Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: keepers on July 10, 2012, 06:46:AM
-
There are hundreds of posts regarding the phone call Jeremy made to police and wether this makes him guilty or innocent. Surely though if Jeremy had committed these murders there would have been NO call to the police. The second that call is made it turns the whole case into a 2 horse race. Jeremy or Sheila, end of story. If he had committed the crime then surely it would have been better to let someone else find the scene the following day. In this scenario it could have been many different people/ reasons. An irate boyfriend? A robbery? An unpaid drug debt? The theoris are endless. Jeremy despite being only young was no fool- he was privately educated! The phone call to the police ( if he had done it) would have been an extremely foolish think to do. Don't you think?
-
Upon calling up Julie Mugford, he told her, "somethings wrong at the farm". These comments expressed in a private conversation between Jeremy and his girlfriend, are inconsistent with him having been planning to kill his family, or that he had just killed his family?
-
I couldn't agree more mike, it just doesn't add up
-
Upon calling up Julie Mugford, he told her, "somethings wrong at the farm". These comments expressed in a private conversation between Jeremy and his girlfriend, are inconsistent with him having been planning to kill his family, or that he had just killed his family?
In fact that forms part of her witness statement that Jeremy had hired a hit man which was later found to be false.
-
Upon calling up Julie Mugford, he told her, "somethings wrong at the farm". These comments expressed in a private conversation between Jeremy and his girlfriend, are inconsistent with him having been planning to kill his family, or that he had just killed his family?
Very good point!
-
Very good point!
Did JB not say to Mugford words to the effect that all is going well, there is trouble at WHF - that makes it somewhat different....
Also if the call to his house from WHF was logged how else could he explain that phone call ? Maybe that was a big mistake on the part of the killer and JB had to subsequently try and explain it by telling Police that it was his Father that made the call in an attempt to explain how a call was made from a house full of corpses....
-
There are hundreds of posts regarding the phone call Jeremy made to police and wether this makes him guilty or innocent. Surely though if Jeremy had committed these murders there would have been NO call to the police. The second that call is made it turns the whole case into a 2 horse race. Jeremy or Sheila, end of story. If he had committed the crime then surely it would have been better to let someone else find the scene the following day. In this scenario it could have been many different people/ reasons. An irate boyfriend? A robbery? An unpaid drug debt? The theoris are endless. Jeremy despite being only young was no fool- he was privately educated! The phone call to the police ( if he had done it) would have been an extremely foolish think to do. Don't you think?
Hi Keepers,,,in a police statement,,,it said that they,,,the police,had received a call from a " young " man.
This means that Jeremy did phone,,as there is a difference in the tone of a man in his 60's and a man in his early 20's. Nevills' voice,under the circumstances,would have sounded desperate too.
And no,,,if Jeremy had committed the crime,,,he would not have phoned up at all. Ironically,,,that being the case,it would have been 4 murders and a suicide.
-
Did JB not say to Mugford words to the effect that all is going well, there is trouble at WHF - that makes it somewhat different....
Also if the call to his house from WHF was logged how else could he explain that phone call ? Maybe that was a big mistake on the part of the killer and JB had to subsequently try and explain it by telling Police that it was his Father that made the call in an attempt to explain how a call was made from a house full of corpses....
By killer,you mean accomplice?
-
Did JB not say to Mugford words to the effect that all is going well, there is trouble at WHF - that makes it somewhat different....
Also if the call to his house from WHF was logged how else could he explain that phone call ? Maybe that was a big mistake on the part of the killer and JB had to subsequently try and explain it by telling Police that it was his Father that made the call in an attempt to explain how a call was made from a house full of corpses....
I don't think JM said that JB said 'there's trouble at WHF', in her statement she says he said 'Everything is going well, not to worry, there's something wrong at the farm'. Why did the hit man leave the phone off the hook? Why didn't Jeremy go the whole way and say he heard shots being fired and screaming?
-
By killer,you mean accomplice?
Yes, I personally believe that JB did not kill his family but he was involved.... I do not think that Sheila killed them, the whole police cover-up theory is to complicated in my opinion, I think the killer escaped while the Police and Jeremy were on the scene, I think it was him Bewes saw in the window and also he was the scruffy person seen that morning..... however I stand to be corrected when we see the photo Mike has of Sheila on the bed....
