Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on April 07, 2012, 11:43:AM
-
Since the documentary by Mark Williams-Thomas there seems to have been some sort of smear campaign to discredit the documentary. Comments from Jeremy Bamber campaigners has ranged from the documentary being vile to the documentary changed their mind from innocent to guilty.
I have posted below one of those comments and I have also posted details that show Sunil Chandrum has close connections to the 'Official Jeremy Bamber Campaign'
Mark Cropper for one actually runs the campaign and Maria Perez has posted a testimonial for Jeremy
The thing I cannot get my head around is why would someone do something so harmful to Jeremy
-
try again
-
reposted
-
reposted in context
From: [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:23:19 +0100
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 09/02/2012 11:17
>
> > @SunilChandran1 Missed ya, yes did you see Guardian? I will also pray for him also, thanks for wishing us well happiness awaits him at home
> >
>
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 03/02/2012 22:21
> > @MariaPerez672 any update on Jeremy there's no news on what evidence my kindest to him, he is in my prayers you are a good and loyal woman
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/16
> > 5560598753583104
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 30/01/2012 07:46
> > @Jojotew yes yes apolz just got your dm
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/163890866937806849
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> >
> > @SunilChandran1 did Mandy talk to you after the meeting? I'll DM
> > 28.01.2011
>
>
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 17/01/2012 17:33
> > So sorry to hear the news about Jeremy Bamber I hope that good fortune will come to you soon my friend @Bambertweets and case gets to appeal
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/159327546138312705
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 16/01/2012 18:29
> > @markocropper This was bound to happen sooner or later and it's not surprising at all
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/158979106204168192
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 12/01/2012 11:51
> > @SunilChandran1 in the north. Thanks for tweeting about Jeremy Bamber we want him home very soon.
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/157429445869846528
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 10/01/2012 19:12
> > @jackiepreece I see you are not happy, love those who give you anger, look inside yourself for peace and love you will find it harmonious
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/156815797128404992
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 10/01/2012 19:07
> > Chillin and listening to new tunes Rommi and Steve are visiting tonight Jo. I thought Alan was a bit over zealous in the meeting today
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/156814523616079872
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @jackiepreece Why do you bother getting up in the morning only to spit out venom all day at other people?
> > 06.01.2012
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 05/01/2012 14:12
> > @jackiepreece Please I appeal to your better side to stop this anger at others and be a better person unite with all those who love Jeremy
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/154928269802745856
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 05/01/2012 14:11
> > @MariaPerez672 Yes its blustery here where are you based? May you travel in safety always Maria.
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/154927914926878720
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 05/01/2012 08:08
> > @SunilChandran1 Yes it was good and we are both fine working towards freedom thanks for mails London is grey this time of year!
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/154836584678690817
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 04/01/2012 09:18
> > @mariaperez672 did you and Jeremy have a good Christmas and New Year? It's always a grim getting back to work but tennis helps!
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/154491979198234624
> >
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 05/01/2012 08:06
> > @jackiepreece you cause trouble for Jeremy Bamber and @simonmckay by slagging both of them off don't lie Jackie
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/154836123649191937
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> >
> > @jackiepreece Why dont you shut your filthy mouth Jackie everyone knows you talk about @simonmckay like he's your best friend but insult him
> > 5.01.2011
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 03/01/2012 08:24
> > @jackiepreece that's a nasty thing to say about @smionmckay as he is the only person who Jeremy takes legal advice from
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/154115940894777344
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 31/12/2011 12:53
> > @tiredoldowl Thanks for the chat the other day, things can get a bit much sometimes hope Jeremy is home soon.
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/153096543854006272
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @Markocropper
> > Exclusive: Leaked Details of How Facebook Plans To Sell Your Timeline to Advertisers http://t.co/GalUVqcW
> > 24.12.2011
> > Retweeted by JoJoTew
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 21/12/2011 09:56
> > @SunilChandran1 yes I do, he is very sincere and works hard on his case of course being innocent. Do you know him too?
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 21/12/2011 08:03
> > @MariaPerez672 I did actually, Jeremy Bamber has a lot of supporters and I thought I would go with the majority. Do you know Jeremy?
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/149399531589611520
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 21/12/2011 08:00
> > @SunilChandran1 Did you join the campaign and write to the Home Affairs Committee?
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/149398705848594432
> >
> >
> >
> > 148345012332138496
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 18/12/2011 10:05
> > Great Christmas lunch with all the guys from Zizzi last night thanks, been a great year and next even better!
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/148343081169731584
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 148345012332138496
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maria Perez (@MariaPerez672):
> > 16/12/2011 15:02
> > #TodayisFriday of to see my wonderful man tomorrow
> > https://twitter.com/MariaPerez672/status/147693069398065153
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> >
> > @SunilChandran1 what has a lazy one been doing this past week, will call to catch up
> > 11.12.2011
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> >
> > Sunny heard about your car what a disaster, sorry to hear about it mate, just thank God you are ok.
> > 30.11.2011
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 28/11/2011 20:47
> > @Bambertweets and just to add I think he has been treated appallingly I am just reading up on your web site best to Jeremy Bamber
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/141256928654401538
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 25/11/2011 19:31
> > @jojotew Is it your last week this week?
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/140150760431288320
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 19/11/2011 09:23
> > @Jojotew nightmare!
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/137823305670463488
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> >
> > @SunilChandran1 Amazon smartphone sounds like a good idea to me lets wait and see
> > 18.11.2011
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 17/11/2011 08:00
> > @Jojotew wont being going back for a while yet
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/137077756713373697
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @SunilChandran1 Sunny you still off work? Jamie was asking me earlier
> > 16.11.11
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 16/11/2011 17:10
> > @Jojotew yes what does that stray want?
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/136853553749827584
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @SunilChandran1 @Markocropper Hey I do my best!
> >
> >
> > Sunil Chandran (@SunilChandran1):
> > 11/11/2011 07:33
> > @Jojotew as promised!
> > https://twitter.com/SunilChandran1/status/134896388935917569
> >
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @SunilChandran1 No cos some schools think all kids have PC they dont seem to realize people have MAC's too!
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 11/11/2011 08:27
> > @sunilchandran1 Sunny good to see you on here, I saw Alex the other week told me bout the latest events in your dept, least pave the way
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/134910205942173696
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 11/11/2011 08:30
> > @SunilChandran1 lol has Jem got one already - affluent parents!
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/134910865873960960
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 12/11/2011 08:38
> > @sunilchandran1 I miss that winter feeling
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/135275176639213568
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 05/03/2011 07:08
> > Sarah are you doing that page today? Do you want me to set it up for you so can drop the text in or is someone else going to do it?
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/43930784675012608
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 11/03/2011 08:29
> > It's a bit sickly but here's a message to all you guys supporting Jeremy Bamber http://tinyurl.com/6bpbtbf
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/46125683306528768
>
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 30/07/2011 09:11
> > Copy & Paste this Jeremy Bamber Campaign resource into a tweet and feel good about doing something vital http://www.jeremybambercampaign.co.uk/compliments-slips
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/97217848593747969
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Cropper (@Markocropper):
> > 25/08/2011 08:45
> > @bambertweets see the campaign is coming on leaps and bounds well done guys and gals
> > https://twitter.com/Markocropper/status/106633396364648448
> >
>
> >
> > @JoJoTew
> > @Markocropper God don't say that Mark, no way are they going to do that its outrageous!
> > 2.03.2011
> >
> >
> > @marketingB2B
> > RT @Intendance: Shouted "I love b2b marketing" at #tfma and won two free tickets to the next social media seminar ... http://tmi.me/7f1M9
> > Retweeted by JoJoTew
> > 1.03.2011
> >
>
> > @Markocropper
> > Jeremy Bamber the truth is out and Jeremy should be out too, police lied, fabricated evidence, relatives had to ensure that they inherited
> > Retweeted by JoJoTew
> > 1.03.2011
> >
>
> > @JoJoTew
> > Very informative and free! http://www.marketingtoday.com/
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
-
heres more from Poppymeze telling everyone on twitter to ignore the documentary which Mark Williams-Thomas worked on with Jeremys Highly experianced lawyer Simon Mckay and to find out the truth from the Official Website which is run by people that have no legal expertise or media training.
Do these people not realise how this behaviour could upset the very people that are so important to Jeremy at this time
(@PoppyMeze):
03/04/2012 14:23
After ITV's vile prog on Jeremy Bamber, a reminder COLP IPCC & Gov.ment do know the truth.http://poppymeze.blogspot.com/2011/11/justice-4jeremy-read-my-lips-letter-to.html via @PoppyMeze @Bambertweets
-
I bet Simon McKay who is working for Jeremy pro bono is overjoyed with the latest behaviour from the official campaign team. Last time was when they were posting on John Lambertons site
#absolutemadness
-
heres more from Poppymeze telling everyone on twitter to ignore the documentary which Mark Williams-Thomas worked on with Jeremys Highly experianced lawyer Simon Mckay and to find out the truth from the Official Website which is run by people that have no legal expertise or media training.
Do these people not realise how this behaviour could upset the very people that are so important to Jeremy at this time
(@PoppyMeze):
03/04/2012 14:23
After ITV's vile prog on Jeremy Bamber, a reminder COLP IPCC & Gov.ment do know the truth.http://poppymeze.blogspot.com/2011/11/justice-4jeremy-read-my-lips-letter-to.html via @PoppyMeze @Bambertweets
I sense sour grapes here Jackie? Probably because Mark Williams-Thomas didn't go to the official campaign team for information? A fair bit of jealousy there I think? The point of the program as I understand it was to present an outline of the new evidence found? In order to do that you must give a brief commentary of what it is all about and who is Jeremy Bamber etc. It was not to go over all the old ground which has been well trodden by others over the years. I for one would like a follow up program.
But I believe the program achieved what it set out to do and one of those things I think they wanted to do was to put this new evidence into the public domain so as to put pressure on the CCRC to refer JB's case to the court of appeal. In my opinion they did this very successfully. Because this new evidence has been presented to the scrutiny of public opinion it has backed the CCRC into a corner (because in the minds of many people they represent a system where injustice is the order of the day and this new evidence will help them to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public) so that they may feel compelled to refer JB's case to the court of appeal.
-
I bet Simon McKay who is working for Jeremy pro bono is overjoyed with the latest behaviour from the official campaign team. Last time was when they were posting on John Lambertons site
#absolutemadness
I think what you have here Jackie is what was called in the first world war as 5th columnists?
-
Grahame I think your are absolutely right with both posts and the games have carried on as expected this was posted by the official campaign team(who have no legal expertise or media training) urging everyone to watch Crimes that Shook Britain because it proves Jeremy is innocent
There was obviously no need for another documentary or Simon McKay then?
-
I totally agree with you! :o
Some people only care if it happen to them!!!! those people on the internet are not worth the internet data packets they written on!!
Only people who been researching this case for 12 months or more have more standing then them! :P
If now fully believe Jermemy didn't do it!!!
If I worked at CCRC as a security guard, I personally have a notebook and usb film neg scanner under my suit, and give to jeremey's legal team and say uses this and don't get caught, heres a radio too :) and I stand outside the door try to keeps other CCRC way and hand it back to me, plus a copy on micro SD card for the "legal team" that then could be hidden inside a shoe or "modifed metal belt clip" if theres metal detectors there!
my laptop is only less then 12inchs wide, by 8inchs? plus a small usb film neg scanner too! as security gaurd carry radios....
But again, I bet most security gaurds there are agency? ::)
But that how much I think jermey is inccoent! :)
-
i dont think that documentary haveing watched it could have made anyone think he was guilty unless they already thought it.
-
Exactly nugnug a well worked out plan to try to discredit Mark and furthermore discredit any work Simon has done
Evil
-
More could have been made of the NOTW deal. The alleged use of a shotgun was totally wrong.
Bewes statements are ever changing. He stated that it was Jeremy pointed out the movement in the window, yet we know [and so does Bewes] it was Myall.
Bewes stated that the relatives found the silencer some months after the murders, which we all know is untrue.
All in all it was a poor programme with a lot of inaccuracies,
-
More could have been made of the NOTW deal. The alleged use of a shotgun was totally wrong.
Bewes statements are ever changing. He stated that it was Jeremy pointed out the movement in the window, yet we know [and so does Bewes] it was Myall.
Bewes stated that the relatives found the silencer some months after the murders, which we all know is untrue.
All in all it was a poor programme with a lot of inaccuracies,
The thing is Buddy, some of the inaccuracies arguably came from prosecution witnesses who were interviewed. Mark Williams-Thomas air time probably wasn't sufficient to challenge what was said. If a prosecution witness changes their story on camera, it can hardly be harmful in the long run for the defence. It might actually work the in the favour of the defence, in theory.
Also, 'gunshot' & 'shotgun' are merely the reversal of two syllables in the same word . I wonder if this is a common mistake when speaking?
-
The thing is Buddy, some of the innaccuracies arguably came from prosecution witnesses who were interviewed. Mark Williams-Thomas air time probably wasn't sufficient to challenge what was said. If a prosecution witness changes their story on camera, it can hardly be harmful in the long run for the defence. It might actually work the in the favour of the defence, in theory.
Excellent point Rochy about Bewes I expect the ccrc were watching and I wonder what they made of the star performer Bewes.
One of the major things that annoys me is all over twitter certain people trying to imply it was weighted towards the prosecution
In the crimes that shook Britain Bob Miller and the reporter had starring roles with a lot of airtime and they definitely said Jeremy was guilty
I will have to add up the time miller and the reporter was on screen and compare to to Boutflour and the other policeman on MTW documentary
It's just people with an agenda trying to cause trouble
-
No court of law is going to listen to anything a forum says whatever they say so to me their comments have little value, the documentry will have been for many far too short and for some none the wiser we are dealing with a case over a quarter of a century now passed , primetime TV is no longer what it was ,for all their ills and they have many i find a newspaper article more direct than a documentry, i am unable to give a true figure but at least 25% until watched the documentry i bet have never heard of the case. However the DB it stops here was the standout part if 1 viewer asked why is he losing his temper i wonder why , then the documentry has been a sucess
-
Also, 'gunshot' & 'shotgun' are merely the reversal of two syllables in the same word . I wonder if this is a common mistake when speaking?
Thank you jackie, what about the above? ::)
-
i thought it the documentary was a bit to short but other than that it was fine.
-
why can't make a documenty film or reconstuction of the events basic on the evidences etc as Sheila who done it which is true? and use stage police with the slap dash work?
Can we do it or we get sued for doing it....
-
Thank you jackie, what about the above? ::)
I am lost on the gun stuf I just have to ask Ngb he always gives a fair and honest answer
-
No court of law is going to listen to anything a forum says whatever they say so to me their comments have little value, the documentry will have been for many far too short and for some none the wiser we are dealing with a case over a quarter of a century now passed , primetime TV is no longer what it was ,for all their ills and they have many i find a newspaper article more direct than a documentry, i am unable to give a true figure but at least 25% until watched the documentry i bet have never heard of the case. However the DB it stops here was the standout part if 1 viewer asked why is he losing his temper i wonder why , then the documentry has been a sucess
Mertol one for me was Mugford saying she wasnt frightened of Jeremy that was a masterpiece of Marks putting that in the documentary
-
I am lost on the gun stuf I just have to ask Ngb he always gives a fair and honest answer
I meant that if someone meant to say gunshot, they could quite easily say shotgun in error.
-
I meant that if someone meant to say gunshot, they could quite easily say shotgun in error.
I agree, that is how the error probably occurred. Nevertheless it is a pity it was not spotted and corrected before the broadcast.
-
I meant that if someone meant to say gunshot, they could quite easily say shotgun in error.
Yes sorry I understand now
I fail to see how ANYONE could say they changed their mind from innocent to guilty because of the documentary
Its not true
Just a set up to discredit people
-
Yes sorry I understand now
I fail to see how ANYONE could say they changed their mind from innocent to guilty because of the documentary
Its not true
Just a set up to discredit people
There was a possible inference being made that Simon McKay was attempting to get Bamber off on a technicaility. This was probably unintentional but was facilitated by David Boutflour's remarks about Jeremy not being innocent and cemented by Mick Gradwell's comments.
-
It was a rush when Simon came on board and Mark did an incredible job in such a short time
It must be the first time Jeremys had his case on prime time tv since his confiction and I have spoken to so many people since that didnt even know about the case and are now reading everything
this all just makes it much harder to sweep things under the carpet for the ccrc etc
-
Mertol one for me was Mugford saying she wasnt frightened of Jeremy that was a masterpiece of Marks putting that in the documentary
Lets hope to many she is thought of as a money grabber ,the documentry is for all to see it points that way.
-
Yes sorry I understand now
I fail to see how ANYONE could say they changed their mind from innocent to guilty because of the documentary
Its not true
Just a set up to discredit people
It is only shallow thinkers who say that Jackie.
-
This is Laura Hepburn who I contacted months ago through twitter. A really lovely girl whose mother was one of the main reporters at Jeremys trial. Lauras mother believed Jeremy was guilty on the evidence available at trial and of course this has now changed and she firmly believes Jeremy is innocent.
I asked Laura to write to Jeremy which she does now and she had no critisism of the documentary
-
Jeremy makes time to reply to letters he recieves this speaks volumes to me what on earth did he see in mugford jackie from that very 1st day??
-
A question For NGB.
Have you spoken to Jeremy or Simon since the documentary aired,and if so,do you know whether Jeremy was happy with it.........or not?
-
A question For NGB.
Have you spoken to Jeremy or Simon since the documentary aired,and if so,do you know whether Jeremy was happy with it.........or not?
I spoke to Jeremy the day after the broadcast and again yesterday. His initial reactions were generally favourable but he appears to have adopted a more critical attitude towards it as a result of discussions with some of those close to him. I do not want to breach any confidence here but it is fair to say that Jeremy and I had a frank exchange of views on the subject. He and I do not see eye to eye on it. I believe that the documentary was professional and effective. The intention of Mark Williams-Thomas and his producer was to focus on the new evidence and invite viewers to reach their own conclusions. For balance it was important that the police and family viewpoint was aired. It was important for it not to be a piece of pro Bamber propaganda. In 23 minutes broadcast time it simply was not possible to cover all the issues in the case or to challenge Bews, Cook and Boutflour. I believe the attacks on Mark Williams-Thomas by some of those close to Jeremy are misguided and damage his cause. I really am quite angry about some of the things I have read.
I have made my views known to Mark Williams-Thomas and to Simon McKay.
-
I spoke to Jeremy the day after the broadcast and again yesterday. His initial reactions were generally favourable but he appears to have adopted a more critical attitude towards it as a result of discussions with some of those close to him. I do not want to breach any confidence here but it is fair to say that Jeremy and I had a frank exchange of views on the subject. He and I do not see eye to eye on it. I believe that the documentary was professional and effective. The intention of Mark Williams-Thomas and his producer was to focus on the new evidence and invite viewers to reach their own conclusions. For balance it was important that the police and family viewpoint was aired. It was important for it not to be a piece of pro Bamber propaganda. In 23 minutes broadcast time it simply was not possible to cover all the issues in the case or to challenge Bews, Cook and Boutflour. I believe the attacks on Mark Williams-Thomas by some of those close to Jeremy are misguided and damage his cause. I really am quite angry about some of the things I have read.
I have made my views known to Mark Williams-Thomas and to Simon McKay.
Personally I think those from the campaign team are against Mark Willians-Thomas because he didn't approach them? This is a very dangerous stance to take especially if they influence Jeremy by their nefarious attitude. They should be very careful in their communications with him.
At first I was critical of the documentary and to be fair there were one or two things that needed correcting. But after seeing it again I believe that it accomplished what it aimed to do and that was to put this new evidence out into the public eye and also to highlight the case to cause public awareness. The resulting effect is evidence that it did accomplish what it set out to do in spite of its critics.
I feel that I must emphasise that I really do count what the "official" campaign team have done as bordering on the wicked. Where they are perhaps unaware of the potential damage they can do to his chances of an appeal. All because of childish jealousy of one or two people who claim to have Jeremy's best interests at heart. But dig a little deeper and you see that their protestations are all because their noses have been put out of joint.
-
Personally I think those from the campaign team are against Mark Willians-Thomas because he didn't approach them? This is a very dangerous stance to take especially if they influence Jeremy by their nefarious attitude. They should be very careful in their communications with him.
At first I was critical of the documentary and to be fair there were one or two things that needed correcting. But after seeing it again I believe that it accomplished what it aimed to do and that was to put this new evidence out into the public eye and also to highlight the case to cause public awareness. The resulting effect is evidence that it did accomplish what it set out to do in spite of its critics.
I feel that I must emphasise that I really do count what the "official" campaign team have done as bordering on the wicked. Where they are perhaps unaware of the potential damage they can do to his chances of an appeal. All because of childish jealousy of one or two people who claim to have Jeremy's best interests at heart. But dig a little deeper and you see that their protestations are all because their noses have been put out of joint.
Grahame, I am always careful what I say and I avoid attacks on others, but I have to agree with your assessment here. I have done my best to give the best advice and sometimes this has been listened to, but at other times it has not.
-
The last interview Simon McKay did where Bob Woofinden was involved there was a general feeling over twitter that the interview was balanced and I believe Simon would only represent in those circumstances.
The people who have been in touch with me and knew nothing at all about the case believe their is something wrong with this case and believe it could be a miscarriage of justice after seeing the documentary
I have only seen one person anywhere say the documentary changed their mind from innocent to guilty and his name is posted here and he has very close to the official campaign team and the only other person who has openly completely mauled the documentary is Poppymeze who has close connections to the campaign team
Jeremys future and fate are in his own hands
If he chooses to listen to people from the official campaign team who openly post on Lambertons site that's up to him
I think it is very much time for Simon to move on now and Jeremy doesn't need him anyway as the official campaign team have openly posted on twitter they have FOUND the evidence to prove Jeremy is innocent
Why did Jeremy ever need a lawyer then?
