said he was "short" with her.
Pamela Boutflour called her sister June at about 10 pm. She apparently spoke to Sheila first and said she was "quiet". Then she spoke to June. I'm not sure what they talked about. I've seen speculation that they talked about Sheila, but I don't know if that's a fact.
-
Does Jeremy at any point mention or draw reference to any of the telphone calls from the Farm Secretary at 9.30 pm and Pamela Boutflour at 10.00 pm?
The first response to my posting on The timing and sequence of telephone calls etc. details
The farm secretary, Barbara Wilson, phoned Neville at about 9.30 pm, and said he was "short" with her.
Pamela Boutflour called her sister June at about 10 pm. She apparently spoke to Sheila first and said she was "quiet". Then she spoke to June. I'm not sure what they talked about. I've seen speculation that they talked about Sheila, but I don't know if that's a fact.
Good question - some research needed I think.
-
See this page (http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=646) in the GDS forum for some details of Pamela's statement.
-
From Pamela's account -
There is some suggestion of 'concern' about Sheila, but I wouldn't go so far as to say disharmony in the family.
There may have been a row, but that's not coming through from Pamela's account. It comes across as a normal family chat about who's seeing who whilst Sheila's in the area with the kids, and a mother (June) who's always going to have some opinion about her daughter - that's mother's for you!
I don't see a "I'm VERY worried about her" type call. Other's might read more into it.
-
From Pamela's account -
There is some suggestion of 'concern' about Sheila, but I wouldn't go so far as to say disharmony in the family.
There may have been a row, but that's not coming through from Pamela's account. It comes across as a normal family chat about who's seeing who whilst Sheila's in the area with the kids, and a mother (June) who's always going to have some opinion about her daughter - that's mother's for you!
I don't see a "I'm VERY worried about her" type call. Other's might read more into it.
It was Pamela who said that June was very worried about Sheila.
By all accounts, Sheila was very quiet. Colin Caffell said she was quiet on the way to the farm, and Pamela said she was quiet too. June was worried about her and said she had no interest in the children or housework.
I've read an account of Sheila's psychotic episode in March 1985, but I haven't read one about the episode in 1983. I wonder if her episodes were preceded by her being quiet and lacking interest in anything.
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.
I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.
I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.
You're right about Robert, but in his defence he did also seem to say (between the lines) "I was sure he was involved, or even did it, and a looked damned hard to prove it!... but couldn't see any traces of his path to / from the house". He could, had he a mind to do it, have 'found' *wink wink* something. But he never did.
I can only conclude from this that he believed in playing by the rules.
I'm also not sure if his suspicions started before the silencer, or after. If it was once the silencer was found, then I can understand him starting his own little investigations... I'd be inclined to do the same.
The other thing with the silencer....
So they found it... in a cupboard, in a box - what made them start looking at it closely? and thinking "oh there are fleck of paint on it, and what looks like blood?" Perhaps the marks were quite noticeable, but I'd always envisaged that you'd have to be looking for them to see them (could be totally wrong).
So here's my problem with it.
a) Why start having a good look at it? (at WHF OR at home)
b) If you found it, and thought it important - why take it home at all, and not do the 'don't touch it - call the police' routine (as every movie, even mid 80's always showed).
c) It's not clear how much gun stuff the police ever took away. Did they take it ALL away and just left the silencer? in which case, yes I can see how they thought it important because it had been missed. But if the police had left lots of other gun related stuff at the house, then why deem that silencer to be especially noteworthy?
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.
I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.
You're right about Robert, but in his defence he did also seem to say (between the lines) "I was sure he was involved, or even did it, and a looked damned hard to prove it!... but couldn't see any traces of his path to / from the house". He could, had he a mind to do it, have 'found' *wink wink* something. But he never did.
I can only conclude from this that he believed in playing by the rules.
I'm also not sure if his suspicions started before the silencer, or after. If it was once the silencer was found, then I can understand him starting his own little investigations... I'd be inclined to do the same.
The other thing with the silencer....
So they found it... in a cupboard, in a box - what made them start looking at it closely? and thinking "oh there are fleck of paint on it, and what looks like blood?" Perhaps the marks were quite noticeable, but I'd always envisaged that you'd have to be looking for them to see them (could be totally wrong).
So here's my problem with it.
a) Why start having a good look at it? (at WHF OR at home)
b) If you found it, and thought it important - why take it home at all, and not do the 'don't touch it - call the police' routine (as every movie, even mid 80's always showed).
c) It's not clear how much gun stuff the police ever took away. Did they take it ALL away and just left the silencer? in which case, yes I can see how they thought it important because it had been missed. But if the police had left lots of other gun related stuff at the house, then why deem that silencer to be especially noteworthy?
They took other stuff as well that day. They took the telescopic sights and some ammunition. I don't know when the other guns had been taken.