-
I don't think JM said that JB said 'there's trouble at WHF', in her statement she says he said 'Everything is going well, not to worry, there's something wrong at the farm'. Why did the hit man leave the phone off the hook? Why didn't Jeremy go the whole way and say he heard shots being fired and screaming?
Perhaps leaving the phone off the hook was part of the plan to make it look like 4 murders and a suicide, I do not know...
-
Yes, I personally believe that JB did not kill his family but he was involved.... I do not think that Sheila killed them, the whole police cover-up theory is to complicated in my opinion, I think the killer escaped while the Police and Jeremy were on the scene, I think it was him Bewes saw in the window and also he was the scruffy person seen that morning..... however I stand to be corrected when we see the photo Mike has of Sheila on the bed....
In what part of the case do you believe that Jeremy was involved,boheme.?
-
Hi lookout I was thinking perhaps you can help. If Jeremy had committed the murders at the farm why bother with any phones calls he could have got back to Goldhanger cleaned himself up (got rid of any evidence) gone to bed and waited until some member of staff found the bodies and contacted him he could never have been connected with the murders oh sorry he would not have confessed to Julie of course not a word to anyone. He would have got away with it.
-
Hi lookout I was thinking perhaps you can help. If Jeremy had committed the murders at the farm why bother with any phones calls he could have got back to Goldhanger cleaned himself up (got rid of any evidence) gone to bed and waited until some member of staff found the bodies and contacted him he could never have been connected with the murders oh sorry he would not have confessed to Julie of course not a word to anyone. He would have got away with it.
Hi Susan,,,yes,he would have got away with it,,,especially when you read some of the links about Sheila who told Dr Ferguson that she could harm her children,,and could commit suicide,and also kill her family,,among other things that weren't disclosed to anyone under the patient confidentiality act. Nobody knew the extent of her illness,,yet Ferguson knowing this,said in his statement that he " didn't think " she could/would commit suicide.
-
Hi Susan,,,yes,he would have got away with it,,,especially when you read some of the links about Sheila who told Dr Ferguson that she could harm her children,,and could commit suicide,and also kill her family,,among other things that weren't disclosed to anyone under the patient confidentiality act. Nobody knew the extent of her illness,,yet Ferguson knowing this,said in his statement that he " didn't think " she could/would commit suicide.
Trouble is,,,Susan,that when social services tried to intervene,,instead of them having access via the GP,to her full condition,,when Sheila was approached by the s/s,she told them it was just a minor breakdown. This was after her admittance to St Andrews which was to be her last contact before she died. The s/s wanted to discuss short-term fostering to give her respite. Then when it was also discussed on the night of the murders,,,,it was the last straw as far as Sheila was concerned.
-
Hi Susan,,,yes,he would have got away with it,,,especially when you read some of the links about Sheila who told Dr Ferguson that she could harm her children,,and could commit suicide,and also kill her family,,among other things that weren't disclosed to anyone under the patient confidentiality act. Nobody knew the extent of her illness,,yet Ferguson knowing this,said in his statement that he " didn't think " she could/would commit suicide.
Lookout, hi. There may be a bit of an anomaly here. If the rules concerning patient confidentiality are the same throughout all mental health agencies, Dr Fergusson was free to inform relevant agencies about his concerns for the childrens' safety. I believe that childrens' welfare overrides confidentiality rules, outstripping even confessions of murder and is the only reason the sanctity of the confessional may be broken. The reason for this being that when a child is deemed to be in danger the state steps in in loco parentis to protect its' rights.
-
Lookout, hi. There may be a bit of an anomaly here. If the rules concerning patient confidentiality are the same throughout all mental health agencies, Dr Fergusson was free to inform relevant agencies about his concerns for the childrens' safety. I believe that childrens' welfare overrides confidentiality rules, outstripping even confessions of murder and is the only reason the sanctity of the confessional may be broken. The reason for this being that when a child is deemed to be in danger the state steps in in loco parentis to protect its' rights.