-
The last interview Simon McKay did where Bob Woofinden was involved there was a general feeling over twitter that the interview was balanced and I believe Simon would only represent in those circumstances.
The people who have been in touch with me and knew nothing at all about the case believe their is something wrong with this case and believe it could be a miscarriage of justice after seeing the documentary
I have only seen one person anywhere say the documentary changed their mind from innocent to guilty and his name is posted here and he has very close to the official campaign team and the only other person who has openly completely mauled the documentary is Poppymeze who has close connections to the campaign team
Jeremys future and fate are in his own hands
If he chooses to listen to people from the official campaign team who openly post on Lambertons site that's up to him
I think it is very much time for Simon to move on now and Jeremy doesn't need him anyway as the official campaign team have openly posted on twitter they have FOUND the evidence to prove Jeremy is innocent
Why did Jeremy ever need a lawyer then?
His future is only in his own hands if he confesses guilt. If not, it is currently in the hands of the CCRC and then potentially the C of A.
Personally the documentary didn't persuade me from innocent to guilty and I still do believe he is prob innocent. However, after watching the documentary I do believe that his chances of being referred have dimished somewhat.
-
NGB..............thank you so much for your reply.
I really do think that Simon needs to visit Jeremy again and have a very serious talk with him.In my opinion the campaign team need to be disbanded and a new one set up.All the troublemakers can then be weeded out,so it can be run in a more professional manner.
-
I personally do not think that Jeremy will get any appeal whilst the CCRC are still running,purely for political reasons.
-
I personally do not think that Jeremy will get any appeal whilst the CCRC are still running,purely for political reasons.
Sadly Tyler I think you are correct. I think the CCRC are going through the motions, but have already made their minds up. I would be surprised [ but delighted] if the case is referred.
I must admit that DB came across as someone who was convinced of Jeremy's guilt. On the other hand JM was far from convincing.
One of the things that trouble me is JM was happy to identify the victims when according to her she knew that JB was responsible. One would have thought she would have kept as far away as possible.
Just as an aside I do not believe this was a one killer crime, and remain convinced that at least two persons were involved, with two different types of ammunition, but both .22. this would go some way to explain the different types of injuries that the victims suffered, and why some bullets fragmented, and others did not.
Hollow point, and High velocity bullets behave in different ways.
-
Although I know that people suffer from mental breakdowns there is normally a reason that causes it.
Does anyone know what brought on Anthony Pargeters illness.
Can someone explain why JB made AP the manager of WHF in the aftermath of the murders, when it seemed apparent that there was a dislike between the two of them.
I would be very interested how AP managed to gain half of the family fortune, and how he was a witness in the finding of the silencer.
His statements are a little confusing as to where his gun actually was. he states that his gun was usually at WHF but then seems to retract this statement, [strange].
I am probably waffling, but the bee is in the bonnet.
-
The last interview Simon McKay did where Bob Woofinden was involved there was a general feeling over twitter that the interview was balanced and I believe Simon would only represent in those circumstances.
The people who have been in touch with me and knew nothing at all about the case believe their is something wrong with this case and believe it could be a miscarriage of justice after seeing the documentary
I have only seen one person anywhere say the documentary changed their mind from innocent to guilty and his name is posted here and he has very close to the official campaign team and the only other person who has openly completely mauled the documentary is Poppymeze who has close connections to the campaign team
Jeremys future and fate are in his own hands
If he chooses to listen to people from the official campaign team who openly post on Lambertons site that's up to him
I think it is very much time for Simon to move on now and Jeremy doesn't need him anyway as the official campaign team have openly posted on twitter they have FOUND the evidence to prove Jeremy is innocent
Why did Jeremy ever need a lawyer then?
Without some form of legal assistance i feel Jeremy has little chance of getting far, we all know where to search for the evidence its unlikely the campaign have anything concrete if they had jeremy would now be a free man, as to the documentry , i was looking for new fresh evidence of jeremys innocence though the documentry i did feel not show that these tests in the United States are placing in question the very core of the evidence that convicted jeremy in the 1986 trial the silencer issue ,now we have something on the table so to speak.
-
whats takeing the crrc so long i thought they would of referred it or rejected the case by now.
-
Houston we have a problem ??
-
I think Hartley, Vidvic and Jeremy probably know the decision by now
-
I think Hartley, Vidvic and Jeremy probably know the decision by now
I am tending to think that it is to Jeremy's advantage?
-
I think Hartley, Vidvic and Jeremy probably know the decision by now
how long before they annouce their decision?
-
how long before they annouce their decision?
It should be next week.
-
It should be next week.
thank you ngb baited breath til then!
-
I think Hartley, Vidvic and Jeremy probably know the decision by now
If there's no referral - the response to the Arizonian tests should open some eyes.
-
No referral - the response to the Arizonian tests should open some eyes.
Are you suggesting that the family have been given an advance briefing on the CCRC decision?
-
Are you suggesting that the family have been given an advance briefing on the CCRC decision?
You edited your post Hartley to change the meaning. Are you suggesting that you know the CCRC's response to the Arizona tests?
-
Well if they don't refer the case it will be a shocker because The Official Campaign Team have the evidence and The Crimes That Shook Britain DVD proving Jeremy is innocent
They posted so yesterday
So it will be a mistake Ngb
Everything will be fine stop worrying
-
Well if they don't refer the case it will be a shocker because The Official Campaign Team have the evidence and The Crimes That Shook Britain DVD proving Jeremy is innocent
They posted so yesterday
So it will be a mistake Ngb
Everything will be fine stop worrying
Ah, of course, I forgot!
-
I dont see what is so special about letting the family know, i assume Jeremy will be the 1st to know, however i believe jeremy has a case for discrimination now, perhaps some departments need shutting down at the CCRC lets get some on the dole get some cutbacks and savings moving, there are always alternatives.
-
In my opinion the family have absolutely NO right to be informed in advance about the decision. The only person who should get prior warning is JB and his legal team (I include ngb in that by the way). :)
-
Ngb on a more serious note and speaking as a vegetarian you have neve never shot a bunny rabbit have you?
-
Ngb on a more serious note and speaking as a vegetarian you have neve never shot a bunny rabbit have you?
I rescued one once and the farmer told me off for some reason? What's half a field of kale between friends? ::)
-
Ah Grahame so nice
Two years ago I was driving up a road in the country and there was a rabbit sat in the middle of the road in shock, I stopped the car in the middle of the road and about 12 cars had to stop behind me. I didn't realise one was a traffic cop car and he came stomping up to me to give me a telling off, we had a big argument in front of everyone and in the end he picked up the rabbit and put it in the field because I refused to move my car because the rabbit would have been squashed. The rabbit seemed ok and I couldn't see any injuries and the copper seemed ok like a bit of a hero in the end
-
Ah Grahame so nice
Two years ago I was driving up a road in the country and there was a rabbit sat in the middle of the road in shock, I stopped the car in the middle of the road and about 12 cars had to stop behind me. I didn't realise one was a traffic cop car and he came stomping up to me to give me a telling off, we had a big argument in front of everyone and in the end he picked up the rabbit and put it in the field because I refused to move my car because the rabbit would have been squashed. The rabbit seemed ok and I couldn't see any injuries and the copper seemed ok like a bit of a hero in the end
Well done Jackie. The same thing happened to me a while back. But the creature was a small baby fledgling bird in the middle of a country road. No coppers, just angry mororists who thought I was mad chasing this baby bird around in the road. I'm getting soft in my old age. ::)
-
Ah Grahame so nice
Two years ago I was driving up a road in the country and there was a rabbit sat in the middle of the road in shock, I stopped the car in the middle of the road and about 12 cars had to stop behind me. I didn't realise one was a traffic cop car and he came stomping up to me to give me a telling off, we had a big argument in front of everyone and in the end he picked up the rabbit and put it in the field because I refused to move my car because the rabbit would have been squashed. The rabbit seemed ok and I couldn't see any injuries and the copper seemed ok like a bit of a hero in the end
If a rabbit was in the middle of the road it would have been kinder to have flattened it, as it probably had mixie. It is a terrible rabbit desease which mainlly affects the eyes, and ears. Best thing to do is kill it to put it out of it's misery
-
buddy i didn't know that and the policeman obviously didn't either, i couldn't bear to see him squashed
-
buddy i didn't know that and the policeman obviously didn't either, i couldn't bear to see him squashed
What I meant Jackie it is not normal for a rabbit to sit in the middle of a road.
Niel can confirm that this bunny was unwell.
-
I can say jackie the rabbits where i am have wised to cars a lot better, i see them daily , on a night i have see some on a country lane frozen in the road , i have switched the car lights to park and most of the time they will go, but most now dont run into the lights they stay put , ive recued a puppy outside our house on a main road last year he was hit 4 times by cars and i stopped traffic on a main road , he ran off to asda way, i heard the next day he was ok, a tough pooch.
-
What I meant Jackie it is not normal for a rabbit to sit in the middle of a road.
Niel can confirm that this bunny was unwell.
Suicidal even. :(
-
ive recued a puppy outside our house on a main road last year he was hit 4 times by cars and i stopped traffic on a main road , he ran off to asda way, i heard the next day he was ok, a tough pooch.
Couldn't have been that hurt if he still had shopping on his mind? Might have been female.
-
I told my mate Jackies anecdote about the Policeman putting the rabbit in a field, my mate reckoned the Policeman would have done better putting the rabbit in front of a couple of good greyhounds !
-
I told my mate Jackies anecdote about the Policeman putting the rabbit in a field, my mate reckoned the Policeman would have done better putting the rabbit in front of a couple of good greyhounds !
If the rabbit was sitting in the middle of the road then one greyhound with a zimmer frame would have been sufficient. ;D
-
Must admit,I would be really shocked if Jeremy does get leave to appeal.However,if he doesnt I am not too worried as I really do not think that Simon will just sit back and accept that.There is just too much that proves that Jeremy did not get a fair and that his conviction is unsafe.I do see him being released..........eventually.
-
Almost two years ago I informed JB of my own findings, regarding his Campaign Team.
So long as they hold the strings and everything is run by them, they are happy, no matter the outcome!
In the beginning news feeds by them were, shall we say, weak and without direction. Yet, they continued to (try) and convince JB that the feeds where fantastic and continued to assure him his release was imminent.
When anyone outside of the Campaign, attempted publicity via another angle, the Campaign did their utmost to convince JB it was certainly not in his best interests to allow such moves by others and that these certain individuals where only out to damage his Campaign and cause.
Two years on, all that I said to him about these people - and others - has come true!
He has continually been made aware of the actions of those self seekers yet, after all this time he cannot leave them. So many people over the years have left him high and dry.....and when he finds those who will do 'what he wants - when he wants', then he will hang on in there with them.
He has surrounded himself with the Glory Seekers! Sadly. >:(
-
Must admit,I would be really shocked if Jeremy does get leave to appeal.However,if he doesnt I am not too worried as I really do not think that Simon will just sit back and accept that.There is just too much that proves that Jeremy did not get a fair and that his conviction is unsafe.I do see him being released..........eventually.
Well done Tyler we did digress a bit and you brought us back to the subject.
-
Well done Tyler we did digress a bit and you brought us back to the subject.
Well I did keep to the subject. Tyler said he will be released eventually and I mentioned the words zimmer frame.
-
Almost two years ago I informed JB of my own findings, regarding his Campaign Team.
So long as they hold the strings and everything is run by them, they are happy, no matter the outcome!
In the beginning news feeds by them were, shall we say, weak and without direction. Yet, they continued to (try) and convince JB that the feeds where fantastic and continued to assure him his release was imminent.
When anyone outside of the Campaign, attempted publicity via another angle, the Campaign did their utmost to convince JB it was certainly not in his best interests to allow such moves by others and that these certain individuals where only out to damage his Campaign and cause.
Two years on, all that I said to him about these people - and others - has come true!
He has continually been made aware of the actions of those self seekers yet, after all this time he cannot leave them. So many people over the years have left him high and dry.....and when he finds those who will do 'what he wants - when he wants', then he will hang on in there with them.
He has surrounded himself with the Glory Seekers! Sadly. >:(
You only have to see how Jackie got treat to see how true this is?
-
I wonder if Mckay will continue to represent Jeremy following the CCRC's decision.
Personally I think it will be unlikely.
-
why would you say that do you know Simon?
-
And Hartley will you and your family still have a job at WHF after the decision
-
I wonder if Mckay will continue to represent Jeremy following the CCRC's decision.
Personally I think it will be unlikely.
It sounds as if you have got wind somehow of an unfavourable decision for the defence. With regards to McKay, he's not been supported as much as he should have been from certain quarters, which is a pity.
-
why would you say that do you know Simon?
Mainly because any future applications for leave to appeal would not come to a conclusion for many years, maybe a decade or more and during that period Jeremy would not have access to legal aid. Working a few months pro-bono on a high profile case is one thing, slogging it out for another ten or more years unpaid is something else.
In my opinion, Jeremy has raised Simons profile more than the other way around.
It's just a prediction, but I really wouldn't be surprised if they parted company in the weeks following a CCRC decision.
-
Rochy I have heard rumours of the opposite he is just trying to wind you up as usual hoping all the lies and cover ups carry on
How dare he say he doubts Simon will carry on
I doubt it was a good move to move into a house where 5 members of your family were murdered
Theres plenty of doubt surrounding this case and he has just made himself look stupid again!!!
-
Hartley I use Neil for any legal questions and opinions and Simons profile was very high anyway and he only took the case on because he believed jeremy was innocent and still does
-
Hartley I use Neil for any legal questions and opinions and Simons profile was very high anyway and he only took the case on because he believed jeremy was innocent and still does
As I said, it's just a prediction.
-
You two were starting to get along a bit better. I was hoping it might last a bit longer.
-
Hartley you must remember the behaviour of the extended family after the murders makes a lot of people believe Jeremy is innocent as the extended family try to make out Jeremy was guilty because of his behaviour after the murders
Thats how it stands and in my opinion the extended familys behaviour was stranger by miles than Jeremys
-
You are giving your opinions now as someone that is not impartial.
I am impartial in this case nothing that happens with the ccrc will affect me but it will you
-
Hartley you sound young and immature and your presence on the forum has no value you speak for no one one of the great aspects of a western democratic society is at least we get a chance to witness cover ups , if it takes all the police officers on duty that day to go to their deaths hiding something ,if you think it ends then , then i promise you it will not, in this age of the world wide internet its only when not if the evidence goes online .
-
Hartley you must remember the behaviour of the extended family after the murders makes a lot of people believe Jeremy is innocent as the extended family try to make out Jeremy was guilty because of his behaviour after the murders
Thats how it stands and in my opinion the extended familys behaviour was stranger by miles than Jeremys
FULLY AGREE....very good points Jackie.
-
Whilst ever the case (SC/688/85) was being dealt with as four murders and a suicide, between 7th August to 7th September 1985, the version of events relied upon by Essex police, was in accordance with the contents of the police radio message logs (two bodies downstairs, three upstairs, upon entry to the premises, with Sheila later ending up dead upstairs on the bed, with only a solitary wound to the neck). There was no ballistics tests carried out to identify the gun which fired all the shots, not until the nature of the investigation changed (SC/786/85) and all the editing of the witness statements and photographs took place between one file (SC/688/85) and the other (SC/786/85)...
According to the official version of events, there was no ballistics tests carried out with a view to identify the gun which fired the bullets until 20th September 1985, tests which lasted until 2nd October 1985, and resulting in MDF concluding tht the anshulz rifle fired all 25 shots (including the substituted bullet PV/20)...
News papers accounts from the perio when the case was being treated as four murders and a suicide, place Sheila's body on the bed, in some accounts alone, in other accounts alongside the body of June Bamber, with the gun between them on the bed, some accounts with one of the bibles on Sheila's chest, in other accounts by her side...
I will try to locate details of which newspapers reported these events as described, and post them in the coming days...
-
Could you just refresh my memory Mike? Could Ralph's body in the chair be seen from the window that the police said they looked through?
-
why would you say that do you know Simon?
Good question, Jackie. I would ask Hartley whether he or Jeremy's extended family have been in contact with either Simon or the CCRC.
-
Keira I more or less did but I knew I wouldn't get a straight answer
Hartleys only reason to be on this forum is protect his own position in relation to how things would change if Jeremys conviction were overturned and to try to pursuade anyone who thinks Jeremy was innocent that he is in fact guilty (he hasn't succeeded in that once)
I don't believe he knows anything about any decision or he would have been joined by Vidvic to have a gloat
Since Hartley has been on this forum he has spoken as if he personally knows Jeremy which he doesn't
He is the spin doctor from WHF
-
You edited your post Hartley to change the meaning. Are you suggesting that you know the CCRC's response to the Arizona tests?
A stony silence from you Hartley. Are you prepared to answer my question?
-
Oh I don't know, I think 'gloating' is rather distasteful, it's not something I find particularly pleasant, it's certainly not something which I would atively take part in or condone.
I will however be pleased with the decision, understandably some people will not be, for reasons that are their own.
-
Oh I don't know, I think 'gloating' is rather distasteful, it's not something I find particularly pleasant, it's certainly not something which I would atively take part in or condone.
I will however be pleased with the decision, understandably some people will not be, for reasons that are their own.
Hartley , is it true you work at WHF ?
-
Hartley , is it true you work at WHF ?
No Jon it is not.
-
Oh I don't know, I think 'gloating' is rather distasteful, it's not something I find particularly pleasant, it's certainly not something which I would atively take part in or condone.
I will however be pleased with the decision, understandably some people will not be, for reasons that are their own.
How have you managed to get wind of a decision so early? I'm not saying you haven't. Just puzzled as to how you have?
-
So Hartley are you going to answer NGB?
Does anyone close to you work at WHF?
-
Hartley as a close friend of the family is anything printed below not true?
In 1985, Nevill Bamber, his wife June Bamber and their son, Jeremy Bamber co-owned the farming company, N and J Bamber Ltd. The share ownership was distributed whereby Nevill Bamber owned 79%, June Bamber owned 1% and finally Jeremy Bamber owned 20% of the company.
While N and J Bamber Ltd, owned all the assets of the company, i.e. machinery, buildings, crops, livestock and vehicles, 600 acres of the farm was leasehold, and a further 100 acres was freehold. 50 acres (otherwise known as Charity Farm) was owned by Nevill and June Bamber, while the other 50 acres (otherwise known as Renters Farm) was shared equally between Nevill Bamber, June Bamber and Jeremy Bamber, while White House Farm itself was and still is leasehold.
Upon the tragic deaths of Nevill and June Bamber, Basil Cook was appointed Executor of their respective estates and thus was responsible for safeguarding their assets. In order to assist Jeremy Bamber in the daily management of the farm, Basil Cock appointed Peter Eaton to manage N and J Bamber Ltd, until Jeremy Bamber was able to take that role upon himself. Peter Eaton was appointed Farm Manager on the 9th August 1985.
Upon the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the murders at White House Farm, Peter Eaton and his wife Ann became the tenants of the leasehold properties previously rented by Nevill Bamber. This included White House Farm, which they had already moved into. However, Basil Cock as the Executor of the estate, after the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, concluded that all the assets of the Bamber estate should be inherited by Pamela Boutflour. This decision was later challenged in the Chancery Division by Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood, Nevill Bamber’s nephew and niece - Case Number CH 1991 PN 8680.
In these proceedings Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood sued Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour, David Boutflour and Peter and Ann Eaton alleging theft and false accounting in managing N and J Bamber Ltd. In any event, Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood settled after it was agreed they would inherit Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, and Peter and Ann Eaton and David Boutflour would in turn inherit June Bamber’s estate.
Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.
N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.
However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.
Barbara Wilson the farm secretary raised concerns she had about the mismanagement of the farm back in 1987 to Essex Police, however it was not proceeded with pending the appeal of Jeremy Bamber. In view of her allegations going to the heart of the credibility of the chief prosecution witnesses as to their propensity for dishonesty, it is clear that Essex Police had an agenda in maintaining Jeremy Bamber’s conviction by eventually never investigating her complaints in any event.
Her allegations were cumulative in nature, involved numerous third parties and illustrated a clear propensity for dishonesty. In view of the fact that after being managed for fourteen years by Peter Eaton on behalf of Basil Cock the company had gone from being worth £380,000 to owing £80,000 while profits for that time span are not accounted for, yet totalling almost £500,000 lost, the question remains as to why Essex Police breached their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber by not investigating the allegations listed in the first instance. The allegations are based upon reasonable suspicion, and Essex Police should have acted in the public interest in investigating them, especially as the officer who interviewed Barbara Wilson described her as an honest person with no clear agenda against the family.
It is fact that during Jeremy Bamber’s trial the jury asked ‘If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his Uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour’s statement about Jeremy’s being able to kill his own parents.’
The fact that the jury were suspicious as to motive by Jeremy Bamber’s relatives places in issue their credibility as prosecution witnesses whereby they stood to make a pecuniary gain by securing a conviction for murder with Jeremy Bamber as the accused. Thus where Jeremy Bamber’s appeal was pending at that time and where the honesty or credibility of these material witnesses to the case is in question it is relevant that these allegations were investigated appropriately. Indeed the allegations of dishonesty and asset stripping clearly tolerated by Essex Police highlights a further agenda that bites on motive by the relatives of Jeremy Bamber who misled the jury regarding that relevant question. Due to their misleading the jury, they were never cross examined at trial as to this issue.
Robert Boutflour stated in his witness statement given to the jury, dated 17th October 1986, in response to the jury’s question, he stated that he was a very wealthy man in his own right owning a 50% share in Carbonell’s Farm, (Document A – 16), this was his primary asset. Yet he did not state that it is fact that on the 7th August 1985, he had a much greater motive to mislead the jury, because at that time he did not own Carbonell’s Farm. On the 7th August 1985, Jeremy stood to inherit 50% of Carbonell’s Farm upon the death of Mabel Speakman (his maternal grandmother) whose will left her estate equally between her two daughters, Pamela Boutflour and June Bamber.