It is strange that David Boutflour looked so closely at the silencer.
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.
I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.
Regarding the other members of the family, I feel that from the moment that the family had been killed, they felt that as Jeremy was adopted he did not belong to their family anymore and therefore was not entitled to any inheritance - he wasn't 'blood'. The motive given to Jeremy for his alleged involvement was the inheritance and this motive was behind the family's and JM's testimonies. The hypocrisy in this case is that he was incriminated by the motives of his family/accusers. They are living off the proceeds of what they wish to see as his crime.
-
David Boutflour made a statement in which he said he did take some guns from the farmhouse on the same day. It's on SFJ though so I can't post it here.
-
I stand corrected
She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.
Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.
To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).
Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?
Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.
I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.
Regarding the other members of the family, I feel that from the moment that the family had been killed, they felt that as Jeremy was adopted he did not belong to their family anymore and therefore was not entitled to any inheritance - he wasn't 'blood'. The motive given to Jeremy for his alleged involvement was the inheritance and this motive was behind the family's and JM's testimonies. The hypocrisy in this case is that he was incriminated by the motives of his family/accusers. They are living off the proceeds of what they wish to see as his crime.
That's the impression that's been given, yes. It's one of the reasons I'm a bit biased against the relatives - they seemed very keen to get their hands on the dosh themselves.
-
There's some logic to elements of that, and some truth to other parts too...
but his conviction was not PURELY down to family testimony, and it's still one thing to object to his inheritance, quite another to see him go down for murder.
Sheila was adopted too - perhaps they didn't really care too much for her either? who knows.
So, back to him being convicted not ONLY on their evidence.
Yes, in a convoluted way, they stood to inherit / gain from it.
But they still had to 'plan' a way to get him convicted, and they still had to be sure THEY wouldn't be caught doing so, and they still didn't have long to hatch their cunning plan even if they had a full month (and not 3 days).
At that stage they couldn't be SURE Jeremy wouldn't be able to produce irrefutable proof. BT might have come up with a log, or some witness coming forward to say he'd seen Bamber at his Goldhanger home through his window. And they couldn't have banked on Mugford's testimony.
-
My family has 'estranged' this and that... I think most families do.
Some where there is a real bitterness.
Usually it's between one small group and another, or between individuals and a group (or two individuals) when the animosity is truly intense. When it's one side of an entire family against another, it's not usually THAT intense (it's still a couple of folks at the heart, with the rest offering moral support, but their own anger isn't as great per se)
When I've seen bitterness come to the fore, someone might say "I hate that b'stard, he's never seeing the kids again" etc etc. But other members who are even on their side will say "well, I can't stand him either, but...."
And it's that part of the 'plot' I can't buy into. That they could all sit round the table and say "That scheming young Jeremy's going to get all that money, and he never gave a jot about them, let's make sure he goes down for life and we get the money" - and not one member thought "hold on a minute Ann, he's a tosser but...."
Maybe it was just David and Ann though. Would a brother and sister do that, at their ages? Man and wife, two lovers, maybe, brother and sister? I just don't know.
-
My family has 'estranged' this and that... I think most families do.
Some where there is a real bitterness.
Usually it's between one small group and another, or between individuals and a group (or two individuals) when the animosity is truly intense. When it's one side of an entire family against another, it's not usually THAT intense (it's still a couple of folks at the heart, with the rest offering moral support, but their own anger isn't as great per se)
When I've seen bitterness come to the fore, someone might say "I hate that b'stard, he's never seeing the kids again" etc etc. But other members who are even on their side will say "well, I can't stand him either, but...."
And it's that part of the 'plot' I can't buy into. That they could all sit round the table and say "That scheming young Jeremy's going to get all that money, and he never gave a jot about them, let's make sure he goes down for life and we get the money" - and not one member thought "hold on a minute Ann, he's a tosser but...."
Maybe it was just David and Ann though. Would a brother and sister do that, at their ages? Man and wife, two lovers, maybe, brother and sister? I just don't know.
How many people on here are actually claiming that the relatives plotted and planted evidence though? I've said I'm a bit biased against them, but I haven't claimed that they planted evidence or anything.
-
oh no, didn't mean to imply you had...
some have by implication pointed the finger at the family - by way of questioning how legitimate the whole silencer was/is and even when it was found, or what was done to it.
Others have just questioned the integrity of the handling of it, and if that compromised the results.
I think it's one thing to think the family seemed a bit keen, and acted in a way that doesn't seem quite befitting, and it's entirely another to take that extra step and say "so therefore this silencer they 'found'" came about dubiously so let's discount it.
As soon as the 'dubious silencer find' is questioned, it's virtually pointing the finger at the family unless it's then 'planted' by the police for the the family to find - which seems convoluted.
I have a similar issue with Mugford as I think you do with the family. If she's telling the truth (and I'm prepared to go with that) - she STILL sat on it for a month. In my mind, that means she actually considered being 'in on it' with him (after the fact) for a fair while.