Hi April,,,do you know what.? There was no mention of the childrens' safety. Nowadays,,the social workers would have whipped the children away under a court order at the hint of any danger. I would have also thought that the school teacher/s would have had a say in the matter too regarding emotional abuse as far as the twins were concerned because they were withdrawn at times in school.
As you know,GP's,teachers and the police all work with social workers,,,but somehow the children were failed as well as Sheila.
-
Hi April,,,do you know what.? There was no mention of the childrens' safety. Nowadays,,the social workers would have whipped the children away under a court order at the hint of any danger. I would have also thought that the school teacher/s would have had a say in the matter too regarding emotional abuse as far as the twins were concerned because they were withdrawn at times in school.
As you know,GP's,teachers and the police all work with social workers,,,but somehow the children were failed as well as Sheila.
Lookout, I'm going to apologize before I go any further because this is not meant to offend,but could this be a "class" thing.
I would be surprised if any teacher worth their salt didn't recognize that something was amiss with those little boys. There is a catalogue of things that would make them notice that something was wrong, but Sheila wasn't a "sink estate" mother so she couldn't possibly have hurt or frightened them, could she.
Dr Fergusson was being paid for both mother and daughter, he would also have been aware that Neville was a magistrate so might it have thought it best to keep quiet and not rock any boats. Had this tragedy not occured, would he, I wonder, ever have voiced his concerns regarding Sheila's ability as a mother?
-
Lookout, I'm going to apologize before I go any further because this is not meant to offend,but could this be a "class" thing.
I would be surprised if any teacher worth their salt didn't recognize that something was amiss with those little boys. There is a catalogue of things that would make them notice that something was wrong, but Sheila wasn't a "sink estate" mother so she couldn't possibly have hurt or frightened them, could she.
Dr Fergusson was being paid for both mother and daughter, he would also have been aware that Neville was a magistrate so might it have thought it best to keep quiet and not rock any boats. Had this tragedy not occured, would he, I wonder, ever have voiced his concerns regarding Sheila's ability as a mother?
Hi April,,,I understand what you're saying as things like that only happen to " societys' misfits ",,,but both you and I know that this isn't always the case. It had to be kept under wraps at all costs,,,and had those children lived,,they too would have been indoctrinated to say that all was well,,,though it does make you wonder how their lives would have panned out between their mother and grandmother.
-
Upon calling up Julie Mugford, he told her, "somethings wrong at the farm". These comments expressed in a private conversation between Jeremy and his girlfriend, are inconsistent with him having been planning to kill his family, or that he had just killed his family?
It might have been code,or he may have been protecting his back had the phone call been recorded and later produced in court. The significant thing as far as I'm concerned was that he phoned her at all. This was a supposed crisis and he talks to Julie Mugford,whom at that stage from what Julie says in her statement he was going to marry. One thing we are certain of is that he did make that call to Julie,because her flatmates can verify it,unlike the call from Ralph(Nevill) to Jeremy which is in dispute.
Reading Julie Mugford's statement to Stan Jones it does read as a resume of her life of the past year with Jeremy;she includes details of schemes which he dreamt up to do away with his family,such as drugging them first with Julie's tablets or burning the house down. Where she makes mistakes as to dates of her teaching practice she corrects herself,yet according to the doubters is willing to perjure herself in every other aspect.
-
It will soon be possible to put the answer to the question about whether or not the contents of phone log, 3:26am, contains details of a call from Ralph and Jeremy, or just from Jeremy - by reference to the metered call logs, dated, Wednesday, 7th August 1985. It will simply be a case of comparing the metered call logs from whf and the cottage where Jeremy lived?
-
Hi lookout I was thinking perhaps you can help. If Jeremy had committed the murders at the farm why bother with any phones calls he could have got back to Goldhanger cleaned himself up (got rid of any evidence) gone to bed and waited until some member of staff found the bodies and contacted him he could never have been connected with the murders oh sorry he would not have confessed to Julie of course not a word to anyone. He would have got away with it.
Hi Susan,
Before I say this, I do actually think JB is innocent but some might say that the significance of the phone call was to make sure that police believed Sheila was responsible from the beginning.