In his diary for that period in 1985, Robert Boutflour was concerned about Jeremy being a beneficiary only 5 days after the tragedy at White House Farm, (Robert Boutflour’s Diary DocD-18). It is fact that on the 24th August 1985, Robert Boutflour met his own solicitor, Mr Rant, to receive legal advice to be informed as to how he could stop Jeremy from ‘profiting from his act.’ At that meeting he records how he was advised that the only way to allay this was for Mabel Speakman to change her will. Thus on the 2nd September 1985, Robert Boutflour organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit Mabel Speakman in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, Pamela Boutflour was the only beneficiary of the estate.
Indeed during the trial there is record (Document AB-40 pages 50 – 52), of a discussion in chambers between counsel and the trial Judge regarding Robert Boutflour having a motive to lie to the jury about Jeremy
In 2003, Jeremy commenced civil proceedings against the Boutflour’s as to their use of undue influence in ensuring Mabel Speakman changed her will. There was no legal aid available for this action, and Jeremy was forced to represent himself, thus he was not fully informed of the procedures undertaken to ensure a hearing took place. The proceedings never commenced, because Jeremy failed to submit a pre-action letter to the respondents stating his case, prior to launching the action.
In January 2004, the Boutflour’s countersued Jeremy, this was for the costs of defending his proceedings. They were awarded £18,359.50 including over £7,000 for two barristers to oppose him. They did not have any need to employ a barrister in any event because they would have been instructed that due to there being an omission to act accordingly as to procedure, the case would have been struck out in any event.
Thus, not only were the Boutflour’s instrumental in ensuring that Jeremy had no recourse to funds in order to fight his case while in prison, by running down N and J Bamber Ltd, they also ensured that he was made liable for legal costs that they needn’t have incurred in the first instance due to their having access to legal advice. They have cynically ensured that Jeremy lost altogether just over £100,000 of his own money.
Not content with inheriting Mabel Speakman’s estate and June Bamber’s, they needed to ensure Jeremy suffered great financial loss, so as to prevent him fighting his case from prison. Basil Cock was employed to protect his interests, but on the face of it colluded with the family regarding the asset stripping of N and J Bamber Ltd.
In view of the fact that Essex Police did not address the matter with a view to investigating it, it is obvious that they did not want any attention drawn to the allegations of theft and dishonesty because it would have impugned the credibility of these witnesses as to the successful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.
In Jeremy’s complaint to the IPCC dated December 2011, he questions why the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s were not investigated in the first instance and that they are investigated again, by an external Police Force for theft and fraud in addition to investigating Essex Police themselves as to why they did not undertake a full and comprehensive investigation of the allegations made back in 1987.
-
I think a good position to take is to attack the argument/post and not the poster.
-
its unlikely hartley has anything to do with WHF it would be unwise for anyone who works there to be on any such forum, he knows nowt, for all i know he is from the Lamberton site until i see his face , address details ,phone number , thats my view.
-
I think a good position to take is to attack the argument/post and not the poster.
Hartley please explain to me why you described me as worse than a mass murderer a few months ago?
Wasnt that attacking the poster?
What could you possibly have meant by that?
You dont even know me!
You do have a couple of people that think you are Mr Wonderful but gladly they no longer frequent this forum
In fact your idoliser Shona was only taking the piss out of Grahame last night even though she knows Grahame has had a critically ill daughter who is very sick very still and then we have her sidekick Andrea who adores Shonas behaviour. I hope if any of their children or grandchildren get cancer or are critically ill that they get exactly the same kind of abuse and know exactly how Grahame feels. How he has coped with that I will never know.
They really are the lowest of the low and have found their right place to be backing Lamberton.
Those are the people who look up to you Hartley. Good luck with them because I am sure you must use one of your fake profiles to take part in the Lamberton forum abuse
Mertol 100% Hartley has people close to him working at WHF
-
Bob that goes for you too nice people Shona and Andrea
What nice good people they are
-
A Flimflam man devoid of reason, purpose to be on here , other than to do all in his means to throw out any remote view jeremy is innocent watch your backs .
-
Hartley please explain to me why you described me as worse than a mass murderer a few months ago?
Wasnt that attacking the poster?
What could you possibly have meant by that?
You dont even know me!
You do have a couple of people that think you are Mr Wonderful but gladly they no longer frequent this forum
In fact your idoliser Shona was only taking the piss out of Grahame last night even though she knows Grahame has had a critically ill daughter who is very sick very still and then we have her sidekick Andrea who adores Shonas behaviour. I hope if any of their children or grandchildren get cancer or are critically ill that they get exactly the same kind of abuse and know exactly how Grahame feels. How he has coped with that I will never know.
They really are the lowest of the low and have found their right place to be backing Lamberton.
Those are the people who look up to you Hartley. Good luck with them because I am sure you must use one of your fake profiles to take part in the Lamberton forum abuse
Mertol 100% Hartley has people close to him working at WHF
Bob that goes for you too nice people Shona and Andrea
What nice good people they are
Great timing Jackie.
I had only this morning decided to log back into the forum for the first time in ages, and thought it might be nice to return as all the personal attacks seemed to have died down a lot - and then completely unprompted you post this! :(
-
Bob I am sure there is no problem with you posting on this forum as long at the scumbag Shona isn't mentioned
Do you have any thoughts on someone that abuses someone when the persons daughter critically ill ?
-
Bob I am sure there is no problem with you posting on this forum as long at the scumbag Shona isn't mentioned
Do you have any thoughts on someone that abuses someone when callous.the persons daughter critically ill ?
i totally agree jackie, it is unbelievably insensitive and callous
-
Back to topic of the thread I sincerely believe certain people have tried to scupper the free legal help Jeremy gets so any glory from having Jeremys conviction overturned goes to these people only
Without a thought of what is in Jeremys best interests
Posted by Bambertweets today about the ccrc
What is the problem we are trying to solve?
A person who has been subjected to an unsafe conviction typically needs a lawyer to achieve access to justice. That lawyer will need to re-investigate the case, seek new evidence, find out what went wrong at the trial, and present the case the Court of Appeal and /or to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Only rarely can a prisoner afford to pay for such legal representation.
The public funding situation for appeals work means that private law firms do very little of it and then not as well as they would like.
Prisoners approach law firms all over the country seeking help, but only rarely can they find it.
This situation is well-known to legal practitioners but has recently been substantiated in a quantitative study. In 2009, researchers at the University of Warwick prepared a report to the Legal Services Commission examining the extent and impact of legal representation on applications to the CCRC and the ensuing outcomes in the Court of Appeal.
The study found that only a third of applicants to the CCRC are legally represented, but that applications involving lawyers were almost twice as likely to contain successful submissions. It also acknowledged that an unrepresented applicant is significantly disadvantaged when challenging a CCRC decision not to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. The study concluded that “there can be little doubt that such high quality legal representation merits the public funding which is provided.”
The Centre for Criminal Appeals (CCA) aims to tackle the shortage of quality representation in this area via a non-profit, specialized law practice.
Jeremy has been very very lucky to have Neil and Simon help him whatever anybody else who doesn't have Jeremys best interests at heart
-
I should not be regarded as in the same league as Simon McKay. He carried out an enormous amount of work, all pro bono, in researching the case, commisioning fresh scientific reports and drafting the final submissions to the CCRC. Simon did this with a very tight timetable imposed and against the background of being very busy on other work. He does not have the resources of a large firm behind him. My own limited contribution is not significant when set against that of Simon.
-
I will however be pleased with the decision..........................
Hi Hartley. Is this an indication that you know what the decision is?
-
Ngb you were very significant in helping Jeremy with his application and most people know this
-
Hartley please explain to me why you described me as worse than a mass murderer a few months ago?
Wasnt that attacking the poster?
What could you possibly have meant by that?
You dont even know me!
You do have a couple of people that think you are Mr Wonderful but gladly they no longer frequent this forum
In fact your idoliser Shona was only taking the piss out of Grahame last night even though she knows Grahame has had a critically ill daughter who is very sick very still and then we have her sidekick Andrea who adores Shonas behaviour. I hope if any of their children or grandchildren get cancer or are critically ill that they get exactly the same kind of abuse and know exactly how Grahame feels. How he has coped with that I will never know.
They really are the lowest of the low and have found their right place to be backing Lamberton.
Those are the people who look up to you Hartley. Good luck with them because I am sure you must use one of your fake profiles to take part in the Lamberton forum abuse
Mertol 100% Hartley has people close to him working at WHF
Why state this? On the one hand you are saying that comments aimed at Graham are crass abuse and I would agree with you on this. Then you are saying that you hope other people will say similar things in the future, which I whole heartedly disagree with!! 2 wrongs don't make a right!
Why don't you concentrate on the case, instead of trying to points score?!
-
Petey two wrongs do not make a right but scumbags like Shona will just move on to the next victims like Lamberton and Bennett do
The only way someone with the mentality of the scumbag Shona will learn is when they are in the same situation as Grahame
I hope Shona is heavily featured on Mark Williams-Thomas next programme on internet bullies and then we will see what her neighbours and the people at Crufts and the Pony Club think of her. Every day I print off her posts and email them to Richard Bacon
We have all Shonas personal details and it will be very easy for a television company to go to her home and ask why she has posted stuff about Gladys/Grahame and his critically ill daughter
These people like Shona who target people in Grahames position do not stop unless they are exposed or go to prison(which is happening now) or are put in the same situation themselves.
Shona and Andrea are staunch supporters of John Lamberton, Tim Bennett, Ray Hollingsworth and HorseyDave and that says it all and you can say what you like Petey and I can get sent taxis and all the indian meals in the world but Shona will not get away with this behaviour
I personally find it even more offensive that the abuse comes from a mother and grandmother
-
Hartley while you are on the forum would you like to make any comment on the ever changing opinions of Barbara Wilson
-
Petey two wrongs do not make a right but scumbags like Shona will just move on to the next victims like Lamberton and Bennett do
The only way someone with the mentality of the scumbag Shona will learn is when they are in the same situation as Grahame
I hope Shona is heavily featured on Mark Williams-Thomas next programme on internet bullies and then we will see what her neighbours and the people at Crufts and the Pony Club think of her. Every day I print off her posts and email them to Richard Bacon
We have all Shonas personal details and it will be very easy for a television company to go to her home and ask why she has posted stuff about Gladys/Grahame and his critically ill daughter
These people like Shona who target people in Grahames position do not stop unless they are exposed or go to prison(which is happening now) or are put in the same situation themselves.
Shona and Andrea are staunch supporters of John Lamberton, Tim Bennett, Ray Hollingsworth and HorseyDave and that says it all and you can say what you like Petey and I can get sent taxis and all the indian meals in the world but Shona will not get away with this behaviour
I personally find it even more offensive that the abuse comes from a mother and grandmother
A) Why are u reacting?!
B) Why do u bother going on their site
C) By repeatedly criticising Lamberton, Tim, Shona, Andrea, the other forum you're just rising to the bait
D) Why does it bother you so much what people think of Shona
E) If u agree that 2 wrongs don't make a right, then why continue?!
Your focus should undoubtedly be on JB and his case.
To be honest many of your posts I find embarassing as a pro JB supporter. They can turn many other pro JB supporters away from posting, myself included.
This is purely my opinion. I await your criticical reply. Despite what you think, please don't tell me to go and play with the traffic again tho. That was one of the nastiest posts I have ever witnessed from you.
-
Jackie, if you react in this manner simply because somebody politely offers an opinion that there will likely be a change in the legal representation of Jeremy following the CCRC's decision ............... then I would hate to see your reaction if you stubbed your toe. :o
Calm down, nobody will listen to you whilst ranting and raving uncontrollably about something which didn't even relate to the discussion taking place.
Feel free to ignore my advice though, I won't be offended if you do.
-
How long has that Babs Wilson statement been available?
-
Hartley I suggest you go back through this thread and answer the questions put to you instead of playing the selectiveanswering game. Neil has asked you questions and you have chosen not to answer
I believe the posts re Simon and the Arizona tests are there to goad pro bamber people.
You have not got a clue about Simon McKay so how could you possibly know what he is going to do.
I have got to know him more than you by exchanging emails and his support for Jeremy has been unbelievable and I dont believe he would walk away from the case unless he was asked to
-
Rochford I believe it is one of the documents that has only recently become available
-
Rochford I believe it is one of the documents that has only recently become available
Thank you. It appears he was the apple of her eye.
-
Thats a really nice way of putting it Rochy a son anyone would be proud of from an impartial person and nothing like Hartley leads us to believe
-
Just for the record I hold no malicious feelings towards those on the other forum in regards to their silly callous remarks about Jo. Their own conscience will be their judges.
-
Hi Hartley. Is this an indication that you know what the decision is?
Hmm. No answer. If the family have somehow been informed of the decision before Jeremy or before it has been officially released then it does rather prove that there are crooks in the CCRC who are prepared to break confidentiality. If this turns out to be so then public pressure should be applied in order to bring about an official inquiry into the activities of the CCRC.
-
Hmm. No answer. If the family have somehow been informed of the decision before Jeremy or before it has been officially released then it does rather prove that there are crooks in the CCRC who are prepared to break confidentiality. If this turns out to be so then public pressure should be applied in order to bring about an official inquiry into the activities of the CCRC.
I'm not convinced branding the CCRC as crooks, is in the best interests of an applicant expecting them to consider their case.
There must come a point where there isn't anyone else left to blame or use as an excuse. Would a Judicial Review be corrupt also, if they didn't find in Jeremys favour? Although the chances of such a review taking place is also remote in the extreme, another sign of crookedness no doubt. ::)
-
just answer the questions Hartley youre like a drama queen
-
Just for the record I hold no malicious feelings towards those on the other forum in regards to their silly callous remarks about Jo. Their own conscience will be their judges.
You are too kind Grahame. I would be outraged.
-
Have I missed something. When did the CCRC become crooks ?
-
I'm not convinced branding the CCRC as crooks, is in the best interests of an applicant expecting them to consider their case.
There must come a point where there isn't anyone else left to blame or use as an excuse. Would a Judicial Review be corrupt also, if they didn't find in Jeremys favour? Although the chances of such a review taking place is also remote in the extreme, another sign of crookedness no doubt. ::)
Notice I didn't brand them crooks and certainly because of their decision whatever that may be. But there definitely is something wrong if the family are tipped off before the official decision is known by Jeremy or before it has been released at all? I notice that you have also not answered me either as to whether you know the decision or not. I emphasise once again if the family has been notified before the decision has been "officially" released then yes there is a crook within the CCRC and I would even go as far as condemning such actions of a body that is supposed to uphold the justice of the land. And if such an thing has happened then yes they do need investigating as a public body just like any other body that are our servants. They must be answerable to us the people. They are not lords over and above the law or us the people.
-
a ccrc decisn can allways be challenged of course.
-
You are too kind Grahame. I would be outraged.
Buddy I'm a Calvinist. Some believe in karma. I trust in God. ;D
-
Have I missed something. When did the CCRC become crooks ?
Are you being sarcky again campion? ;D
-
Yep !!
-
Notice I didn't brand them crooks and certainly because of their decision whatever that may be. But there definitely is something wrong if the family are tipped off before the official decision is known by Jeremy or before it has been released at all? I notice that you have also not answered me either as to whether you know the decision or not. I emphasise once again if the family has been notified before the decision has been "officially" released then yes there is a crook within the CCRC and I would even go as far as condemning such actions of a body that is supposed to uphold the justice of the land. And if such an thing has happened then yes they do need investigating as a public body just like any other body that are our servants. They must be answerable to us the people. They are not lords over and above the law or us the people.
Actually that's exactly what happens, as it did ten years ago.
-
Who will decide my case?
The final decision about whether to refer a case, or whether to close the case, is always taken by one or more Commissioners.
What qualifications do your case reviewers have?
Many of our case reviewers are qualified solicitors or barristers. Some are former police officers, and others come from a range of professional backgrounds. All have relevant skills and experience and all are specially trained to review cases in a fair and independent way Just his luck that its former Essex police officers with Ewen smith?
-
theres no way a policeman should on it that is a clear conflict of interest.
-
Actually that's exactly what happens, as it did ten years ago.
I think we get the message Hartley. The family have been told that there will be no referral and furthermore, the response to the new submissions will open some people's eyes.
-
are the ccrc supposed to be talking to the family.
-
With all the speculation regarding who influences who, the crucial piece to all of this is that a silencer wasn't on the Anshutz rifle at any stage of the shootings. McKay's people can prove this, so what ever decision is made regarding non referral to the Court of Appeal ( if in fact that does happen ). Someone somewhere is going to have to explain why Jeremy was convicted on fabricated evidence.
-
I think we get the message Hartley. The family have been told that there will be no referral and furthermore, the response to the new submissions will open some people's eyes.
I was just replying to Grahames post, I'm sure that's acceptable to you?
-
I was just replying to Grahames post, I'm sure that's acceptable to you?
I've got no problem with you replying to anyone's post. I'm merely pointing out that you are going out of your way to state something without actually stating it. Message received and understood. There's no need for any further heavy hints.
I await with interest what the defence are prepared to release, in the wake of expected decision.
-
i would say if the crcc dont refer the case jermy bamber would have good grounds to ask the for a juridical review of that decision.
-
are the ccrc supposed to be talking to the family.
I think they will be, the family will be classed as a third party and if you look on the ccrc website about discloure it covers the fact that it can disclose to a third party if i read it right?
-
Rochford, Don't you think with all the interest in the press's relationship with the Police at the Leveson
Inquiry, there may be a bombshell coming regarding when the NOWT/Julie Mugford deal took place ?
-
I've got no problem with you replying to anyone's post. I'm merely pointing out that you are going out of your way to state something without actually stating it. Message received and understood. There's no need for any further heavy hints.
I await with interest what the defence are prepared to release, in the wake of expected decision.
I wasn't aware I was going out of my way to state anything. ???
-
I wasn't aware I was going out of my way to state anything. ???
Then you must have been somehow unaware, that for a few days you have been doing an impression of someone going out of their way to state something without actually doing so. I don't want to drag up all your posts over the last few days but you have gone out of your way to give the impression that the decision has already been made and is a negative one, from a defence perspective.
-
Can anyone explain why the number of people interested in this case has increased more this time around than last year and the interest is not only being maintained but growing ?
-
It appears that the CCRC have an agenda and nothing is going to sway them from that. NOT EVEN THE TRUTH. ;)
-
Then you must have been somehow unaware, that for a few days you have been doing an impression of someone going out of their way to state something without actually doing so. I don't want to drag up all your posts over the last few days but you have gone out of your way to give the impression that the decision has already been made and is a negative one, from a defence perspective.
Very strange, yes I have been completely unaware that people were hanging on my every word. I don't want to drag out all of the old posts, but I was actually under the impression that nobody cared what I had to say, or rather people actively ignored what I posted.
Bearing that in mind, I'm sure you can appreciate the shock and bewilderment that I experienced when reading your previous post, it seems that people have actually gone out of their way to decipher any hint or clue contained in one of my posts.
Cracking decision though.
-
You tease hartley!!
-
You tease hartley!!
So it appears. :-\
-
Very strange, yes I have been completely unaware that people were hanging on my every word. I don't want to drag out all of the old posts, but I was actually under the impression that nobody cared what I had to say, or rather people actively ignored what I posted.
Bearing that in mind, I'm sure you can appreciate the shock and bewilderment that I experienced when reading your previous post, it seems that people have actually gone out of their way to decipher any hint or clue contained in one of my posts.
Cracking decision though.
I'm not sure why you are posting in this strange / strained manner that you have been of late. It seems unnecessary. Your hints weren't exactly covert.
-
I'm not sure why you are posting in this strange / strained manner that you have been of late. It seems unnecessary. Your hints weren't exactly covert.
If you are not sure, then perhaps they were. ;)
-
Very strange, yes I have been completely unaware that people were hanging on my every word. I don't want to drag out all of the old posts, but I was actually under the impression that nobody cared what I had to say, or rather people actively ignored what I posted.
Bearing that in mind, I'm sure you can appreciate the shock and bewilderment that I experienced when reading your previous post, it seems that people have actually gone out of their way to decipher any hint or clue contained in one of my posts.
Cracking decision though.
I have no problem ignoring you Hartley. You are in the families pocket (and I suspect in some way on the pay roll) and they appear to play you like a 2 bit banjo. You spin and steer every discussion in their favour and appear completely unable to see any other view but theirs - are they really worth all the effort? I struggle to understand how they can be so sure their view is correct. The fact of the matter is you or the family don't really know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty. It would be very inconvenient for you all if he turned out to be innocent, hence you fight this battle endlessly.
-
I have no problem ignoring you Hartley. You are in the families pocket (and I suspect in some way on the pay roll) and they appear to play you like a 2 bit banjo. You spin and steer every discussion in their favour and appear completely unable to see any other view but theirs - are they really worth all the effort? I struggle to understand how they can be so sure their view is correct. The fact of the matter is you or the family don't really know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty. It would be very convenient for you all if he turned out to be innocent, hence you fight this battle endlessly.
It would appear not. :-\
Great imagination though.
-
If you are not sure, then perhaps they were. ;)
I'm lost off hartley. So I will give up pressing you.
-
I have no problem ignoring you Hartley. You are in the families pocket (and I suspect in some way on the pay roll) and they appear to play you like a 2 bit banjo. You spin and steer every discussion in their favour and appear completely unable to see any other view but theirs - are they really worth all the effort? I struggle to understand how they can be so sure their view is correct. The fact of the matter is you or the family don't really know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty. It would be very inconvenient for you all if he turned out to be innocent, hence you fight this battle endlessly.
What an excellent post Vortes as normal
The fact is I dont believe a single word Hartley says after he has led up to believe Jeremy was hated by everyone, clearly not going by Babs statement
Quite the golden boy
-
I'm lost off hartley. So I will give up pressing you.
Thanks Rochy, I'm not allowed to say yet anyway, so it would be a bit of a waste of time at the moment.