I do accept an element of fear (for a couple of days), but when you're going away for weekends with him, it gets less credible... and I can't buy into the 'she couldn't quite bring herself to really believe it was him" either - if my wife called to say "she was going to murder someone, I might laugh it off" - if that person then ended up murdered the very same night - I doubt I'd be laughing it off!
1 month it took her, that's a long time when you're sleeping with a killer.
She was 21, I'll give her some slack for being a confused young woman.... but she wasn't a nun - she'd been involved in the cheque fraud, and the burglary - so she had a decent feel for the mess he was in, and she too would soon be in.
Shifty lady, very shifty
-
With this family - who knows?
Don't forget the fight PE had with Ralph, days before. The family were pretty much straight of the mark trying to implicate Jeremy, rooting around etc, they got the grandmother to change her will and they as good as pressurised the police to prosecute Jeremy.
However, according to Mike, there seems to be more than one silencer anyway, so it's all a bit confusing to say the least.
But I find it hard to believe that the police missed seeing the silencer in the cupboard, when the family 'found' it 'just like that' in a box - meaning that it would make even less sense for the police to have missed seeing a big box themselves and not just a silencer tucked away somewhere. But also I find it rather incredible that IF Jeremy had murdered his family with the silencer left on the rifle and left it with Sheila to incriminate her, and if he had been clever enough to remove the silencer so the rifle would be short enough for her to have been able to kill herself with it, why would he be daft enough to leave it in the cupboard downstairs and not get rid of it.
I think JM's testimony is so ridiculous too...
-
With this family - who knows?
Don't forget the fight PE had with Ralph, days before. The family were pretty much straight of the mark trying to implicate Jeremy, rooting around etc, they got the grandmother to change her will and they as good as pressurised the police to prosecute Jeremy.
However, according to Mike, there seems to be more than one silencer anyway, so it's all a bit confusing to say the least.
But I find it hard to believe that the police missed seeing the silencer in the cupboard, when the family 'found' it 'just like that' in a box - meaning that it would make even less sense for the police to have missed seeing a big box themselves and not just a silencer tucked away somewhere. But also I find it rather incredible that IF Jeremy had murdered his family with the silencer left on the rifle and left it with Sheila to incriminate her, and if he had been clever enough to remove the silencer so the rifle would be short enough for her to have been able to kill herself with it, why would he be daft enough to leave it in the cupboard downstairs and not get rid of it.
I think JM's testimony is so ridiculous too...
Not necessarily my views, but 'arguments' for NOT getting rid of the silencer:
1) If it's noticed it's missing - how would you explain it?
2) If forensics prove a silencer was used, then they'll look for it - if it's not found - there's a killer.
3) If forensics don't prove a silencer was used, then there's no problem with it being in the house anyway (with much other gun stuff)
4) If that silencer ever turns up outside the house and is matched to the killing - he's done for
5) He may well have been cocky enough to think the police would settle for suicide anyway and therefore not bother with all the rest of the gun stuff (and he was so very nearly right where it not for pesky that janitor, oops family member Ann).
I 'think' I'd have been more tempted to leave the silencer next to Sheila though. But it's not a clear cut decision.
-
How many people on here are actually claiming that the relatives plotted and planted evidence though? I've said I'm a bit biased against them, but I haven't claimed that they planted evidence or anything.
If the relatives thought that JB was guilty and thought it looked like he was going to get away with it then I can very much understand their persistence in contacting the police etc, it must surely be as equal a motive for their behaviour as the alleged inheritance grabbing scenario.
I don't buy the theory that the relatives planted evidence and framed JB (just my view, so don't shoot me for it!), but I do find it rather troubling that the silencer made it's way to Oak Farm before being handed in to the police, that just doesn't make sense to me.
-
How many people on here are actually claiming that the relatives plotted and planted evidence though? I've said I'm a bit biased against them, but I haven't claimed that they planted evidence or anything.
If the relatives thought that JB was guilty and thought it looked like he was going to get away with it then I can very much understand their persistence in contacting the police etc, it must surely be as equal a motive for their behaviour as the alleged inheritance grabbing scenario.
I don't buy the theory that the relatives planted evidence and framed JB (just my view, so don't shoot me for it!), but I do find it rather troubling that the silencer made it's way to Oak Farm before being handed in to the police, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Me neither. I think I'd literally stop dead in my tracks and call the police there and then with "GET HERE NOW"
Even if they thought "oh just some gun stuff that needs sorting out, I'll take it home then drop it off with the police".... I can believe that....
but the very moment they say they started looking at it closely and thought they saw paint and blood, and a HAIR.
My God... STOP STOP STOP
And - If I DID think Jeremy had done it already at that stage, I'd be screaming at them to come and get it.