-
It will soon be possible to put the answer to the question about whether or not the contents of phone log, 3:26am, contains details of a call from Ralph and Jeremy, or just from Jeremy - by reference to the metered call logs, dated, Wednesday, 7th August 1985. It will simply be a case of comparing the metered call logs from whf and the cottage where Jeremy lived?
I'm not sure I'm following this. What do you mean about metered call logs and how "soon" do you expect an answer? There was no way of checking in 1985 where a phone call emanated from;even by dialling the 999 number your phone number would not have been recorded. What the defenders of Jeremy Bamber have to answer is why upon receipt of an emergency telephone call from his father he wastes time calling Julie,then flaps around the Yellow Pages looking for the local Police Station number when dialling 999 would have been the quickest way of summoning help.
You also have to explain what telephone Ralph(Nevill) used at White House Farm. We know Nevill was shot upstairs,yet was either forcibly moved downstairs or managed to get into the kitchen,where the bedside phone was found plugged in,the normal kitchen phone was left in working order under some magazines. If Nevill phoned from the bedroom why was the phone moved from there? If he phoned from the kitchen why weren't there traces of blood on the phone after he had been shot upstairs?
An explanation is that Nevill heard a noise,possibly Jeremy going into the twins' bedroom and came out of his and June's bedroom onto the landing,where Jeremy,according to the Police shot him four times. If he bashes him with the rifle at this point,fracturing his jaw,then Nevill could hardly speak to make a phone call,let alone use two hands to dial a number. If Jeremy had moved the Bambers' bedroom phone and also tampered with the cordless phone the only hope for the family is to use the kitchen phone.
In my opinion Nevill did not make any call that night,and from the testimony of the secretary Barbara Wilson,though hearsay,that Nevill had foretold his own death in a shooting accident and that "I must never turn my back on that young man" Jeremy would have been the last person he would have been likely to call.
-
Steve,,,in your last paragraph stating the words of Nevill to Barbara Wilson " I must never turn my back on that young man " can also be interpreted as Nevill giving all the help that he can to Jeremy,,to make up for his lack of help with Sheila.
A case of selective interpretation there,yes.?
In other words,Nevill had witnessed the much damaged Sheila and probably felt powerless to do anything about it because of his lack of knowledge on the subject of mental illness as severe as hers was.
As it happened,,those words never appeared on a character reference submitted by Barbara Wilson.
-
Hi lookout we discussed this last night about the double meaning of I must never turn my back on that boy. To think that he meant Jeremy may shoot him is not how I see it and Barbara spoke very highly of Jeremy.
-
Hi lookout we discussed this last night about the double meaning of I must never turn my back on that boy. To think that he meant Jeremy may shoot him is not how I see it and Barbara spoke very highly of Jeremy.
Hi Susan,,,yes,Barbara Wilson did like Jeremy,,as did the farm-workers and anyone else who knew him,,apart from the relatives who objected to Jeremys' entitlement should the worst happen,,,,being an " outsider " and them blood relatives. ( who were btw still squabbling over the inheritance 10 years on from the murders )
-
Hi lookout I am sure Barbara Wilson said she got on with Jeremy better than her own son. Pam,s husband Robert Thingy said he loathed Jeremy I have wondered did the children of the family i.e. Ann Eaton go to private schools.?
-
Hi lookout I am sure Barbara Wilson said she got on with Jeremy better than her own son. Pam,s husband Robert Thingy said he loathed Jeremy I have wondered did the children of the family i.e. Ann Eaton go to private schools.?
Hi Susan,,yes,,Barbara Wilson did say that about Jeremy in comparison to her own son. What a compliment,eh.? Jeremy probably fell over himself with his good manners too,,,which is as rare as hens teeth today.
There was something to be said for the " stiff upper-lip " of bringing up children in the way the Bambers did,,but unfortunately that kind of up-bringing didn't always have the desired effect in some, as rebellion usually followed a regimented household.
-
Hi lookout I am sure Barbara Wilson said she got on with Jeremy better than her own son. Pam,s husband Robert Thingy said he loathed Jeremy I have wondered did the children of the family i.e. Ann Eaton go to private schools.?