-
Thanks Rochy, I'm not allowed to say yet anyway, so it would be a bit of a waste of time at the moment.
Yes, that's what I meant in the first place. You did / have said. Or at least written. Not to worry.
-
Directly from Simon Mckay - "I find it inconceivable the family would be told at this stage. I should be notified first."
He has heard nothing of a decision being made, or anyone being notified of such a decision.
-
Thank you Sc82 if Hartley is wrong he will look stupid and so will his close family when they will probably be out of a job
-
wise up people hartley is a fraud most likely Lamberton .
-
Directly from Simon Mckay - "I find it inconceivable the family would be told at this stage. I should be notified first."
He has heard nothing of a decision being made, or anyone being notified of such a decision.
Good to know.
-
well if the family were told jeremys lawyer was i would certainly be good grounds to challenge the decision.
-
wise up people hartley is a fraud most likely Lamberton .
Mertol is 50% correct, I am a complete fraud, I have no connection to any of the relatives, somebody accused me of being one of the Boutflours at the beginning of last year and I just played along. Sorry to dissapoint folks and folkesses.
-
Mertol is 50% correct, I am a complete fraud, I have no connection to any of the relatives, somebody accused me of being one of the Boutflours at the beginning of last year and I just played along. Sorry to dissapoint folks and folkesses.
Well Hartley haven't been posting long but I have never believed you were anything but a fraud....... now you'll say you're just kidding and you are connected but I reckon you're just a wind up merchant. Anyway whatever happens will happen and none of us have any option but to wait and hope at the moment.
-
Mertol is 50% correct, I am a complete fraud, I have no connection to any of the relatives, somebody accused me of being one of the Boutflours at the beginning of last year and I just played along. Sorry to dissapoint folks and folkesses.
I am unsure this is the "real" Hartley, as he/she has always had impeccable spelling in the past. Unlike Mr Lamberton.
-
I am unsure this is the "real" Hartley, as he/she has always had impeccable spelling in the past. Unlike Mr Lamberton.
Yes I noticed his spelling was really bad, I almost posted about it. on't know, maaybe he just couldn't be bothered to try anymore. Hartley did not just spell well but his english was like something out of a 1950s private school. Not quite natural.
-
but is it the same hartly or an imposter
-
Thing is where is Wendy?
-
Well Hartley haven't been posting long but I have never believed you were anything but a fraud....... now you'll say you're just kidding and you are connected but I reckon you're just a wind up merchant. Anyway whatever happens will happen and none of us have any option but to wait and hope at the moment.
Verry astute.
-
are you the real hartly hartly ?
-
Hartley is definitely the real Hartley.
-
Directly from Simon Mckay - "I find it inconceivable the family would be told at this stage. I should be notified first."
He has heard nothing of a decision being made, or anyone being notified of such a decision.
If it turns out that he wasn't told first then what I stated about those within the CCRC or those who hide behind that title are exactly as I said they were and should be investigated by the appropriate departments.
-
Thing is where is Wendy?
We exposed her/him as a troll. She/he has gone to their cave in the Norwegian mountains.
-
I very much suspect that Hartley is doing what the title of the thread suggests. He is playing games? ;)
-
I very much suspect that Hartley is doing what the title of the thread suggests. He is playing games? ;)
Who me? :-[
-
We exposed her/him as a troll. She/he has gone to their cave in the Norwegian mountains.
no surprise there
-
If it turns out that he wasn't told first then what I stated about those within the CCRC or those who hide behind that title are exactly as I said they were and should be investigated by the appropriate departments.
Actually Grahame, no games or disrespect, and despite what Simon has stated, it's quite normal that the the relatives have been given an early heads up, they have (as is normal) been in close contact with the CCRC from the outset.
-
Actually Grahame, no games or disrespect, and despite what Simon has stated, it's quite normal that the the relatives have been given an early heads up, they have (as is normal) been in close contact with the CCRC from the outset.
So doesn't this actually prove that they are biased and actually lean towards the guilty verdict? Is this a just way of carrying on? God protect anyone who suffers a miscarriage of justice in this corrupt and unjust land. It appears the whole justice system is therefore corrupt.
-
So doesn't this actually prove that they are biased and actually lean towards the guilty verdict? Is this a just way of carrying on? God protect anyone who suffers a miscarriage of justice in this corrupt and unjust land. It appears the whole justice system is therefore corrupt.
No it just proves that they are aware of all parties and all victims involved in one of the most bloody crimes of recent times. Imo.
-
No it just proves that they are aware of all parties and all victims involved in one of the most bloody crimes of recent times. Imo.
Well to my mind it appears they lean towards the family rather than steer a middle ground.
-
Well to my mind it appears they lean towards the family rather than steer a middle ground.
Many seem force fed on a diet of AE anecdotes. It's hardly Lafayette Instrument tested. Nevermind, all is not lost.
-
The family have no idea of the decision and as I understand it, Simon McKay will be notified first, then the police, who's liaison officers will inform the family. In the past this was 24 hours before the decision was made public. The family have not even been informed that it would be this week.
-
The family have no idea of the decision and as I understand it, Simon McKay will be notified first, then the police, who's liaison officers will inform the family. In the past this was 24 hours before the decision was made public. The family have not even been informed that it would be this week.
Thank you for clarifying that Vic. Hartley is just playing around as I suspected.
-
The family have no idea of the decision and as I understand it, Simon McKay will be notified first, then the police, who's liaison officers will inform the family. In the past this was 24 hours before the decision was made public. The family have not even been informed that it would be this week.
So what's Hartley playing at? Are you trying to bale him out Vic? If the decision goes the way he is shouting, somebody's going to have some explaining to do. Is that why you've intervened?
-
I don't believe Hartley has said which way the decision has gone? Just his opinion of how he thinks it will go.
-
I don't believe Hartley has said which way the decision has gone? Just his opinion of how he thinks it will go.
Come off it Vic. He's gone out of his way to portray his alleged opinion of how he thinks it will go, as being done and dusted without saying as much. Why would he stick his neck out?
-
Well, whatever your interpretation of his posts, I'm being quite clear. As of midday today, absolutely no indication of any decision, or even date of decision has been given to the Eatons or Boutflours.
-
A good indication will be a press conference being called. That's what happened last time.
-
Well, whatever your interpretation of his posts, I'm being quite clear. As of midday today, absolutely no indication of any decision, or even date of decision has been given to the Eatons or Boutflours.
Sorry vic but it looks like old harters has overstepped the mark and you've been called out of semi-retirement to clean up his mess?
If he's playing games, has he been on the whiskey?
-
Think what you like. Nobody's told me to do anything.
-
Think what you like. Nobody's told me to do anything.
Aye, but at the same time, you're not daft. You wouldn't need to be told. Looks like a spot of babysitting to me. I'll leave it at that. It's up to hartley to explain himself.
-
Aye, but at the same time, you're not daft. You wouldn't need to be told. Looks like a spot of babysitting to me. I'll leave it at that. It's up to hartley to explain himself.
Rochy, I can't decide how you interpret what I've posted.
-
Rochy, I can't decide how you interpret what I've posted.
This is how I interpret what I've seen.
Either you've become a loose cannon and Vic has bailed you out after spotting it in horror
or
You're off on one for reasons unknown and having a wind up.
We'll only know if it's A of B when we get the decision ourselves.
I'm not buying all this 'prediction' stuff.
-
This is how I interpret what I've seen.
Either you've become a loose cannon and Vic has bailed you out after spotting it in horror
or
You're off on one for reasons unknown and having a wind up.
We'll only know if it's A of B when we get the decision ourselves.
I'm not buying all this 'prediction' stuff.
It's definately 'C' or maybe 'D'.
I'm not sure what you think he may have spotted in horror?
-
It's definately 'C' or maybe 'D'.
I'm not sure what you think he may have spotted in horror?
Righto
-
Righto
You asked. :-\
-
You asked. :-\
I don't want to come across belligerent. Just cant work out if you're fishing for bites or genuinely in the know.
-
Rochy
dont worry about it he is genuinely worried he wont be able to afford his next beans on toast
-
I don't want to come across belligerent. Just cant work out if you're fishing for bites or genuinely in the know.
No that's fine, I completely understand. Time will no doubt answer your q's.
-
No that's fine, I completely understand. Time will no doubt answer your q's.
Again, you're making out as if you are in the know. It's inconceivable that you would at this stage, come on to here shouting the odds, only to be then shot down by a decision to refer. It's either strange behaviour on your part or you are informed about something that allegedly neither Simon McKay nor the relatives are. Why have Vic on here towing the official line, saying the that the relatives are in the dark, while you are sending crude smoke signals to the opposite effect?
-
Again, you're making out as if you are in the know. It's inconceivable that you would at this stage, come on to here shouting the odds, only to be then shot down by a decision to refer. It's either strange behaviour on your part or you are informed about something that allegedly neither Simon McKay nor the relatives are. Why have Vic on here towing the official line, saying the that the relatives are in the dark, while you are sending crude smoke signals to the opposite effect?
As I said yesterday, I wasn't aware that I was. ???
-
Hartley's just playing and winding people up. No harm done at the end of the day. But I trust Vic's word. ;D
-
Playing? As in having a joke?
Well,I for one think that joking about a mans life is disgusting!
Simon should be the first person to be told of the CCRC's decision in order that he can break the news gently to Jeremy if the decision is a negative one for him.I believe that it is usual for an inmate to be put on suicide watch if they have received bad news?How dangerous if any negative decision is leaked to Jeremy unnoficially,and the prison authorities are unprepared.
-
Bah, cant be bothered with it.
-
Playing? As in having a joke?
Well,I for one think that joking about a mans life is disgusting!
Simon should be the first person to be told of the CCRC's decision in order that he can break the news gently to Jeremy if the decision is a negative one for him.I believe that it is usual for an inmate to be put on suicide watch if they have received bad news?How dangerous if any negative decision is leaked to Jeremy unnoficially,and the prison authorities are unprepared.
I agree with you Tyler. This kind of playing around could easily get back to Jeremy and cause deep depression in the man.
-
Yes, playing around in that manner would be heinous indeed!!!
-
It's interesting to note that the CCRC came to a preliminary decision last year, a full two weeks prior to announcing it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bamber-must-wait-two-weeks-for-appeal-result-2200348.html
What is the current estimated timescale for a decision to be announced?
-
It's interesting to note that the CCRC came to a preliminary decision last year, a full two weeks prior to announcing it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bamber-must-wait-two-weeks-for-appeal-result-2200348.html
What is the current estimated timescale for a decision to be announced?
Probably next week. Simon McKay, Jeremy himself and the family are likely to be given advance notice of the decision, probably a day before the decision is made public. Jeremy will be told by the prison governor.
-
Probably next week. Simon McKay, Jeremy himself and the family are likely to be given advance notice of the decision, probably a day before the decision is made public. Jeremy will be told by the prison governor.
Thanks NGB.
-
Hartley's just playing and winding people up. No harm done at the end of the day. But I trust Vic's word. ;D
I think certain people on this forum have an amazing aptitude for winding themselves up.
I made an error in a ponderous post about the possible response of the CCRC to the recent 'Arizonian tests' should there be no referral, my error was to miss out a couple of words at the beginning of the sentence which potentially altered the meaning, or at least opened up the option of an alternative interpretation.
I discovered the error a mere minute after posting, in my horror, I quickly logged back on to the forum and edited my post, correcting it so that it could not be misinterpreted.
What has since followed is rather bizarre and to be fair I could have nipped it in the bud, however, the stupidity and aggressive/abusive reaction from certain quarters became amusing to me and I thought I'd let them show a little bit of their true nature before setting them straight.
Rochy, I apologise for not setting you right sooner, I should have PM'd you as I did with others, it's not your responses which I have described above, I genuinely find you to be a good chap and entirely reasonable in the way that you conduct yourself.
_____________
Newsflash over. ::)
-
I think certain people on this forum have an amazing aptitude for winding themselves up.
I made an error in a ponderous post about the possible response of the CCRC to the recent 'Arizonian tests' should there be no referral, my error was to miss out a couple of words at the beginning of the sentence which potentially altered the meaning, or at least opened up the option of an alternative interpretation.
I discovered the error a mere minute after posting, in my horror, I quickly logged back on to the forum and edited my post, correcting it so that it could not be misinterpreted.
What has since followed is rather bizarre and to be fair I could have nipped it in the bud, however, the stupidity and aggressive/abusive reaction from certain quarters became amusing to me and I thought I'd let them show a little bit of their true nature before setting them straight.
Rochy, I apologise for not setting you right sooner, I should have PM'd you as I did with others, it's not your responses which I have described above, I genuinely find you to be a good chap and entirely reasonable in the way that you conduct yourself.
_____________
Newsflash over. ::)
Hmm. Obviously you also omitted to pm any of the moderators. Unfortunately it was not only certain of us in the forum that were misled. But it appeared to be a deliberate act of yours to evade certain direct questions. Far from revealing the "true" characters of some on the forum you did however succeed in revealing a lot about your own character.
-
Hmm. Obviously you also omitted to pm any of the moderators. Unfortunately it was not only certain of us in the forum that were misled. But it appeared to be a deliberate act of yours to evade certain direct questions. Far from revealing the "true" characters of some on the forum you did however succeed in revealing a lot about your own character.
Yes, that I can rise above the abuse.
-
Yes, that I can rise above the abuse.
Oh and that I have a sense of humour, so I have been told.
-
Using my psychic powers given to me by Ali Bongo, I predict an insulting post from Chocok on the way. :-\
-
Yes, that I can rise above the abuse.
We certainly have to rise above your abuse, Hartley.
For example, your appalling insults and abuse (i.e. your lies) aimed at Mike and both mods, your outrageous claim (i.e. your lie) that Jackie is worse than a serial murderer and your equally outrageous, thinly veiled suggestion (i.e. your lie) that I am a drug addict or drug dealer.
-
We certainly have to rise above your abuse, Hartley.
For example, your appalling insults and abuse (i.e. your lies) aimed at Mike and both mods, your outrageous claim (i.e. your lie) that Jackie is worse than a serial murderer and your equally outrageous, thinly veiled suggestion (i.e. your lie) that I am a drug addict or drug dealer.
There we go. Good old Ali Bongo. ::)
-
Using my psychic powers given to me by Ali Bongo, I predict an insulting post from Chocok on the way. :-\
I was tempted to insult you, Hartley, but decided to be scrupulously honest with you instead.
-
I was tempted to insult you, Hartley, but decided to be scrupulously honest with you instead.
Aaaah Bongo needs work, I don't think he saw the second one coming. ::)
-
There we go. Good old Ali Bongo. ::)
Oh, that's insufficient, you'd like an insult too? It's a pleasure, old chap.
Your complete disregard for justice makes my flesh creep.
-
How's the weather in your part of the world? Nice bit of sunshine here at the moment.
-
Ali has just told me Mertol is on the case now. Innnncoooommmmming. ::)
Are these boards moderated?
-
How's the weather in your part of the world? Nice bit of sunshine here at the moment.
is it really i will ask the Landlord to move a thunderstorm there.
-
Can't we be buddies? Ali definately said something about a buddy. ???
-
Aaaah Bongo needs work, I don't think he saw the second one coming. ::)
Still posting garbage then Hartley?
You delight in humilating anyone who disagrees with you.
I feel somewhat ashamed to even to comment. Go away Hartley and find someone else to annoy.
My opinion of you has not changed, yet you still believe that I will suck up to you.
I must admit it took a while, but now I am wiser Steve.
-
Can't we be buddies? Ali definately said something about a buddy. ???
Well blow me down with a feather, Ali strikes again.
I'm not sure about you lot but if Ali Bongo says Jeremy is innocent then I can't really argue, not with this level of accuracy. :o
Hi Pip. ::)
-
How do these threads descend into personal rows, I am completely baffled
-
How do these threads descend into personal rows, I am completely baffled
You and me both. ???
-
I hope it won't be too long before Jeremy hears the decision.....
-
You and me both. ???
It's not too hard to followis it?
When you get slagged off by the mighty Steve, then it should be expected that there is some sort of retaliation.
-
I think the main problem here is about people wanting to always get the last bloody word in, what's wrong with these people? >:(
Oh I seeeeee, it's me, it's all my fault? I'm not sure how, but if you say so. ::)
-
Oh, that's insufficient, you'd like an insult too? It's a pleasure, old chap.
Your complete disregard for justice makes my flesh creep.
[/size]
Best quote of the week
Genius
-
I think the main problem here is about people wanting to always get the last bloody word in, what's wrong with these people? >:(
Oh I seeeeee, it's me, it's all my fault? I'm not sure how, but if you say so. ::)
Yes it is you Steve. I have always tried to be polite to you, but this was not recpricated. Instead you tried to belittle me and my opinions, so my respect for you went out of the window.
My opinion remains the same, but I will not bore you of them.
-
[/size]
Best quote of the week
Genius
You see, that's why we are so different, my best quote of the weeks was:
"It's strange, isn't it. You stand in the middle of a library and go aaaaagghhhh' and everyone just stares at you. But you do the same thing on an aeroplane, and everyone joins in."
By Tommy Cooper (Obviously it wasn't this week though ::) )
-
Yes it is you Steve. I have always tried to be polite to you, but this was not recpricated. Instead you tried to belittle me and my opinions, so my respect for you went out of the window.
My opinion remains the same, but I will not bore you of them.
Get out of here, you re-registered as Pip not so long ago to mouth off at me, look a little closer to home I think.
-
I think certain people on this forum have an amazing aptitude for winding themselves up.
I made an error in a ponderous post about the possible response of the CCRC to the recent 'Arizonian tests' should there be no referral, my error was to miss out a couple of words at the beginning of the sentence which potentially altered the meaning, or at least opened up the option of an alternative interpretation.
I discovered the error a mere minute after posting, in my horror, I quickly logged back on to the forum and edited my post, correcting it so that it could not be misinterpreted.
What has since followed is rather bizarre and to be fair I could have nipped it in the bud, however, the stupidity and aggressive/abusive reaction from certain quarters became amusing to me and I thought I'd let them show a little bit of their true nature before setting them straight.
Rochy, I apologise for not setting you right sooner, I should have PM'd you as I did with others, it's not your responses which I have described above, I genuinely find you to be a good chap and entirely reasonable in the way that you conduct yourself.
_____________
Newsflash over. ::)
OK Hartley, fair do's. I certainly did wind my self up. It seemed to start with your reply to Campion, who was a bit taunting him self (if he doesn't mind me saying so). I'm open minded that the decision could go either way. Apologies to Vic, who I was a bit rude to.
-
OK Hartley, fair do's. I certainly did wind my self up. It seemed to start with your reply to Campion, who was a bit taunting him self (if he doesn't mind me saying so). I'm open minded that the decision could go either way. Apologies to Vic, who I was a bit rude to.
No problem, I know I can irritate people just by logging on lately. ::)
-
Get out of here, you re-registered as Pip not so long ago to mouth off at me, look a little closer to home I think.
I hav'nt returned as much as you have. You are like a ball. You can't let go can you Steve?
Trouble is we all know you are a fraud, and a wind up merchant.
I wonder how you have so much inside information? I do not believe for one moment that you have any affiliation to the family,
-
No problem, I know I can irritate people just by logging on lately. ::)
I wonder why ???
-
No problem, I know I can irritate people just by logging on lately. ::)
Well you are outnumbered for a start, which doesn't help. I don't mind reading you retaliate when you're being sniped at. But sometimes you appear to go looking for it or deliberately invite it.
-
I haven't returned as much as you have. You are like a ball. You can't let go can you Steve?
Trouble is we all know you are a fraud, and a wind up merchant.
I wonder how you have so much inside information? I do not believe for one moment that you have any affiliation to the family,
Yes you are absolutely correct, as I said yesterday to Mertol, I have absolutely no affiliation to any of the family members, never even met them. I have no inside information, I just happen to be a capable researcher and fraudulently pass off information as having come from a more direct source.
Okay Cliff/Buddy/Pip? Any chance you now fancy toning down the unprovoked insults?
Cheers.
-
You never fooled me for a second read my posts Hartley
-
Yes you are absolutely correct, as I said yesterday to Mertol, I have absolutely no affiliation to any of the family members, never even met them. I have no inside information, I just happen to be a capable researcher and fraudulantly pass of information as having come from a more direct source.
Okay Cliff/Buddy/Pip? Any chance you now fancy toning down the unprovoked insults?
Cheers.
Rubbish
-
Rubbish
Are you collecting? ???
-
David_Frank quiet on the other forum is it with 6 members?
-
Hartley your mate is on but she's in disguise
-
Yes you are absolutely correct, as I said yesterday to Mertol, I have absolutely no affiliation to any of the family members, never even met them. I have no inside information, I just happen to be a capable researcher and fraudulently pass off information as having come from a more direct source.
Okay Cliff/Buddy/Pip? Any chance you now fancy toning down the unprovoked insults?
Cheers.
Okay Steve as long as you reciprocate
-
Okay Steve as long as you reciprocate
You've lost me, before today I haven't even acknowledged your existence for as long as I can remember, despite your continual insults.
If you have an issue, then it has nothing to do with me.
-
Who was I taunting ?
-
You've lost me, before today I haven't even acknowledged your existence for as long as I can remember, despite your continual insults.
If you have an issue, then it has nothing to do with me.
What, you have taken great delight in humiliating me. You no longer exist to me now.
You need to grow up Steve and realise that this is not all about YOU.
-
Hartley while you are on can you find out if Jeremys conviction is overturned how quickly does he get the keys cars land etc back because it will all be rightfully his then wont it
Just a rough timescale or do you think Anne would leave immediately like the next day because shes lost
-
Who was I taunting ?
Campion, I was referring to your posts about there having been no response from the other side of the fence, re the Arizona experts' findings. These in turn triggered Hartley's first post about the CCRC making their decision etc.
-
Aha, I thought it was for taking the piss out of the jaywalking rabbit !