Hi Susan. I wonder how long "Thingy" had loathed Jeremy. We'll never know the agenda, of course but consider this, Wealthy, couple, successful family business, comfortable lifestyle for rellies, possibility of handouts and/or interestfree loans and most important of all, no children..........and then they go and adopt, not one, but two and now Neville and June have their own "family" to spend on, what would have been family money. The "Thingys" could have spent years resenting Jeremy and Sheila.
-
Hi april1 The Thingy,s probably resented Jeremy and Sheila from day one. I am trying to find out if the children from the extended family went to private schools and had the advantages Jeremy and Sheila had.
-
CALLING ROCHFORD
Hi, posting the above reminded me that I asked you a while ago if you cld help me retrieve the medi records for June and JB from the above site. I probably wrongly assume that every man has innate it skills but I will not think any less of you if this is not the case. You will still be my fave poster boy. If you are unable to help who shall I ask? I think Reader has good it skills?
Reader is certainly more adept than me at IT :D I will contact the site owner to ask them though.
-
Morning egap1 So glad you took time out from your studies I have been asking all day if the Eatons were educated privately and I had no response so I thank you very much for the link. It has certainly answered so many questions I have been asking myself regarding the dislike the extended family had for Jeremy and Sheila I could not understand why but I can now.
-
Hi Mike many thanks for your email you must have been very busy. Jeremy is lucky to have you.
-
Hi Susan
I still haven't managed to wean myself totally off the forum yet. Lucky you as hopefully this is the info you're looking for :):
http://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/
It appears that AE and DB attended local state schools. RB obviously didn't have the same concerns that the Bambers had about JB mixing with local children that he might one day have to employ. Or perhaps RB simply didn't have the means to pay the fees.
I have also read the above elsewhere but I'm always a bit wary of relying on info that lacks authenticity.
Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.
Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.
-
Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.
Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.
Morning April. Reading about the " pedigree " of RB doesn't make for pleasant reading at all,,,and I wholeheartedly agree with your description of this odious character.
-
Morning April. Reading about the " pedigree " of RB doesn't make for pleasant reading at all,,,and I wholeheartedly agree with your description of this odious character.
Quite an odious post from yourself.
-
Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.
Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.
If you choose to believe this particular work of fiction on Jeremybamber.org, particularly the robbing of the caravan park to test security crap, then more fool you!
-
It's also worth considering where things are being scrutinised, by whom and why?
-
Well actually it does and it did. The tactic of embellishing or rubbishing an appellants or witnesses character, played a large part in how they came across to the Jury.
But I was referring to the fact that the only reason these small things are being scrutinised today, are because Jeremys supporters are providing opposition, it is natural that other people with opposing views would appear. I'm not sure there's much to complain about.
-
It looks like I've jumped in and taken your post out of context to an extent. :-[
JB has 'come clean' with his involvement in the caravan break-in, hence his insistence that he did it to prove security was lax.
Anyway the point is, that it's absolutely obvious that the prosecution would highlight anything unsavoury in Jeremys past, likewise the defence obviously attempted to undermine Julies character.
Why the jury believed Julie and didn't believe Jeremy, I have no idea. The arrogance Jeremy apparently displayed in court surely didn't do him any favours.
Other evidence such as the ability for Jeremy to enter and exit the house, must also have strengthened Julies testimony. That's all without mentioning the silencer evidence of course.
-
It looks like I've jumped in and taken your post out of context to an extent. :-[
JB has 'come clean' with his involvement in the caravan break-in, hence his insistence that he did it to prove security was lax.
Anyway the point is, that it's absolutely obvious that the prosecution would highlight anything unsavoury in Jeremys past, likewise the defence obviously attempted to undermine Julies character.
Why the jury believed Julie and didn't believe Jeremy, I have no idea. The arrogance Jeremy apparently displayed in court surely didn't do him any favours.
Other evidence such as the ability for Jeremy to enter and exit the house, must also have strengthened Julies testimony. That's all without mentioning the silencer evidence of course.
Hi Hartley. Sorry, but I refuse to call you Jam.
Can I just say that the evidence against JB has weakened over the years thanks to modern day science.
There is not evidence to support the fact anyone, let alone JB got in and out of the windows on the evening of the murders. They had been forensically tested and they found nothing.