-
Can I just add I was with someone when I found the rabbit and they confirmed he was in good health he didnt have mix a whatever it was
-
Hartley while you are on can you find out if Jeremys conviction is overturned how quickly does he get the keys cars land etc back because it will all be rightfully his then wont it
Just a rough timescale or do you think Anne would leave immediately like the next day because shes lost
Has Hartley gone? didnt he like my question?
-
No it just proves that they are aware of all parties and all victims involved in one of the most bloody crimes of recent times. Imo.
Hartley, I'd really feel like a "victim" if I had been convicted on the silencer evidence!
Lets recap:
1) "Lucky find" of a silencer in a cupboard even after the same cupboard had been searched by Police.
2) Someone had the clever idea of moving the "lucky find" - very bright indeed.
3) David Boutflour decides to scrape blood off it because it "fascinates" him before handing to the Police.
4) As a afterthought we'll let the Police know we have it and they can pop over and pick it up.
I don't believe a word of the relatives silencer story and THE SILENCER SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN EVIDENCE. The fact you or Vidvic will not agree on this point makes me feel you will never see events from any other viewpoint but the relatives. How ridiculous was it to move key evidence, tamper with it and then still expect it to be used to convict someone of murder.
On the silencer evidence alone ........Jeremy should have been leaving court in a Taxi in 86.
-
Has Hartley gone? didnt he like my question?
Tail between his legs Jackie
-
Hartley, I'd really feel like a "victim" if I had been convicted on the silencer evidence!
Lets recap:
1) "Lucky find" of a silencer in a cupboard even after the same cupboard had been searched by Police.
2) Someone had the clever idea of moving the "lucky find" - very bright indeed.
3) David Boutflour decides to scrape blood off it because it "fascinates" him before handing to the Police.
4) As a afterthought we'll let the Police know we have it and they can pop over and pick it up.
I don't believe a word of the relatives silencer story and THE SILENCER SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN EVIDENCE. The fact you or Vidvic will not agree on this point makes me feel you will never see events from any other viewpoint but the relatives. How ridiculous was it to move key evidence, tamper with it and then still expect it to be used to convict someone of murder.
On the silencer evidence alone ........Jeremy should have been leaving court in a Taxi in 86.
Absolutely.
-
Tail between his legs Jackie
Buddy
Its the burning question in all of this really isnt it. It was all about the money!!!
IF Jeremys conviction is overturned everything should rightfully be handed back to him plus interest
We will see if the extended family do this asap so they can get on with their lives quietly
If Jeremys conviction is overturned nothing ever belonged to the extended family did it
We all know where Neville and June wanted it to go
-
What, you have taken great delight in humiliating me. You no longer exist to me now.
You need to grow up Steve and realise that this is not all about YOU.
Bizarre. ??? I pointed out to you that I hadn't replied or responded to you for as long as I can remember, implying that I didn't understand how on Earth you think you are being humiliated by me when I have not interacted with you in any way shape or form, and you reply like that?
I guess it takes all sorts. ::)
-
They used to call it undertakers eye of old the ability to read or to put together a picture of what a person is by looking at them or by the way they act, in hartleys case the answer was there all the time .
-
Rubbish
I second that!
-
I second that!
I third that
-
I third that
Can I fourth it too? ;D
-
I ll 5th that for a dollar
-
I sixth that too, what ever it is :)
What an earth is going on here!!! :o
-
I sixth that too, what ever it is :)
What an earth is going on here!!! :o
We're agreeing with Jackie that Hartley is talking rubbish when he claims to have no connection with Jeremy's extended family.
-
Is 7th still up for grabs? :P
-
Hartley, I'd really feel like a "victim" if I had been convicted on the silencer evidence!
Lets recap:
1) "Lucky find" of a silencer in a cupboard even after the same cupboard had been searched by Police.
2) Someone had the clever idea of moving the "lucky find" - very bright indeed.
3) David Boutflour decides to scrape blood off it because it "fascinates" him before handing to the Police.
4) As a afterthought we'll let the Police know we have it and they can pop over and pick it up.
I don't believe a word of the relatives silencer story and THE SILENCER SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN EVIDENCE. The fact you or Vidvic will not agree on this point makes me feel you will never see events from any other viewpoint but the relatives. How ridiculous was it to move key evidence, tamper with it and then still expect it to be used to convict someone of murder.
On the silencer evidence alone ........Jeremy should have been leaving court in a Taxi in 86.
Well put, Vortex!
-
To be honest, it would be helpful if you could figure out what you wanted to argue about, we've got Mertol and co saying I'm a fraud and I don't have anything to do with the 'family', so I hold my hands up and agree. Then we've got the same people arguing that I do have something to do with the 'family'.
Make ya minds up, I'm happy with either, unless it's just that you like arguing and somehow think I'm being offended?
If I could be so bold as to offer you some advice? Probably the best way of getting to me, would be to completely ignore me, deprive me of the attention I clearly revel in. Go on give it a trial run, it might even lower your blood pressure a bit. :P
There is certainly an interesting mix of people on board. :o
-
Well put, Vortex!
I agree, excellent post Vortex, I'm quite jealous I didn't write it myself. :-[
-
Buddy
Its the burning question in all of this really isnt it. It was all about the money!!!
IF Jeremys conviction is overturned everything should rightfully be handed back to him plus interest
We will see if the extended family do this asap so they can get on with their lives quietly
If Jeremys conviction is overturned nothing ever belonged to the extended family did it
We all know where Neville and June wanted it to go
that would have to be settled in a civil court.
-
Absolutely nugnug. As jackie will have already been informed by ngb no doubt. Asking when everything will be handed back to Jeremy is complete nonsense. It's not as simple as that.
-
Absolutely nugnug. As jackie will have already been informed by ngb no doubt. Asking when everything will be handed back to Jeremy is complete nonsense. It's not as simple as that.
And yet this inheritance was taken away from him in a crown court surely? As a murderer cannot inherit from the victims of his crime?
-
Absolutely nugnug. As jackie will have already been informed by ngb no doubt. Asking when everything will be handed back to Jeremy is complete nonsense. It's not as simple as that.
I've took the view that if JB ever did manage get his convictions quashed, he should turn the other cheek on adoptive extended family / inheritance issues. If it was me and I had indeed spent 27 or however many years in prison before clearing my name, I'd be saying 'keep it' and just walk off to a new life.
-
I've took the view that if JB ever did manage get his convictions quashed, he should turn the other cheek on adoptive extended family / inheritance issues. If it was me and I had indeed spent 27 or however many years in prison before clearing my name, I'd be saying 'keep it' and just walk off to a new life.
Whats he going to live on? Unless of course he gets compensation from the crown?
-
Whats he going to live on? Unless of course he gets compensation from the crown?
He'll manage (should it occur).
-
For once Rochford I disagree. He should get compensation for his 27 years incarceration AND make sure he gets everything that was rightfully his in the first place and leave the so called 'family members' with what they deserve absolutely NOTHING. They shouldn't be worried anyway about being left with nothing because being in prison themselves for their part in all of this they won't need anything anyway and before I get a reply to my comments from either Vidvic, who although I may disagree with most of the time I do respect his comments and Hartley, answer me this IF JB is found to have not been responsible for this tragedy by Law then what would be wrong with him getting what was rightfully his at the time knowing that his mother and father wanted him to have these assets in the first place? :)
-
For once Rochford I disagree. He should get compensation for his 27 years incarceration AND make sure he gets everything that was rightfully his in the first place and leave the so called 'family members' with what they deserve absolutely NOTHING. They shouldn't be worried anyway about being left with nothing because being in prison themselves for their part in all of this they won't need anything anyway and before I get a reply to my comments from either Vidvic, who although I may disagree with most of the time I do respect his comments and Hartley, answer me this IF JB is found to have not been responsible for this tragedy by Law then what would be wrong with him getting what was rightfully his at the time knowing that his mother and father wanted him to have these assets in the first place? :)
Hi Gillian, that's an extremely difficult question to answer unemotionally, particularly given that I find the manner of your references to the 'family' quite difficult to relate to, I obviously hold a very different view to you.
Having said that, if we took ourselves away from this case and invented an identical case involving fictional characters rather than people who I consider to be victims, then I would say that if it was proven that a person was the 'victim' of a miscarriage of justice, of the magnitude that is suggested, then they should absolutely receive the relevant compensation as determined by current legislation. In terms of repercussions (financial or criminal) to the fictional family members, then it would depend on all sorts of different factors which would no doubt be appropriately dealt with by the authorities (if relevant) or in civil hearings.
Taking a quick trip back to the real life situation put before us, I'm quite clearly prejudiced towards Jeremy due to my belief that he is guilty and correctly incarcerated, so I don't believe any of this is ever going to become relevant, although I understand that you and others (being a pro-JB forum) harbour an opposing view.
It's all about positions and perspectives, plus, as I've said many times, it would be a bit of a boring world if we all thought the same way.
That's about the best I can do for now, hopefully it addresses your questions.
-
For once Rochford I disagree.
Hi Gillian,
I never knew you were always in agreement with me 8)
I think Bamber has been tainted in a wider sense, as having been impatient / greedy etc. If he was able to wipe his convictions from the face of the earth, rendering all previous tales about him as exaggerated propaganda, then maybe he should fight for what was rightfully his. However I suspect that the evidence that might have been used to blow the case wide open has been destroyed. The poster 'Ron Cook' disagrees. He and Mike's alleged informant believe some of the evidence remains. Unless a cop comes forward and accepts the risk of being made a 'scapegoat' then maybe Jeremy's best hope is to undermine the prosecution's case at trial against him and secure freedom via that route. I am unsure as to whether such a victory would be strong enough to dis-spell some of the stories about him / erode support for the relatives.
For what it's worth (not a lot to some I admit), I believe that if those former police officers who have not fronted the retention of a false conviction via the media were to come forward, they should be offered an amnesty.
-
Hi Gillian, that's an extremely difficult question to answer unemotionally, particularly given that I find the manner of your references to the 'family' quite difficult to relate to, I obviously hold a very different view to you.
Having said that, if we took ourselves away from this case and invented an identical case involving fictional characters rather than people who I consider to be victims, then I would say that if it was proven that a person was the 'victim' of a miscarriage of justice, of the magnitude that is suggested, then they should absolutely receive the relevant compensation as determined by current legislation. In terms of repercussions (financial or criminal) to the fictional family members, then it would depend on all sorts of different factors which would no doubt be appropriately dealt with by the authorities (if relevant) or in civil hearings.
Taking a quick trip back to the real life situation put before us, I'm quite clearly prejudiced towards Jeremy due to my belief that he is guilty and correctly incarcerated, so I don't believe any of this is ever going to become relevant, although I understand that you and others (being a pro-JB forum) harbour an opposing view.
It's all about positions and perspectives, plus, as I've said many times, it would be a bit of a boring world if we all thought the same way.
That's about the best I can do for now, hopefully it addresses your questions.
Great post hartley.
-
Gillian I totally agree especially if Jeremys conviction is overturned re the finding of the magic now you see it now you don't silencer
You could open the floodgates for anyone to set up a relative to claim an inheritance
Vidvic it's all about integrity and doing the right thing, if Jeremys conviction is overturned they should hand everything back and leave quietly and go as far away as possible
How dare they even contemplate fighting JB for what was rightfully his
Even if they handed back everything JB owned plus a hundred million pound it would not make up for 27 years in prison branded a child murderer
Anne Eaton has her children and grandchildren Jeremy hasn't
Let's hope the relatives DO THE RIGHT THING
-
Rochy I do not agree it is a good post at all.
The extended family and Hartley have tried on numerous occasions to blacken Jeremys name
I could point to 100 ways they have done this.
David Boutflour tried to mislead the jury at trial Sheila knew nothing about guns
In my mind that's as bad as perjury
I bet 98% of people on this forum believe the silencer was planted.
The relatives saw a window of opportunity and took it.
Why should people be allowed to keep the spoils of any crime, drug dealers are not
JB should get back everything his parents and grandmother WANTED him to have and compensation should be the icing on the cake
-
Rochy I do not agree it is a good post at all.
The extended family and Hartley have tried on numerous occasions to blacken Jeremys name
I could point to 100 ways they have done this.
David Boutflour tried to mislead the jury at trial Sheila knew nothing about guns
In my mind that's as bad as perjury
I bet 98% of people on this forum believe the silencer was planted.
The relatives saw a window of opportunity and took it.
Why should people be allowed to keep the spoils of any crime, drug dealers are not
JB should get back everything his parents and grandmother WANTED him to have and compensation should be the icing on the cake
You make some valid points jackie. I meant that hartley had worded his post well.
From what I have learned about the relatives I have mixed views towards them. I do believe they were victims of a horrendous tragedy. I don't believe they were let down by police, in the manner being portrayed by them. I do believe they were deceived by police. However I have a nagging feeling that one relative may have known more than the others. I'm referring to Robert. Like many many other people, I believe Jeremy was framed for these murders.
-
Rochy but you are saying this extended family should keep millions of pounds when they tried to set Jeremy up for murder
Robert Boutflour misled the jury re who would inherit
David Boutflour misled the jury about Sheila and her knowledge of guns
Anne Eaton tried to mislead everyone about Jeremys character (read her statements about Jeremys character and Barbara Wilsons)
I don't believe they were victims
Look at their behaviour after the murders they were not grief-stricken
Anne Eaton tried to make out she was friends with Sheila but didn't even know one twin from another
JB was well and truly set up, he was the victim
-
Jackie, I believe they have suffered a grievous loss, the like of which the average person could not possible comprehend.
At the same time, I believe he should tell them to 'shove' their inheritance. The truth of what took place lies with the police. The truth of the investigation lies with both the police and relatives.
Bamber was framed and I have major doubts he was involved in any way whatsoever.
Should he ever quash his convictions, I believe he should choose his language and actions with great caution.
-
True Jackie but Jeremy has said he's not interested in money at all so chances are he won't bother. Apparently he meditates in prison and has found peace within himself, he will need all the strength he has found to deal with freedom. I should hope he would receive compensation and that will be enough for him to start a new life.. The money is so bound up in the crime that it would be best left behind imo.
-
Maybe a good solution would be for the land, assets and the caravan park be donated to a children's charity/mental health charity as a permanent memorial to the twins. I bet Colin would like to see that
-
Maybe a good solution would be for the land, assets and the caravan park be donated to a children's charity/mental health charity as a permanent memorial to the twins. I bet Colin would like to see that
I like that Jackie. I really don't think revenge would be good for Jeremy tho' the picture of him returning like an 'avenging angel' has it's attractions.
-
Maybe a good solution would be for the land, assets and the caravan park be donated to a children's charity/mental health charity as a permanent memorial to the twins. I bet Colin would like to see that
Sounds like a plan.
Although I think there is the small matter of persuading the state to overturn his conviction before you get too carried away.
-
Sounds like a plan.
Although I think there is the small matter of persuading the state to overturn his conviction before you get too carried away.
Hartley, unlikely a scenario as it may seem, are you able envisage what the relatives reaction towards Jeremy would be, if one or more former police officers linked to the case came forward to express that Sheila had been alive prior to the police raid and Jeremy had been framed for the murders?
-
Should he ever quash his convictions, I believe he should choose his language and actions with great caution.
Should he ever quash his convictions then yes I also believe he should choose his language and actions with great caution.
Having hopefully learnt (if innocent) that some of his language and actions all those years ago did him no favours - imo.
-
Hartley, unlikely a scenario as it may seem, are you able envisage what the relatives reaction towards Jeremy would be, if one or more former police officers linked to the case came forward to express that Sheila had been alive prior to the police raid and Jeremy had been framed for the murders?
I have no idea, I could use my imagination I suppose, particularly if the information resided with an officer who maintained contact, but I'm pretty sure you would get to the same place if you used your own imagination.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to your question, but I just don't personally see it's relevance and in any event I'm not really blessed with the information to provide you with an accurate answer.
-
Rochy but you are saying this extended family should keep millions of pounds when they tried to set Jeremy up for murder
Robert Boutflour misled the jury re who would inherit
David Boutflour misled the jury about Sheila and her knowledge of guns
Anne Eaton tried to mislead everyone about Jeremys character (read her statements about Jeremys character and Barbara Wilsons)
I don't believe they were victims
Look at their behaviour after the murders they were not grief-stricken
Anne Eaton tried to make out she was friends with Sheila but didn't even know one twin from another
JB was well and truly set up, he was the victim
I totally agree with you that Jeremy was the victim, Jackie. I have never seen the extended family as victims as they were far too quick and eager to put aside their grief and devote themselves to disconnecting Jeremy from his freedom and inheritance.
let's not forget that the extended family were bequeathed merely token sums under June and Nevill Bamber's Wills. They made huge gains as a result of Jeremy's imprisonment and loss of his inheritance.
-
Jackie, I believe they have suffered a grievous loss, the like of which the average person could not possible comprehend.
At the same time, I believe he should tell them to 'shove' their inheritance. The truth of what took place lies with the police. The truth of the investigation lies with both the police and relatives.
Bamber was framed and I have major doubts he was involved in any way whatsoever.
Should he ever quash his convictions, I believe he should choose his language and actions with great caution.
It was Jeremy's inheritance, not 'theirs', Rocky, they only benefitted from it as a result of Jeremy's wrongful conviction. I would think Jeremy will want his inheritance returned to him - and good luck to him!
-
I have no idea, I could use my imagination I suppose, particularly if the information resided with an officer who maintained contact, but I'm pretty sure you would get to the same place if you used your own imagination.
It's interesting to me that one of the officers who has maintained contact is one of those most closely linked to the silencer evidence.
Using my imagination, If an officer came forward who did not belong to the same group that has maintained contact with the relatives, I can hardly see why they would undermine such former colleagues, save for the reason that those former colleagues had been lying.
-
Quite how losing 5 members of your close family is classed as a benefit is beyond me. Keira, for someone with your skill and knowledge of looking into local history, for you to continue your ludicrous claims that in some way this family or families 'needed the money' is hard to take.
-
Very good post Rochy
-
Should jeremy walk , i would hope very much WHF is empty asap however things need sorting and ultra fast , i.e stopping squatters moving in , nosy parkers , ghoul searchers, sadly we live in a rubbish world, the land would need sorting as well, if i was jeremy i would sell the lot flatten WHF and move out of England.
-
Should jeremy walk , i would hope very much WHF is empty asap however things need sorting and ultra fast , i.e stopping squatters moving in , nosy parkers , ghoul searchers, sadly we live in a rubbish world, the land would need sorting as well, if i was jeremy i would sell the lot flatten WHF and move out of England.
Mertol. WHF is rented.
-
Mertol. WHF is rented.
I get the impression he didn't like it there anyway?
-
Should jeremy walk , i would hope very much WHF is empty asap however things need sorting and ultra fast , i.e stopping squatters moving in , nosy parkers , ghoul searchers, sadly we live in a rubbish world, the land would need sorting as well, if i was jeremy i would sell the lot flatten WHF and move out of England.
I'm sure the 'Henry Smith Charity' would manage the properties that they own as they see fit.
In any event, there could well be some planning issues in demolishing a grade II listed building. :-\
-
Mertol. WHF is rented.
Anyone with a brain would flatten it as a sign of closure not carry on for greed.
-
Thank you all for your comments and I do agree with some of what everyone says.
Hartley - I know we are on opposite sides of the camp, so to speak, but I do agree that "it would be a bit of a boring world if we all thought the same way" and thank you for your fictional character scenario. I would like to add at this point I am only a pro-bamber supporter because I believe that the evidence points to innocence but if evidence was ever to be produced that was so compelling that it proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then my opinion would of course change immediately and I would gladly admit that I had been wrong to support a guilty man. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this evidence has not been produced and therefore I remain a pro-bamber supporter until it does. :)
Rochford - My secret is out!!! I agree that JB has been tainted in the wider sense and some evidence may have been destroyed but I do think, in my opinion, that there is more very crucial evidence held under PII that would once and for all 'solve' this tragedy and that is why I 100% think that this evidence should be released immediately although I know this is very unlikely to ever happen. Although I do not agree that any policer officer involved at the time should be given amnesty if they came forward I can understand where you are coming from and if it meant that this was the only way of getting to the truth then this should happen. I also agree that the family "have suffered a grievous loss, the like of which the average person could not possible comprehend". I really do sympathise at their loss and cannot begin to comprehend what it is like to lose so many relatives in such an appalling manner especially when the evidence supports another family member being responsible. :)
Jackie - I totally agree that it is all about integrity and doing the right thing and I would hope if it ever became reality then the family would do exactly that. I also totally agree that "it would not make up for 27 years in prison branded a child murderer." A person's life and freedom is priceless. Based on the evidence that was found by the family and the manner in which it was found, I do, in my opinion, believe that JB was framed and if this is found to be the case then I would hope those involved would be dealt with in the appropriate manner. This also applies to the police officers etc involved in the case. :)
Maggie - Thank you for your post. If JB continues to feel the same if and when he is released then I must say he is a better person than what I would be in his situation. I would do all I could to make sure justice was done and what was rightfully mine was returned to me whilst I must state making the most of my freedom. I would hope that I would be able to achieve both with the help of those who had supported me. :)
There is, of course, also the potential of him earning millions from possible interviews, films, books etc.
All of this is of course irrelevant unless the CCRC refer and his conviction is quashed. The waiting is almost over... :) :) :)
-
The above reply was up to and including post #286. :)
-
The above reply was up to and including post #286. :)
Very economic. ;)
And good post.
-
I get the impression he didn't like it there anyway?
Grahame, you're absolutely spot on. Jeremy informed the executor, basil cox, that the charity wanted him to move out, hence why he was having a massive sell off. Basil was angry that the charity should treat Jeremy in this way. After Jeremy was imprisoned and the farm fell empty, the charity confirmed that no such conversation had taken place. One can only assume that if Jeremy hadn't been imprisoned his plan was not to remain at WHF. When the tenancy came up for renewel Jeremy suprisingly applied from prison to take on the tenancy but this was obviously rejected and Peter and Ann took it on.
-
Vidvic that's what you have been told and you have no idea if it was true
Like David Boutflour trying to mislead the jury about Sheila and guns
Do you agree
-
I'll try this argument again, but if it gets personal it ends.
Over the past years you've got to know Jeremy. Over the past years, I've got to know the eatons and the boutflours.
You trust what you're told and I trust what I am told. We are in similar positions, are we not?
Just because I post something which I believe to be true, because my friends tell me this, does not make it rubbish. Before you attack it, why not find out if it is true first.
-
For example;
You have no idea whether Nevill called Jeremy on the night of the murders. Not a clue.
-
Grahame, you're absolutely spot on. Jeremy informed the executor, basil cox, that the charity wanted him to move out, hence why he was having a massive sell off. Basil was angry that the charity should treat Jeremy in this way. After Jeremy was imprisoned and the farm fell empty, the charity confirmed that no such conversation had taken place. One can only assume that if Jeremy hadn't been imprisoned his plan was not to remain at WHF. When the tenancy came up for renewel Jeremy suprisingly applied from prison to take on the tenancy but this was obviously rejected and Peter and Ann took it on.
Yes I can see the logic of occupancy there. If someone didn't move in then the charity was bound to get someone else to occupy it.
-
Especially as one interested party were a B&B / hotel company specialising in 'murder mystery weekends'. Maybe you can put yourself in that situation and try to understand why they retained the tenancy.
Ann is quite clear though in saying that her overriding emotion to WHF was that June and Nevill loved the place and she wanted to keep it going for them. I don't know if I could have done the same and moved in, but it's very clear talking to Ann how many mixed emotions were involved, even now looking back at their decision.
Anyone who says that Ann is unmoved by the events of 1985 is talking out of their arse.
-
Rubbish Vic and let's use the lampshade as an example
-
Yes I can see the logic of occupancy there. If someone didn't move in then the charity was bound to get someone else to occupy it.
Yes but the family were aware that WHF was slipping from their grasp. They could not let this happen could they? They would have lost everything. Can someone explain why there was so much in fighting between the family?
Someone made a lot of money from the murders, and it was certainly not Jeremy. How strange the family found ALL the evidence.
-
Rubbish Vic and let's use the lampshade as an example
Sorry jackie, I genuinely don't follow...what do you mean?
-
Especially as one interested party were a B&B / hotel company specialising in 'murder mystery weekends'. Maybe you can put yourself in that situation and try to understand why they retained the tenancy.
Ann is quite clear though in saying that her overriding emotion to WHF was that June and Nevill loved the place and she wanted to keep it going for them. I don't know if I could have done the same and moved in, but it's very clear talking to Ann how many mixed emotions were involved, even now looking back at their decision.
Anyone who says that Ann is unmoved by the events of 1985 is talking out of their arse.
I've never thought that there was anything sinister in their decision to move in. However, I am unsure as to whether I would have had the nerves to do so. I would be on edge about what I would no doubt perceive as the 'vibes' of the place, in the wake of the killings. For them to have moved in leads me to imagine them as being very strong, practical, no nonsense individuals.
-
For example;
You have no idea whether Nevill called Jeremy on the night of the murders. Not a clue.
Vic try and find out where I have said a phone call definitely happened you won't find it because it can't be proved
Please post the letter from the charity who own WHF it must exist so easily proved
-
Yes but the family were aware that WHF was slipping from their grasp. They could not let this happen could they? They would have lost everything. Can someone explain why there was so much in fighting between the family?
Someone made a lot of money from the murders, and it was certainly not Jeremy. How strange the family found ALL the evidence.
How would the bamber farm transferring from Nevill to Jeremy possibly affect the family fortune? The only impact was that Jeremy would have been an equal partner in the caravan park.
-
Vic try and find out where I have said a phone call definitely happened you won't find it because it can't be proved
Please post the letter from the charity who own WHF it must exist so easily proved
I think you are setting world records for missing the point.
-
Grahame, you're absolutely spot on. Jeremy informed the executor, basil cox, that the charity wanted him to move out, hence why he was having a massive sell off. Basil was angry that the charity should treat Jeremy in this way. After Jeremy was imprisoned and the farm fell empty, the charity confirmed that no such conversation had taken place. One can only assume that if Jeremy hadn't been imprisoned his plan was not to remain at WHF. When the tenancy came up for renewel Jeremy suprisingly applied from prison to take on the tenancy but this was obviously rejected and Peter and Ann took it on.
This is taken off Jeremys website about Jeremy and farming
Jeremy was definitely a ‘farmer’s boy’ who very much enjoyed that life style and wanted it to continue that way.
From 79-80 Jeremy spent time in Australia travelling. For 5 months he worked on a sugar plantation working with a family in Queensland; he really enjoyed employment for them on the farm and still speaks about their ingenious inventions of various types of machinery to harvest crops. At the end of that year he went to New Zealand and back to Australia a couple of times but for no great length of time. It has been suggested that Jeremy hated farming, if this was so then why did he work on a farm in Australia and not as a barman for example?
-
This is taken off Jeremys website about Jeremy and farming
Jeremy was definitely a ‘farmer’s boy’ who very much enjoyed that life style and wanted it to continue that way.
From 79-80 Jeremy spent time in Australia travelling. For 5 months he worked on a sugar plantation working with a family in Queensland; he really enjoyed employment for them on the farm and still speaks about their ingenious inventions of various types of machinery to harvest crops. At the end of that year he went to New Zealand and back to Australia a couple of times but for no great length of time. It has been suggested that Jeremy hated farming, if this was so then why did he work on a farm in Australia and not as a barman for example?
So this is true is it?
-
This is taken off Jeremys website about Jeremy and farming
Jeremy was definitely a ‘farmer’s boy’ who very much enjoyed that life style and wanted it to continue that way.
From 79-80 Jeremy spent time in Australia travelling. For 5 months he worked on a sugar plantation working with a family in Queensland; he really enjoyed employment for them on the farm and still speaks about their ingenious inventions of various types of machinery to harvest crops. At the end of that year he went to New Zealand and back to Australia a couple of times but for no great length of time. It has been suggested that Jeremy hated farming, if this was so then why did he work on a farm in Australia and not as a barman for example?
So why did he work as barman and waiter in Colchester?
-
Vic try and find out where I have said a phone call definitely happened you won't find it because it can't be proved
Please post the letter from the charity who own WHF it must exist so easily proved
I suggest you start believing what you're told, as otherwise you're on the wrong team!!! Lol
-
So why did he work as barman and waiter in Colchester?
Possibly because he enjoyed socialising and meeting people, I would expect 'Sloppy Joe's' was quite a cool place to be in the 1980s. We must remember Jeremy was a very young man at the time, and like most young people who have the opportunity, changed his mind about what he wanted to do quite often. Jeremy wasn't at all mature in 1985/6 he was just a kid.
-
Vidvic
This should tell you all about the lampshade
After the trial, the Eaton’s moved into White House Farm, but Jeremy believes it is likely they moved in sooner. In Jeremy Bamber’s Interview with The Times in 2010 David James Smith details that “For many years Bamber has hinted at what he is now claiming. He told me he believes his cousins, motivated by the £400,000 estate, manufactured evidence against him, perjured themselves in court and conspired with the police to have him convicted and do him out of his inheritance. Bamber was disinherited on conviction and the estate passed to the Boutflours . . . . Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after the murders and still lives there with her family. Bamber told me he thought she was a ‘sick puppy’ for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me for this article – indeed, after I wrote her a polite letter I received a “warning” call from an Essex Police Detective Superintendent asking me to leave her alone, which I did – but David Bouflour was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear he doesn’t understand his sisters actions either, how could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s children had suffered nightmares. As well you might” Smith goes on to detail “Anthony Pargeter has waged his own long legal struggle against the estate, to claim what he believes is his share. . . . Bamber was downgraded some years ago from a Category A prisoner to Category B meaning he was not such a risk of escape his conditions could be slightly relaxed. He was upgraded again to Category A apparently after his cousins received guidance from Essex Police on how they might make their feelings about his change of status known.” The relatives had made these submissions after the City of London Police Enquiry had shaken them with their endless questioning which Ann had said was making her ill after the police interviewed her in the kitchen at White House Farm where her uncle’s body had been found, odd then that she lived in this house since 1986 but never felt upset until the police came to question her about her involvement in the case.
In 2002 the Metropolitan police attended White House Farm to see if they could obtain any DNA evidence from the farm as many of the furnishings, fittings and decorations still remained as they were on the night of the tragedy, indeed in 2004 Ann Eaton showed a camera crew from ITV1 around the house where 5 of her relatives died without her batting an eyelid. The Kitchen was as it had been and so was much of the house. Previously Ann had also worked with a television company to make a drama on the tragedy for ITV1 where she was portrayed by actress Diane Keen, she has also worked with authors of books on the case and other documentary makers. Ann Eaton has actively courted the media and gained notoriety and money as a result of Jeremy Bamber’s conviction.
In the master bedroom of White House Farm the Metropolitan police pulled up carpets and obtained DNA from the floor boards. DS Grater examined the bedroom at White House Farm in 2002 and said:
“I took possession of a bedside lamp which had apparent areas of dark staining on the lampshade. This lamp was in the main bedroom on top of the bedside cabinet to the right of the bed. I recognized this lamp from the scene photographs taken in 1985 as being identical to a bedside lamp which was in the main bedroom on the night of the murders.”[28]
Curiously, for 17 years Ann and Peter Eaton had preserved so much from the tragedy including a potentially bloodied lamp. In addition to this the wall paper was also the same in 2002 as seen in these crime scene photographs the master bedroom has barely changed at all.
-
I suggest you start believing what you're told, as otherwise you're on the wrong team!!! Lol
Where does loads of laughs enter this debate. you obviously consider this as some sort of joke.
You had better reconsider your position with your brother in law,
-
I think you are setting world records for missing the point.
Anne Eaton must have records of this you never know it might change some of us from innocent to guilty
-
Vidvic
This should tell you all about the lampshade
After the trial, the Eaton’s moved into White House Farm, but Jeremy believes it is likely they moved in sooner. In Jeremy Bamber’s Interview with The Times in 2010 David James Smith details that “For many years Bamber has hinted at what he is now claiming. He told me he believes his cousins, motivated by the £400,000 estate, manufactured evidence against him, perjured themselves in court and conspired with the police to have him convicted and do him out of his inheritance. Bamber was disinherited on conviction and the estate passed to the Boutflours . . . . Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after the murders and still lives there with her family. Bamber told me he thought she was a ‘sick puppy’ for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me for this article – indeed, after I wrote her a polite letter I received a “warning” call from an Essex Police Detective Superintendent asking me to leave her alone, which I did – but David Bouflour was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear he doesn’t understand his sisters actions either, how could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s children had suffered nightmares. As well you might” Smith goes on to detail “Anthony Pargeter has waged his own long legal struggle against the estate, to claim what he believes is his share. . . . Bamber was downgraded some years ago from a Category A prisoner to Category B meaning he was not such a risk of escape his conditions could be slightly relaxed. He was upgraded again to Category A apparently after his cousins received guidance from Essex Police on how they might make their feelings about his change of status known.” The relatives had made these submissions after the City of London Police Enquiry had shaken them with their endless questioning which Ann had said was making her ill after the police interviewed her in the kitchen at White House Farm where her uncle’s body had been found, odd then that she lived in this house since 1986 but never felt upset until the police came to question her about her involvement in the case.
In 2002 the Metropolitan police attended White House Farm to see if they could obtain any DNA evidence from the farm as many of the furnishings, fittings and decorations still remained as they were on the night of the tragedy, indeed in 2004 Ann Eaton showed a camera crew from ITV1 around the house where 5 of her relatives died without her batting an eyelid. The Kitchen was as it had been and so was much of the house. Previously Ann had also worked with a television company to make a drama on the tragedy for ITV1 where she was portrayed by actress Diane Keen, she has also worked with authors of books on the case and other documentary makers. Ann Eaton has actively courted the media and gained notoriety and money as a result of Jeremy Bamber’s conviction.
In the master bedroom of White House Farm the Metropolitan police pulled up carpets and obtained DNA from the floor boards. DS Grater examined the bedroom at White House Farm in 2002 and said:
“I took possession of a bedside lamp which had apparent areas of dark staining on the lampshade. This lamp was in the main bedroom on top of the bedside cabinet to the right of the bed. I recognized this lamp from the scene photographs taken in 1985 as being identical to a bedside lamp which was in the main bedroom on the night of the murders.”[28]
Curiously, for 17 years Ann and Peter Eaton had preserved so much from the tragedy including a potentially bloodied lamp. In addition to this the wall paper was also the same in 2002 as seen in these crime scene photographs the master bedroom has barely changed at all.
Jackie, the first factual error of this piece is the first sentence. There are many more.
-
Anne Eaton must have records of this you never know it might change some of us from innocent to guilty
You never know jackie, One day you might answer a question.
-
Where does loads of laughs enter this debate. you obviously consider this as some sort of joke.
You had better reconsider your position with your brother in law,
Buddy, if jackie doesn't believe that Nevill called Jeremy that morning then that is truly laughable.
-
Vic you know exactly what I mean!
I have come to my own impartial view of this case on the available evidence not held under PII
Why keep posting hearsay when you could easily post proof
I wrote to Jeremy for a short period and do not believe what I am fed by the people who have the most to lose
-
This is taken off Jeremys website about Jeremy and farming
Jeremy was definitely a ‘farmer’s boy’ who very much enjoyed that life style and wanted it to continue that way.
From 79-80 Jeremy spent time in Australia travelling. For 5 months he worked on a sugar plantation working with a family in Queensland; he really enjoyed employment for them on the farm and still speaks about their ingenious inventions of various types of machinery to harvest crops. At the end of that year he went to New Zealand and back to Australia a couple of times but for no great length of time. It has been suggested that Jeremy hated farming, if this was so then why did he work on a farm in Australia and not as a barman for example?
I suppose this all hinges upon the supposition that Jeremy told Basil Cox that he had to move out because the charity wanted him to? It would of course settle things a bit if there were a letter of proof that this actually happened and that Jeremy actually said that?
-
Buddy, if jackie doesn't believe that Nevill called Jeremy that morning then that is truly laughable.
Its still no laughing matter Vic.
-
You know everything Vic then how about the subject you asked me about the lampshade incidentally Diane Keen made the same remarks
In the master bedroom of White House Farm the Metropolitan police pulled up carpets and obtained DNA from the floor boards. DS Grater examined the bedroom at White House Farm in 2002 and said:
“I took possession of a bedside lamp which had apparent areas of dark staining on the lampshade. This lamp was in the main bedroom on top of the bedside cabinet to the right of the bed. I recognized this lamp from the scene photographs taken in 1985 as being identical to a bedside lamp which was in the main bedroom on the night of the murders.”[28]
Curiously, for 17 years Ann and Peter Eaton had preserved so much from the tragedy including a potentially bloodied lamp. In addition to this the wall paper was also the same in 2002 as seen in these crime scene photographs the master bedroom has barely changed at all.
-
I suppose this all hinges upon the supposition that Jeremy told Basil Cox that he had to move out because the charity wanted him to? It would of course settle things a bit if there were a letter of proof that this actually happened and that Jeremy actually said that?
Not that it really matters, and I know you have just repeated what Vidvic wrote, but to save you from the wrath of 'Reader', it's 'Cock' not 'Cox'. Basil John Cock.
-
Not that it really matters, and I know you have just repeated what Vidvic wrote, but to save you from the wrath of 'Reader', it's 'Cock' not 'Cox'. Basil John Cock.
Sorry I was just taking Vics spelling as being accurate without checking. I am a bit of a cox. :)
-
Sorry I was just taking Vics spelling as being accurate without checking. I am a bit of a cox. :)
Well be careful you don't break an oar. :D
-
Hi I am new to the forum...Not sure on how to work my way around, so please bare with me.
Can I ask the forum a question regarding the 3 barrel end burn marks found on Nevill's back.
Ho do you suppose they got there....Has anyone suggested that he may have been forced downstairs
to make a call to the police?
I am a tad mixed up with the fact Nevill had time to make a call....Surely when he made that call at 3:26 there had been no shootings? For if he had been shot 3 times up in the bedroom, he would have asked for an ambulance and told the police he had been shot?
Only 15 minutes later does the police arrive, so this surely must mean the shooting took place after 3:26
:))
-
Hi I am new to the forum...Not sure on how to work my way around, so please bare with me.
Can I ask the forum a question regarding the 3 barrel end burn marks found on Nevill's back.
Ho do you suppose they got there....Has anyone suggested that he may have been forced downstairs
to make a call to the police?
I am a tad mixed up with the fact Nevill had time to make a call....Surely when he made that call at 3:26 there had been no shootings? For if he had been shot 3 times up in the bedroom, he would have asked for an ambulance and told the police he had been shot?
Only 15 minutes later does the police arrive, so this surely must mean the shooting took place after 3:26
:))
Just out of interest, why have you been looking at my profile for the last half an hour?
It's absolutely fine, just seems strange if you don't know the forum very well, I'm intrigued. :-\
Oh, I almost forgot. Welcome to the forum.
-
Hi, I wasn't aware that I was looking at anyone's profile lol....If I was I am sorry.
-
Hi, I wasn't aware that I was looking at anyone's profile lol....If I was I am sorry.
No need to be sorry, I was just curious. Maybe it was a glitch in the forum software.
-
Well be careful you don't break an oar. :D
Well at least I wasn't the twit who swam between them.
-
Well at least I wasn't the twit who swam between them.
Yes, very weird, the things that people protest about these days. ::) ;)
-
MWT said, in tests, it takes about five minutes for the Anshutz Rifle tip to get hot enough from being in contact with an Aga cooker.
-
MWT said, in tests, it takes about five minutes for the Anshutz Rifle tip to get hot enough from being in contact with an Aga cooker.
What has that got to do with the boat race? ??? Can you for once just stay on topic!!! ;D
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-[
It would be interesting to see a little more detail regarding the methods used to heat the rifle in the oven during these tests.
-
Hi I am new to the forum...Not sure on how to work my way around, so please bare with me.
Can I ask the forum a question regarding the 3 barrel end burn marks found on Nevill's back.
Ho do you suppose they got there....Has anyone suggested that he may have been forced downstairs
to make a call to the police?
I am a tad mixed up with the fact Nevill had time to make a call....Surely when he made that call at 3:26 there had been no shootings? For if he had been shot 3 times up in the bedroom, he would have asked for an ambulance and told the police he had been shot?
Only 15 minutes later does the police arrive, so this surely must mean the shooting took place after 3:26
:))
That is actually a good question. It was a fact that Ralph's body was in rigor mortice. Which indicates a longer time of death? But then again the police didn't break in til much later, which could explain that. The other thing to consider though is that many believe that Sheila was the last to die and point to the fresh apparently still wet blood running from the wounds in her neck.
-
MWT said, in tests, it takes about five minutes for the Anshutz Rifle tip to get hot enough from being in contact with an Aga cooker.
Campion, do you think the idea of heating the end of the rifle compliments the idea of crazed Sheila murdering her family before killing herself?
-
MWT said, in tests, it takes about five minutes for the Anshutz Rifle tip to get hot enough from being in contact with an Aga cooker.
I'm not sure if the cooker was high enough to come into contact with the end of the rifle? It is a bit of a puzzle though as to just how long it would take for the the rifle to get hot enough to cause burn marks on human skin?
-
That is actually a good question. It was a fact that Ralph's body was in rigor mortice. Which indicates a longer time of death? But then again the police didn't break in til much later, which could explain that. The other thing to consider though is that many believe that Sheila was the last to die and point to the fresh apparently still wet blood running from the wounds in her neck.
Hi Grahame
I have studied this case back to front....And it is documented that the Ralph was shot 3 times in the bedroom....A Pathologist report said, that one of the shots would have made Ralph speechless....thus, making him unable to make the said call at 3:26. However, because of the lack of forensic evidence it can't be proven beyond a doubt that Ralph was shot in the bedroom, even though 3 extra shell cases were found there....
The bug bare is the call....at 3:26 My daughter Shelia has gone beserk with one of my guns.....
Not my wife has been shot we need an ambulance or saying any shots had been fired.....this makes me believe that they were all still alive even at 3:36 and when Ralph phoned his son.....
Everything else I am clear about....:)
I do believe that Ralph had the gun barrel placed into his back...
-
From what I saw, the top mark/gouge was a different shape to the other two. It was wider and narrower, whilst the others were rounded and slightly smaller. I wonder what this means? Poor Neville.
-
From what I saw, the top mark/gouge was a different shape to the other two. It was wider and narrower, whilst the others were rounded and slightly smaller. I wonder what this means? Poor Neville.
Hi There
I saw the forensic tests done with the same gun at the same heat on pigs skin...
One test with a silencer, which did not match the burns.
The other test without the silencer and it was a match...
Forensic's have proved that the marks on Nevill's back were made from the barrel end of the gun..
How and why? Was this poor man frog marched downstairs and told to make a call with the gun held to
his back? If so who by?
-
Hi There
I saw the forensic tests done with the same gun at the same heat on pigs skin...
One test with a silencer, which did not match the burns.
The other test without the silencer and it was a match...
Forensic's have proved that the marks on Nevill's back were made from the barrel end of the gun..
How and why? Was this poor man frog marched downstairs and told to make a call with the gun held to
his back? If so who by?
That is possible, but the barrel of the rifle had to be heated by some means other than simply firing the rifle. 25 shots fired through the rifle does not heat the end of the barrel to a sufficient temperature to cause the three burns. For that reason the defence theory is that the end of the barrel was placed into contact with the Aga. The Aga was lit even though it was summer. If the defence theory is correct it is likely that the burns were inflicted on Nevill in the kitchen. My own view, and I accept I do not have direct evidence of this, is that the burns may have been inflicted after Nevill was dead or at least unconscious.
-
Hi Grahame
I have studied this case back to front....And it is documented that the Ralph was shot 3 times in the bedroom....A Pathologist report said, that one of the shots would have made Ralph speechless....thus, making him unable to make the said call at 3:26. However, because of the lack of forensic evidence it can't be proven beyond a doubt that Ralph was shot in the bedroom, even though 3 extra shell cases were found there....
The bug bare is the call....at 3:26 My daughter Shelia has gone beserk with one of my guns.....
Not my wife has been shot we need an ambulance or saying any shots had been fired.....this makes me believe that they were all still alive even at 3:36 and when Ralph phoned his son.....
Everything else I am clear about....:)
I do believe that Ralph had the gun barrel placed into his back...
Well I'm glad you're clear about Patti. Because the whole problem with this case is that quite a lot is not clear and that is why there are diverse opinions about various aspects of it. :)
-
Welcome Patti another strongly opinionated female poster :)
-
Patti did you join the forum after watching the documentary and are you a law student
-
Vidvic, Maybe she leaned it against the Aga while she was making something to eat ! Why anyone would inflict what sound like torture burns is beyond me. I don't know the answer to the acts of deranged people other than keep all firearms in locked cabinets and the ammo somewhere else that's locked. If someone is in a highly agitated state, rational thinking is replaced by mania. I hold the complacent attitude towards guns responsible. Lets say for arguments sake Jeremy did it, if the guns had been securely kept the temptation would not arise, if on the other hand someone with a fragile state of mind sees an opportunity to end a bad situation, out of desperation they take it. Shelia could have killed everybody in the time it takes to boil an egg if you can forgive the analogy. This subject is particularly difficult to broach and however careful I try to be in writing, things can get misinterpretted as bad taste.....
-
Vidvic, Maybe she leaned it against the Aga while she was making something to eat ! Why anyone would inflict what sound like torture burns is beyond me. I don't know the answer to the acts of deranged people other than keep all firearms in locked cabinets and the ammo somewhere else that's locked. If someone is in a highly agitated state, rational thinking is replaced by mania. I hold the complacent attitude towards guns responsible. Lets say for arguments sake Jeremy did it, if the guns had been securely kept the temptation would not arise, if on the other hand someone with a fragile state of mind sees an opportunity to end a bad situation, out of desperation they take it. Shelia could have killed everybody in the time it takes to boil an egg if you can forgive the analogy. This subject is particularly difficult to broach and however careful I try to be in writing, things can get misinterpretted as bad taste.....
Campion, the outside of the AGA is insulated and doesn't reach the temperatures in question, if the barrel of the gun is responsible then it was a concerted effort to heat it.
-
You would be surprised Hartley, a friend of mine (I have at least one) has got an oil fired Aga, I have burnt myself leaning against that without realising it. The Aga my friend has got does all the hot water as well as central heating so it is never switched off.
-
Barbara Wilson says she believes Jeremy guilty because she didn't see him grieving and that he was happy. Surely someone who was supposed to be so devious and such a brilliant actor would have been able to act upset even if he were jumping for joy. As for Boultflour, it's obvious why he needs to dismiss the claim of Jeremy's innocence. He says that Shielas hair and nails were immaculate. If that were so why didn't she struggle when Jeremy shot her? He also says she had no blood on her which is not true.
-
Barbara Wilson says she believes Jeremy guilty because she didn't see him grieving and that he was happy. Surely someone who was supposed to be so devious and such a brilliant actor would have been able to act upset even if he were jumping for joy. As for Boultflour, it's obvious why he needs to dismiss the claim of Jeremy's innocence. He says that Shielas hair and nails were immaculate. If that were so why didn't she struggle when Jeremy shot her? He also says she had no blood on her which is not true.
As far as I remember reading, Jeremy was taking a combination of valium, alcohol and cannabis to 'help him cope' after the murders. That is a really lethal mix, would imagine he didn't know what he was doing half the time.
-
That is possible, but the barrel of the rifle had to be heated by some means other than simply firing the rifle. 25 shots fired through the rifle does not heat the end of the barrel to a sufficient temperature to cause the three burns. For that reason the defence theory is that the end of the barrel was placed into contact with the Aga. The Aga was lit even though it was summer. If the defence theory is correct it is likely that the burns were inflicted on Nevill in the kitchen. My own view, and I accept I do not have direct evidence of this, is that the burns may have been inflicted after Nevill was dead or at least unconscious.
Hi
When the forensic test were done, the end of the barrel was heated up to the same heat
as it would if it had been fired. Then the end of the barrel was placed on pig skin, which
is identified to be similar to our own.
When a shot is fired through a semi automatic, it the end of the nozzle becomes heated, this is
a fact...The friction burns on Nevill's back were consistent, with the test done on the pig skin...
The measurements were the same size as the end of the barrel.......Thus, making the forensic test
a strong indication that the barrel was at some stage pointed into Nevill's back......
-
Patti did you join the forum after watching the documentary and are you a law student
Hi Jackie
No I joined the forum today and, no I am not a law student. I suppose this case will
always be an interesting one.
I don't believe JB had a fair trial and a great deal of evidence was withheld and never
produced at court.
The police made mistakes, bloody big ones...in burning most of the evidence 12 hours
after the killing's. There was computers back then, but not on the scale of today. Most
documents were filed.
I want to be 100% sure JB did not shot that family.
So far there is no concrete evidence to say he did...
-
Barbara Wilson says she believes Jeremy guilty because she didn't see him grieving and that he was happy. Surely someone who was supposed to be so devious and such a brilliant actor would have been able to act upset even if he were jumping for joy. As for Boultflour, it's obvious why he needs to dismiss the claim of Jeremy's innocence. He says that Shielas hair and nails were immaculate. If that were so why didn't she struggle when Jeremy shot her? He also says she had no blood on her which is not true.
Hi Maggie, I don't know if you have seen all the crime scene photographs of Shelia.
There are only a couple on the net....
When you look at the one where the the gun is seated on her chest....You will notice blood splatter
on the carpet near the top of her legs. This is important; also notice there is no drops of blood on her night dress......On the other shot, where is shows you her face....you will note blood on the right side of her nightie....suggesting that, she had been laid somewhat on her side at some point......Also note the position of the head, this proves beyond a doubt that she was not shot while laying down...her neck is twisted and must have hit the corner of the bed when she fell....
We also have blood pattens going down the right arm, meaning that her arm was across her body as if in a sling...Also there is a blood stain on her nightie which suggests that blood dripped feom her first wound onto her arm and marked her nightie...could be when she held the gun towards her for the last time.......only saying..:)
Here are the images:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvL5aTtc7CjFVFzVsou2a7r60oN0rfo879T9aOqLSriV6J048_4g
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuhZPBDiAqRbnkeliHLBdj_hPjrMTy3fsxWnIbB3HpsJ4HJDwVIXcFjZQD
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.JPG
Note the blood splatter, position of body, and arm.
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.JPG
How come the blood spatter pattern on the far right of the frame is different in the comparisons?
-
Yes I know Patti, I was just commenting on the fact that some people said Jeremy did not show remorse in fact he was as 'happy as a lark' after the killings but he was in fact so distressed that he was prescribed valium, he also was drinking heavily and smoking cannabis, which was no surprise considering the shock and trauma he must have been suffering from. Because of this coctail of drugs he would be pretty out of it, which was why he took them, I should think some realities are too hard to deal with. Also we all react to shock and trauma differently, including laughing and joking sometimes. I do not believe for one minute that Jeremy did anything that night but go home and go to sleep. Therefore Sheila must have been involved in the deaths that night. I don't really call them murders because I don't believe any of the killing was premeditated.
-
Also I totally accept that Sheila was moved, possibly from downstairs and that police lied about the whole situation. Mike is a hero, he does amazing work getting to the truth for Jeremy.
-
Campion, the outside of the AGA is insulated and doesn't reach the temperatures in question, if the barrel of the gun is responsible then it was a concerted effort to heat it.
But whatever we may think as to whether is was a gun that caused the mark or not, the question is still a niggling one, "Why would anyone inflict such wounds on Ralph?
-
You would be surprised Hartley, a friend of mine (I have at least one) has got an oil fired Aga, I have burnt myself leaning against that without realising it. The Aga my friend has got does all the hot water as well as central heating so it is never switched off.
I for a fact know that however much an Aga is insulated it's always hot to touch whatever part on it you mention. We used to sit next to ours to keep warm.
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.JPG
How come the blood spatter pattern on the far right of the frame is different in the comparisons?
It's just the angle. My mistake.
-
Hi
When the forensic test were done, the end of the barrel was heated up to the same heat
as it would if it had been fired. Then the end of the barrel was placed on pig skin, which
is identified to be similar to our own.
When a shot is fired through a semi automatic, it the end of the nozzle becomes heated, this is
a fact...The friction burns on Nevill's back were consistent, with the test done on the pig skin...
The measurements were the same size as the end of the barrel.......Thus, making the forensic test
a strong indication that the barrel was at some stage pointed into Nevill's back......
Patti, have you ever touched a pig? If so you will soon find that they have skin which is far tougher than our skin. That in my estimation makes human skin much more susceptible to burning than pigs skin. In fact it is incredibly easy to burn human skin.
-
Patti, have you ever touched a pig? If so you will soon find that they have skin which is far tougher than our skin. That in my estimation makes human skin much more susceptible to burning than pigs skin. In fact it is incredibly easy to burn human skin.
This is what I had wondered Grahame, when it was queried about the rifle being pushed in to the hide.
-
This is what I had wondered Grahame, when it was queried about the rifle being pushed in to the hide.
Pigs are naturally tough animals that have incredibly thick hides. The eat anything and if you want to clear your garden of weeds then get a pig. They also wade into all kinds of weeds like nettles and thistles etc without it making any impression on them. I've been there when pig farmers have tried to get these animals onto trailers and lorries. They smack the obstinate ones to get them moving. But it hardly makes an impression on them.
-
Patti, have you ever touched a pig? If so you will soon find that they have skin which is far tougher than our skin. That in my estimation makes human skin much more susceptible to burning than pigs skin. In fact it is incredibly easy to burn human skin.
Sorry Grahame to disagree...on that....But a pigs skin is very much like ours.
I used to live near pig farms....and the reason they throw mud on themselves
is because they get sunburnt like we humans do....Hoink! lol
True honestly....google it..
-
Sorry Grahame to disagree...on that....But a pigs skin is very much like ours.
I used to live near pig farms....and the reason they throw mud on themselves
is because they get sunburnt like we humans do....Hoink! lol
True honestly....google it..
Not the ones I've encountered. ;D
-
Pig's skin is however, the closest to human skin. Anyone want to offer their bodies for a trial? I'm sure we could think of someone...
-
Pig's skin is however, the closest to human skin. Anyone want to offer their bodies for a trial? I'm sure we could think of someone...
I can certainly think of an obstinate pig who needs a smack.
-
I can certainly think of an obstinate pig who needs a smack.
;D ;D ;D
-
Pig's skin is however, the closest to human skin. Anyone want to offer their bodies for a trial? I'm sure we could think of someone...
Yeah. In order to be more accurate they should have offered a 100 bucks to some homeless man. There are plenty just across the border in Las Vegas.
-
I can certainly think of an obstinate pig who needs a smack.
Nice one!!
-
I've just been googling pig skin and the effect it had on my estimation was that I had to go and make a bacon sandwich. ::)
-
Even being a vegetarian I still had a little chuckle at your last comment Grahame. :D
-
Thanks for posting up your opinions further back Gillian. I have come to believe an amnesty for those who allegedly fear being scapegoated, would foster a protective environment in which they could 'do the right thing'. This whole case really is an awful, complex, politicised mess. Perhaps those who would consider coming forward, should be helped to do so. It would serve to undermine the people who have decided to front it out in the media. An amnesty for the former officers who only communicate in private, would pull the rug from underneath the others.
-
I agree Rochy and at least we would know their was a cover up all along
-
Thanks for posting up your opinions further back Gillian. I have come to believe an amnesty for those who allegedly fear being scapegoated, would foster a protective environment in which they could 'do the right thing'. This whole case really is an awful, complex, politicised mess. Perhaps those who would consider coming forward, should be helped to do so. It would serve to undermine the people who have decided to front it out in the media. An amnesty for the former officers who only communicate in private, would pull the rug from underneath the others.
Imagine if there was no conspiracy though...
-
Imagine if there was no conspiracy though...
I had a feeling you might post on this bob. Personally, I don't like to use the term conspiracy because of the negative connotations. It seems a bizarre proposition that several people would pretend to interview contacts among former officers, in order to shore up defence arguments. To me, once you start going down that road, it becomes a reverse conspiracy. For what reason?
-
I had a feeling you might post on this bob. Personally, I don't like to use the term conspiracy because of the negative connotations. It seems a bizarre proposition that several people would pretend to interview contacts among former officers, in order to shore up defence arguments. To me, once you start going down that road, it becomes a reverse conspiracy. For what reason?
I wouldn't disagree with your reasoning Rochy.
As you know of old, one of my main reasons for disbelieving much of what is posted on here is that the conspiracy would have to go too deep and too wide to be maintained for more than a quarter of a century. It just isn't at all plausible.
Now... if Jeremy could be innocent without there having to have been a wide-ranging conspiracy against him, then that is an altogether more interesting prospect... But I fear the most vociferous pro-Bamber advocates always bring in stuff like the police murdering Sheila, June being one of the killers, The Duke of Edinburgh being JB's real Dad etc. etc.
It is all rather daft, and it doesn't do JB's cause any good at all :(
-
I wouldn't disagree with your reasoning Rochy.
As you know of old, one of my main reasons for disbelieving much of what is posted on here is that the conspiracy would have to go too deep and too wide to be maintained for more than a quarter of a century. It just isn't at all plausible.
Now... if Jeremy could be innocent without there having to have been a wide-ranging conspiracy against him, then that is an altogether more interesting prospect... But I fear the most vociferous pro-Bamber advocates always bring in stuff like the police murdering Sheila, June being one of the killers, The Duke of Edinburgh being JB's real Dad etc. etc.
It is all rather daft, and it doesn't do JB's cause any good at all :(
I see your point bob. The way I look at it is that Mike passes on info received, from various sources over the years. Some of the info is a bit off the wall and some contradictory in nature. I'm open minded about what took place during the raid. Unlike Hartley / Vic, I do find it mysterious. I'm of the opinion that something went badly wrong.
-
I see your point bob. The way I look at it is that Mike passes on info received, from various sources over the years. Some of the info is a bit off the wall and some contradictory in nature. I'm open minded about what took place during the raid. Unlike Hartley / Vic, I do find it mysterious. I'm of the opinion that something went badly wrong.
Speaking of which Roch... what happened to Z? I've been out of the loop for a while but that all seems to have gone quiet?
-
Speaking of which Roch... what happened to Z? I've been out of the loop for a while but that all seems to have gone quiet?
According to Mike he has taken the photo of Sheila on the bed to the CCRC.
-
According to Mike he has taken the photo of Sheila on the bed to the CCRC.
Interesting Grahame.
I've never really understood why the photo on the bed was such earth-shattering evidence, but it will be interesting to see if this makes a difference.
When the CCRC make their judgement, do they also have to make public all the evidence they have considered? (i.e. will we all be able to see the body-on-the-bed evidence?)
-
Speaking of which Roch... what happened to Z? I've been out of the loop for a while but that all seems to have gone quiet?
Apparently awaiting the CCRC decision. Mike's the best one to ask ;)
-
Many forum members including myself and Mike all share a view , just what exactly is witheld, what is so special how can this material be so secret no one is to know, we have a right to know and until it is released we are quite within our rights to demand its release because until it is i refuse to accept jeremys verdict .
-
Thanks Rochford. The more I think about it the more I agree that this could, indeed, be the way forward. It would definitely finally answer a lot of the questions that has been asked over the last 27 years. :D
-
Hey Gillian Thanks for your reply to me. I just hope Jeremy protects himself the best way. As you say he would, if released make a fortune out of films etc., if he chose to. He's not a boy anymore and he has had the hardest of experiences. He seems and states he's not angry anymore so I hope for his sake he can sustain that and not waste his time on revenge if he is freed. He will need to find a haven and learn to be a free man more than anything.
-
I totally agree mertol22. :)
-
Thanks Rochford. The more I think about it the more I agree that this could, indeed, be the way forward. It would definitely finally answer a lot of the questions that has been asked over the last 27 years. :D
I don't think there's a legal precedent for such a thing but ngb might know otherwise.
-
Thank you Maggie. I find it so sad that a young man entered prison but that it will be a middle aged man that will hopefully one day soon be released. He will never be able to make up for those 27 lost years but I hope he makes the most of the years he has in front of him however way he chooses to spend them. :)
-
Jeremy , if released will be unable to go back and reclaim those lost years those years have gone they will never come back, jeremy is not old just more mature every second that life has to offer i know he will take , i just know as he has said just wants to enjoy a pot noodle not going on a bender over in monaco a humble pot noodle by the telly how normal can you get ??
-
Hi Rochford - I realise that what we have discussed regarding amnesty in reality will never happen but if we were in an 'ideal world' and it did I wonder how many police officers would actually come forward because we must not forget that had any of those involved wanted to offer their version or new evidence they could have done so anytime over the last 27 years anonymously to whoever they chose. :)
-
I have police officers in my family, one in particular is high up in office now. He wont even tolerate a fart in a police car. If he even suspected one of his men of lying he would pull his arsehole through his mouth. That is why I know Bewes is lying through his old teeth. But there is nobody to stop him. Retired still lying.
-
I have police officers in my family, one in particular is high up in office now. He wont even tolerate a fart in a police car.
Don't blame him. Neither would I. :(
-
Don't start trying to belittle me Grahame.
-
Don't start trying to belittle me Grahame.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
-
Don't start trying to belittle me Grahame.
I don't think he was Janet. I think you may have misinterpreted his post.
-
You would be surprised Hartley, a friend of mine (I have at least one) has got an oil fired Aga, I have burnt myself leaning against that without realising it. The Aga my friend has got does all the hot water as well as central heating so it is never switched off.
I'd be very surprised, I'm extremely familiar with an oil fired two oven classic Aga with boiler and simmerimg plates, and I'm really, really, really, really absolutely 100% positive the the outside does not get hot enough to transfer heat of the temperatures indicated by the recent documentary.
Which is also probably why NGB has referred to the rifle barrel needing to be in the oven for five minutes to reach the required temperature.
You don't have to take my word for it though, I appreciate that.
-
I'd be very surprised, I'm extremely familiar with an oil fired two oven classic Aga with boiler and simmerimg plates, and I'm really, really, really, really absolutely 100% positive the the outside does not get hot enough to transfer heat of the temperatures indicated by the recent documentary.
Which is also probably why NGB has referred to the rifle barrel needing to be in the oven for five minutes to reach the required temperature.
You don't have to take my word for it though, I appreciate that.
All I know that it was jolly hot when I sat on one by mistake. Burnt into my memory it was....Burnt into something else as well. :(
-
I'd be very surprised, I'm extremely familiar with an oil fired two oven classic Aga with boiler and simmerimg plates, and I'm really, really, really, really absolutely 100% positive the the outside does not get hot enough to transfer heat of the temperatures indicated by the recent documentary.
Which is also probably why NGB has referred to the rifle barrel needing to be in the oven for five minutes to reach the required temperature.
You don't have to take my word for it though, I appreciate that.
How do you believe the gun got so hot ?
-
How do you believe the gun got so hot ?
Well I don't believe that it did.
Although, as I've already said, I don't have a plausible explanation for the cause of the marks to Nevills back.
Even if it was a hot poker, as is suggested in the Dickinson Report, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how the poker got hot. The Dickinson Report suggests it was put in the fire of the Aga, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the Aga is oil fired, there is access to the pilot light and combustion chamber behind the hatch/door on the lower left of the Aga front, but this is then behind another internal glass door.
There were also no fires/stoves lit on the night in question, in which a poker could be heated.
So like the prosecution, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they occurred, but I am very confident that they didn't get caused by a rifle being heated up simply by leaning against the face of the Aga.
Maybe a lighter was the heat source (ie. like a zippo, or even a plastic disposable one). :-\
-
Well I don't believe that it did.
Although, as I've already said, I don't have a plausible explanation for the cause of the marks to Nevills back.
Even if it was a hot poker, as is suggested in the Dickinson Report, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how the poker got hot. The Dickinson Report suggests it was put in the fire of the Aga, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the Aga is oil fired, there is access to the pilot light and combustion chamber behind the hatch/door on the lower left of the Aga front, but this is then behind another internal glass door.
There were also no fires/stoves lit on the night in question, in which a poker could be heated.
So like the prosecution, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they occurred, but I am very confident that they didn't get caused by a rifle being heated up simply by leaning against the face of the Aga.
Maybe a lighter was the heat source (ie. like a zippo, or even a plastic disposable one). :-\
Do you accept that the time involved , whatever way it was heated , is a factor that point's to JB's innocence , however slightly to your mind ? As any would be murderer would not want to be sitting around heating a gun surely ? Why take time to sit around to burn someone , if you have to climb out the window and cycle home after murdering 5 people ?
-
I have always believed a full reconstruction at WHF , would show that it was virtually impossible for JB to carry out these murder's , the reconstruction would include all noise involved , the cycle ride home done by a actor of similar build , the staging of the bodies , ideas of how JB could get SC to lay down , all done in front of counsel , who could ask any question's they found relevant !!
-
Well I don't believe that it did.
Although, as I've already said, I don't have a plausible explanation for the cause of the marks to Nevills back.
Even if it was a hot poker, as is suggested in the Dickinson Report, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how the poker got hot. The Dickinson Report suggests it was put in the fire of the Aga, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the Aga is oil fired, there is access to the pilot light and combustion chamber behind the hatch/door on the lower left of the Aga front, but this is then behind another internal glass door.
There were also no fires/stoves lit on the night in question, in which a poker could be heated.
So like the prosecution, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they occurred, but I am very confident that they didn't get caused by a rifle being heated up simply by leaning against the face of the Aga.
Maybe a lighter was the heat source (ie. like a zippo, or even a plastic disposable one). :-\
Are you sure that the Aga at WHF now is the same one as in 1985?
-
Do you accept that the time involved , whatever way it was heated , is a factor that point's to JB's innocence , however slightly to your mind ? As any would be murderer would not want to be sitting around heating a gun surely ? Why take time to sit around to burn someone , if you have to climb out the window and cycle home after murdering 5 people ?
Absolutely not. I don't think it points to anything, guilt or innocence. I think the attempted link to guilt or innocence using the length of time it would have taken to heat up an 'implement' to be absurd.
Why not reverse that and say that it definitely indicates that Sheila did not do it (which would indicate that Jeremy did) as it would be out of character for someone in the throws of a berserk rage? No? I thought not. ::)
Weird.
-
Are you sure that the Aga at WHF now is the same one as in 1985?
Yes it is.
-
Absolutely not. I don't think it points to anything, guilt or innocence. I think the attempted link to guilt or innocence using the length of time it would have taken to heat up an 'implement' to be absurd.
Why not reverse that and say that it definitely indicates that Sheila did not do it (which would indicate that Jeremy did) as it would be out of character for someone in the throws of a berserk rage? No? I thought not. ::)
Weird.
Surely even to you the burning of somebody is a pointer toward's somebodies mental
health ? SC paranoid schizophrenic , JB not !!
-
Surely even to you the burning of somebody is a pointer toward's somebodies mental
health ? SC paranoid schizophrenic , JB not !!
Bloody hell, why didn't you say that 26 and a bit years ago, Jeremy is going to be a bit pi$$ed, he's spent all that time in prison when you had the answer all along. ::)
-
Bloody hell, why didn't you say that 26 and a bit years ago, Jeremy is going to be a bit pi$$ed, he's spent all that time in prison when you had the answer all along. ::)
Methinks you are being a bit sarky. ;D
-
Methinks you are being a bit sarky. ;D
No, really I am not, I don't know one end of a rifle from the other, I really do have no knowledge of guns, sound moderators or telescopic sights, other than what I have obtained from research into this case.
Honestly.
Wrong, thread :-[
Yes I was being completely sarky. :-[
-
Yes it is.
Are you absolutely sure? Have a word with Vic.
-
Hartley you continue to be unbelievably rude to Jon every time he posts
You are unbelievable especially as Jon is one of the best posters on this forum
Keep it up and I hope you get banned AGAIN
-
Do you accept that the time involved , whatever way it was heated , is a factor that point's to JB's innocence , however slightly to your mind ? As any would be murderer would not want to be sitting around heating a gun surely ? Why take time to sit around to burn someone , if you have to climb out the window and cycle home after murdering 5 people ?
That is a brilliant post Jon and yours always are.
If someone/Sheila took time to heat something for example a gun to torture Neville after death it definitely makes an argument for Jeremy to be innocent
Jeremy or any hitman would have wanted to have been in and out of WHF in a flash
-
Are you absolutely sure? Have a word with Vic.
Will do.
-
Are you absolutely sure? Have a word with Vic.
Yes it is definitely the same Aga.
However ......... it appears it was converted from coke to oil, so disregard my previous oil based comments.
-
Hartley you continue to be unbelievably rude to Jon every time he posts
You are unbelievable especially as Jon is one of the best posters on this forum
Keep it up and I hope you get banned AGAIN
No Jack , Hartley should never be banned , he help's the Bamber cause no end in my
opinion , the anti Bamber folk would like you to believe , JB killed the children , killed his mother , fought with his father , then got SC to lay down in a position were he could shoot her in the neck / chin region , then sit around heating a poker up to 200 degree's with a disposable lighter , then climb out the window and cycle home across field's with no light on the cycle , all without getting a mark on him !! All at a time when he thought his girlfriend could keep a secret !!
-
Jon you are right I understand now. Keep it up Hartley!!
-
Jon you are right I understand now. Keep it up Hartley!!
It was never down. ???
-
Yes it is definitely the same Aga.
However ......... it appears it was converted from coke to oil, so disregard my previous oil based comments.
Thanks, I thought it was solid fuel. By opening the door it would therefore have been possible to place the end of the rifle barrel into the fire, heating it very quickly, or it could have been placed inside the oven which would achieve the same result but take a bit longer. I appreciate that there is no direct evidence that this occurred but if the burns were caused by the end of the rifle barrel (which the Arizona tests suggest is likely) this is a plausible explanation for the way in which the barrel was heated.
-
Thanks, I thought it was solid fuel. By opening the door it would therefore have been possible to place the end of the rifle barrel into the fire, heating it very quickly, or it could have been placed inside the oven which would achieve the same result but take a bit longer. I appreciate that there is no direct evidence that this occurred but if the burns were caused by the end of the rifle barrel (which the Arizona tests suggest is likely) this is a plausible explanation for the way in which the barrel was heated.
Yes, the coal scuttle was a bit of a clue. However, was the aga likely to have been lit in mid summer? Was it used for cooking the evening meal? or was it used for heating water? It has pipes coming out of it so I assume that it would have been kept alight to heat water for the house.
-
Poor Neville maybe Sheila blamed him the most for bringing up the question of fostering the twins
-
Thanks, I thought it was solid fuel. By opening the door it would therefore have been possible to place the end of the rifle barrel into the fire, heating it very quickly, or it could have been placed inside the oven which would achieve the same result but take a bit longer. I appreciate that there is no direct evidence that this occurred but if the burns were caused by the end of the rifle barrel (which the Arizona tests suggest is likely) this is a plausible explanation for the way in which the barrel was heated.
Yes it could potentially be an explanation.
Edit: Although I would argue that the Arizona tests indicate that it is possible, rather than likely.
-
Yes, the coal scuttle was a bit of a clue. However, was the aga likely to have been lit in mid summer? Was it used for cooking the evening meal? or was it used for heating water? It has pipes coming out of it so I assume that it would have been kept alight to heat water for the house.
Yes, it was permanently lit.
-
Thanks. Then it is the most likely source of heat for heating up whatever it was that made the burn marks on Ralph.
-
Yes it could potentially be an explanation.
Edit: Although I would argue that the Arizona tests indicate that it is possible, rather than likely.
Bear in mind what was shown on the recent documentary was not the Arizona tests themselves but reconstructions in the UK. In his report based upon his tests in Arizona Dr Caruso does suggest that it is likely the burns were caused by the heated end of the barrel. However, further work is necessary which may strengthen that conclusion from likely to probable.
-
Bear in mind what was shown on the recent documentary was not the Arizona tests themselves but reconstructions in the UK. In his report based upon his tests in Arizona Dr Caruso does suggest that it is likely the burns were caused by the heated end of the barrel. However, further work is necessary which may strengthen that conclusion from likely to probable.
I think the key phrase is "further work is necessary", which would include demonstrating the the mark could not have been caused by a metal poker heated in the same manner.
-
I think the key phrase is "further work is necessary", which would include demonstrating the the mark could not have been caused by a metal poker heated in the same manner.
Yes, it would include eliminating other possibilities.
-
Shelia:
Shelia was adopted and, had been diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic. She had been
sectioned a few times. Her children had also been taken into foster care. She shared custody of her
two children with ex husband Colin Caffell. Two days prior to the murders Shelia was released from hospital
and, was spending a week, with the twins at White Farm.
Day before the killing Shelia takes cannabis, she had also been injected with the drug Haloperidol.
Shelia was confused, she had told her psychiatrist, that her children were possessed by the devil
and she imagined her children having sex. She was obsessed by god and could hear voices
in her head.
Shelia's boy friend Freddie had made a statement that Shelia could be violent and on
one occasion thrown things round the kitchen, thumped her self and the wall. Shelia told him
god was sat opposite her and that her children had been possessed with the devil....
Shelia did not want her children taken into care, nor did she want to return into care herself.
Shelia felt dominated by her mother. Social services had been involved, her children had received
burns on legs and tummy; also one of the children Daniel had an head injury and, was taken to
hospital, it was said he had fallen from a taxi, but social services did nothing...other than make a statement
that was never produced in court.
Scenario:
Shelia could not sleep, she becomes paranoid...and is now going crazy....Shelia goes downstairs
for a drink, she sees the gun.....She picks it up and goes back upstairs, she enters her parents bedroom.
She start to argue with her parents.....Nevill goes downstairs, he calls the police and his son...Nevill runs
back upstairs, by this time, Shelia is arguing fiercely with her mother...Her mother throws her bible at Shelia,
it hits the wall and lands on the floor....Shelia shoots her mother, she turns the gun on her father and shoots him
3 times. Her mother manages to get out of bed, she shoots her again and again..Shelia goes into her children's
bedroom and shoots them. She then goes back into her parents bedroom and Nevill is not there....She races down
stairs to find a subdued Nevill trying to get to the phone....she pushes him on the back with the nozzle of the gun...
She knows he is trying to get to the phone....she shoots another 4 times....Nevill falls over the chair and his poor
head goes into the coal scuttle...She prods him again on the back to make sure he is dead....She then goes back
upstairs to her mother, she knows the police are outside, they had seen her in the kitchen....she sits on the edge
of the bed, she shoots herself in the neck, but it only wounds her...
She then falls to the floor and manages to sit up and shoots the fatal shot that kills her.....she falls awkwardly hitting
her head on the side of the bed, the gun lands on top of her...
-
Well I don't believe that it did.
Although, as I've already said, I don't have a plausible explanation for the cause of the marks to Nevills back.
Even if it was a hot poker, as is suggested in the Dickinson Report, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain how the poker got hot. The Dickinson Report suggests it was put in the fire of the Aga, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, the Aga is oil fired, there is access to the pilot light and combustion chamber behind the hatch/door on the lower left of the Aga front, but this is then behind another internal glass door.
There were also no fires/stoves lit on the night in question, in which a poker could be heated.
So like the prosecution, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they occurred, but I am very confident that they didn't get caused by a rifle being heated up simply by leaning against the face of the Aga.
Maybe a lighter was the heat source (ie. like a zippo, or even a plastic disposable one). :-\
I seem to recall that one of the officers said tha the aga WAS alight. I will dig into the statements.
-
I have always believed a full reconstruction at WHF , would show that it was virtually impossible for JB to carry out these murder's , the reconstruction would include all noise involved , the cycle ride home done by a actor of similar build , the staging of the bodies , ideas of how JB could get SC to lay down , all done in front of counsel , who could ask any question's they found relevant !!
Interesting suggestion Jon. I can picture JB peddling madly, like 'Elliott' on E.T.
-
Thanks, I thought it was solid fuel. By opening the door it would therefore have been possible to place the end of the rifle barrel into the fire, heating it very quickly, or it could have been placed inside the oven which would achieve the same result but take a bit longer. I appreciate that there is no direct evidence that this occurred but if the burns were caused by the end of the rifle barrel (which the Arizona tests suggest is likely) this is a plausible explanation for the way in which the barrel was heated.
Hi NGB, I seem to recall a previous exchange over Aga's ;)
The type of solid fuel Aga at whf I believe was on permanently, and the cooking rings (with those lift up covers) are also permanently hot.
If this is the case, the poker (if it was a poker) could have been left on a cooking ring held in place with the ring cover until it heated up enough to burn skin.
The point being, if it was a poker, there are alternatives to heating it up other than opening an oven.
My personal opinion is that the burn marks on Nevills back (as seen on the Tonight programme), even if made on the night (which is still not clear), will remain a mystery.
-
Yes, it would include eliminating other possibilities.
How much information do you have about the instruction and purpose of the 'Arizonian tests'?
Just a hypothesis, but I wonder if the actual experiments were solely concerned with the marks left on a persons skin following a contact shot with and without a sound moderator attached to the rifle. The marks to Nevill being an afterthought?
I find it slightly interesting that there is admission that their is need for further work as it doesn't appear to be a particularly confident ground, as an actual submission to the CCRC. Hence why I think it's an afterthought. In it's current form, that particular argument has absolutely no chance of forcing the CCRC to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
(I'd like to start another discussion in a moment, speculatively, about what the actual indications are, should further testing indicate that the marks to Nevills back are proven to be caused by the barrel of the rifle heated in any manner) Link to discussion: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2536.0.html
In the mean time, following on from what I have written above, the original submission provisionally rejected in February 2011, have, as I understand it, had no further submissions, which could alter the CCRC's decision about what has previously been submitted.
Therefore, the only current item, which would force the case to be referred, is the marks left on a person receiving a contact shot with or without a silencer attached, as per what I believe to be the main thrust of the 'Arizonian Tests'.
Meaning, that if the CCRC can dismiss the 'Arizonian' contact shot mark experiment results (wow that was a mouthful), then a referral will not take place?
Obviously that is based simply on my own interpretation of what has been submitted by the defence and does not cater for any submissions lodged by 'Agent Z'.
-
No Jack , Hartley should never be banned , he help's the Bamber cause no end in my
opinion , the anti Bamber folk would like you to believe , JB killed the children , killed his mother , fought with his father , then got SC to lay down in a position were he could shoot her in the neck / chin region , then sit around heating a poker up to 200 degree's with a disposable lighter , then climb out the window and cycle home across field's with no light on the cycle , all without getting a mark on him !! All at a time when he thought his girlfriend could keep a secret !!
Your right jon, but look at it the other way, sheila killed the children, killed her mother, fought and killed her father, then layed down and shot herself not once but twice? Notice i dont use anti or pro bambers personally i dont like that wording, i am neither.
-
......................
Meaning, that if the CCRC can dismiss the 'Arizonian' contact shot mark experiment results (wow that was a mouthful), then a referral will not take place?
...........................
If : Which is obviously a big if, I'm not intending to insinuate anything or belittle it in any way.
-
How much information do you have about the instruction and purpose of the 'Arizonian tests'?
Just a hypothesis, but I wonder if the actual experiments were solely concerned with the marks left on a persons skin following a contact shot with and without a sound moderator attached to the rifle. The marks to Nevill being an afterthought?
I find it slightly interesting that there is admission that their is need for further work as it doesn't appear to be a particularly confident ground, as an actual submission to the CCRC. Hence why I think it's an afterthought. In it's current form, that particular argument has absolutely no chance of forcing the CCRC to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
(I'd like to start another discussion in a moment, speculatively, about what the actual indications are, should further testing indicate that the marks to Nevills back are proven to be caused by the barrel of the rifle heated in any manner) Link to discussion: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2536.0.html
In the mean time, following on from what I have written above, the original submission provisionally rejected in February 2011, have, as I understand it, had no further submissions, which could alter the CCRC's decision about what has previously been submitted.
Therefore, the only current item, which would force the case to be referred, is the marks left on a person receiving a contact shot with or without a silencer attached, as per what I believe to be the main thrust of the 'Arizonian Tests'.
Meaning, that if the CCRC can dismiss the 'Arizonian' contact shot mark experiment results (wow that was a mouthful), then a referral will not take place?Obviously that is based simply on my own interpretation of what has been submitted by the defence and does not cater for any submissions lodged by 'Agent Z'.
You have posed several questions which I will answer in the same order.
I have full information about the tests in Arizona as I did have some involvement.
The Arizona tests were solely concerned with the burns to Nevill's back. The tests were conducted to establish the likely cause of those burns, in particular whether they could have been caused by the heated end of the silencer, or by the heated end of the rifle barrel without the silencer. The tests established three things. First, that the burns were not made by contact with the end of the silencer. Second, that they were likely to have been caused by contact with the heated end of the rifle barrel. Third, that firing of the rifle would not on its own have heated the barrel to a sufficient temperature to cause the burns.
The tests were carried out very shortly before the expiry of the 31st January deadline for final submissions to the CCRC. Further tests were recommended which might enable additional opinions to be given.
Also in the US pathologists reports were obtained which stated that the wounds to Sheila were caused by the rifle without the silencer fitted. These reports were not connected with the Arizona tests, but of course taken together this new scientific evidence is strongly suggestive of the silencer not having been used during the events at WHF.
The final submissions were mainly (although not entirely) based upon the new scientific evidence and the focus was therefore the evidence at trial relating to the silencer. The submissions previously submitted were not withdrawn and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal several of the grounds of appeal are likely to be based on the earlier submissions.
I hope this helps.
-
Hi NGB, I seem to recall a previous exchange over Aga's ;)
The type of solid fuel Aga at whf I believe was on virtually permanently, and the cooking rings (with those lift up covers) are also permanently hot.
If this is the case, the poker (if it was a poker) could have been left on a cooking ring held in place with the ring cover until it heated up enough to burn skin.
The point being, if it was a poker, there are alternatives to heating it up other than opening an oven. My personal opinion is that the burn marks on Nevills back (as seen on the Tonight programme), even if made on the night (which is still not clear), will remain a mystery.
Yes, I agree with you on this Nick.
-
You have posed several questions which I will answer in the same order.
I have full information about the tests in Arizona as I did have some involvement.
The Arizona tests were solely concerned with the burns to Nevill's back. The tests were conducted to establish the likely cause of those burns, in particular whether they could have been caused by the heated end of the silencer, or by the heated end of the rifle barrel without the silencer. The tests established three things. First, that the burns were not made by contact with the end of the silencer. Second, that they were likely to have been caused by contact with the heated end of the rifle barrel. Third, that firing of the rifle would not on its own have heated the barrel to a sufficient temperature to cause the burns.
The tests were carried out very shortly before the expiry of the 31st January deadline for final submissions to the CCRC. Further tests were recommended which might enable additional opinions to be given.
Also in the US pathologists reports were obtained which stated that the wounds to Sheila were caused by the rifle without the silencer fitted. These reports were not connected with the Arizona tests, but of course taken together this new scientific evidence is strongly suggestive of the silencer not having been used during the events at WHF.
The final submissions were mainly (although not entirely) based upon the new scientific evidence and the focus was therefore the evidence at trial relating to the silencer. The submissions previously submitted were not withdrawn and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal several of the grounds of appeal are likely to be based on the earlier submissions.
I hope this helps.
Yes, you have given a good insight, thank you.
-
I agree whoever carried out these murders had to be full of hate and anger and I just cannot see that in Jeremy.
-
Shelia:
Shelia was adopted and, had been diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic. She had been
sectioned a few times. Her children had also been taken into foster care. She shared custody of her
two children with ex husband Colin Caffell. Two days prior to the murders Shelia was released from hospital
and, was spending a week, with the twins at White Farm.
Day before the killing Shelia takes cannabis, she had also been injected with the drug Haloperidol.
Shelia was confused, she had told her psychiatrist, that her children were possessed by the devil
and she imagined her children having sex. She was obsessed by god and could hear voices
in her head.
Shelia's boy friend Freddie had made a statement that Shelia could be violent and on
one occasion thrown things round the kitchen, thumped her self and the wall. Shelia told him
god was sat opposite her and that her children had been possessed with the devil....
Shelia did not want her children taken into care, nor did she want to return into care herself.
Shelia felt dominated by her mother. Social services had been involved, her children had received
burns on legs and tummy; also one of the children Daniel had an head injury and, was taken to
hospital, it was said he had fallen from a taxi, but social services did nothing...other than make a statement
that was never produced in court.
Scenario:
Shelia could not sleep, she becomes paranoid...and is now going crazy....Shelia goes downstairs
for a drink, she sees the gun.....She picks it up and goes back upstairs, she enters her parents bedroom.
She start to argue with her parents.....Nevill goes downstairs, he calls the police and his son...Nevill runs
back upstairs, by this time, Shelia is arguing fiercely with her mother...Her mother throws her bible at Shelia,
it hits the wall and lands on the floor....Shelia shoots her mother, she turns the gun on her father and shoots him
3 times. Her mother manages to get out of bed, she shoots her again and again..Shelia goes into her children's
bedroom and shoots them. She then goes back into her parents bedroom and Nevill is not there....She races down
stairs to find a subdued Nevill trying to get to the phone....she pushes him on the back with the nozzle of the gun...
She knows he is trying to get to the phone....she shoots another 4 times....Nevill falls over the chair and his poor
head goes into the coal scuttle...She prods him again on the back to make sure he is dead....She then goes back
upstairs to her mother, she knows the police are outside, they had seen her in the kitchen....she sits on the edge
of the bed, she shoots herself in the neck, but it only wounds her...
She then falls to the floor and manages to sit up and shoots the fatal shot that kills her.....she falls awkwardly hitting
her head on the side of the bed, the gun lands on top of her...
[/quote
Patti your post has some factual errors.
The children were not put into care. Colin had custody of them. The only reason they were at WHF was a short break, which Colin was not happy with due to June's religious mania. The children hated the place.
I may be wrong, but I have never read that any of the twins havig burn marks on them, the taxi incident is well known, and Sheila was beside herself with guilt.
It is a fact that Sheila had been smoking cannabis, but it is not really known what affect this could have had with the medication she was on.
However it is a fact that the family could not tell the twins apart, and it was left to Julie to identify there bodies, which she did willingly, and her only reaction was surprise that there heads had been shaved.
After seeing those tiny mites she still said nothing is beyond me.
Also to be remembered is that Julie did not go to the police, it was Battersby. Very worrying in my humble
-
Hi Buddy
The children had been in foster care and there is a statement by social services regarding burn marks to one of the children.....Here it is.....
One, thing I do agree with you what I wrote is very flawed indeed....:)
http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/544639452.jpg?key=16542339&Expires=1334356975&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=BHcoxEeuR0cgQez0IDub~fbHRlSq~bN8BLucNAycf9308ror2kXnvPy6dN1tb20AwCdsk96BSvcx4qhXtrjUnkJ8Dt6zS3yLJqXYVqfNuD91J74I2f8JKkOSM0oG2A5S8zDKbJXwHGec2EGa8nPPGuCAam48t8ZMmatvQZdv1EI_
-
Jackie, the first factual error of this piece is the first sentence. There are many more.
Where can we watch Ann Eaton showing camera crews round White House Farm
-
I'm not sure.