The silencer evidence would not hold in a court of today...The DNA evidence would never stick. Just saying by the way! :) :) :)
-
It was a conviction based on assumptions and lies from JM. Nothing else. No wonder June didn't like her.
-
Hi Hartley. Sorry, but I refuse to call you Jam.
Can I just say that the evidence against JB has weakened over the years thanks to modern day science.
There is not evidence to support the fact anyone, let alone JB got in and out of the windows on the evening of the murders. They had been forensically tested and they found nothing.
The silencer evidence would not hold in a court of today...The DNA evidence would never stick. Just saying by the way! :) :) :)
I understand what you are suggesting, but that is simply not the case at all.
The evidence against JB has not been weakened at all, it might be a fun thing for somebody protesting his innocence to cling to, but the reality is very different.
Take the window entry for example, the prosecution do not claim that they knew how Jeremy entered and exited the house, they simply demonstrated that he could have.
The silencer evidence most certainly would be admissible in court today, the crime scene would have been locked down and investigated more thoroughly (in my opinion) before it was handed over to Basil. The police would have found the sound moderator themselves, they would also have been able to carry out DNA tests using Sheila's DNA as a comparison rather than her biological mothers.
If anything, I'd say that the case against Jeremy has been reinforced considerably over the years, Jeremys defence teams opportunities have diminished a little more each time the CCRC responded to an application for leave to appeal and each time a Court of Appeal dismissed his case.
That's without mentioning all of the exhibits which have degraded due to the passage of time or been destroyed, which are no longer available to the defence, which makes questioning the original findings rather difficult.
Just saying Patti. :P ;)
-
It was a conviction based on assumptions and lies from JM. Nothing else. No wonder June didn't like her.
You are absolutely correct lookout. The prosecution case relied mostly upon a lier and a corrupted silencer evidence. Which would most definely be thrown out of court these days. Of course if the police had release ALL the evidence in their possession instead of hiding it up all these years Jeremy would probably had been proved innocent years ago. But of course we still have this issue of police corruption to look into. The deliberate witholding of vital evidence.
-
I understand what you are suggesting, but that is simply not the case at all.
The evidence against JB has not been weakened at all, it might be a fun thing for somebody protesting his innocence to cling to, but the reality is very different.
Take the window entry for example, the prosecution do not claim that they knew how Jeremy entered and exited the house, they simply demonstrated that he could have.
The silencer evidence most certainly would be admissible in court today, the crime scene would have been locked down and investigated more thoroughly (in my opinion) before it was handed over to Basil. The police would have found the sound moderator themselves, they would also have been able to carry out DNA tests using Sheila's DNA as a comparison rather than her biological mothers.
If anything, I'd say that the case against Jeremy has been reinforced considerably over the years, Jeremys defence teams opportunities have diminished a little more each time the CCRC responded to an application for leave to appeal and each time a Court of Appeal dismissed his case.
That's without mentioning all of the exhibits which have degraded due to the passage of time or been destroyed, which are no longer available to the defence, which makes questioning the original findings rather difficult.
Just saying Patti. :P ;)
I disagree Hartley. The argument over the windows could win a jury of today. The silencer evidence can throw doubts to a jury...for it is not 100% certain that Shelia's DNA is on there; plus it might be proved that a silencer was not on the rifle during the murders. It's not a safe bet anymore Hartley...
I know JB was found guilty in 1986, but...and a big but...and in all fairness, the evidence was rather thin......
I agree the mere fact they destroyed the majority of the evidence when told not too...makes it very difficult....I suppose one might have to ask why so much evidence was destroyed when EP knew JB was intent of fighting for his innocence... :) :) :)
-
I disagree Hartley. The argument over the windows could win a jury of today. The silencer evidence can throw doubts to a jury...for it is not 100% certain that Shelia's DNA is on there; plus it might be proved that a silencer was not on the rifle during the murders. It's not a safe bet anymore Hartley...
I know JB was found guilty in 1986, but...and a big but...and in all fairness, the evidence was rather thin......
I agree the mere fact they destroyed the majority of the evidence when told not too...makes it very difficult....I suppose one might have to ask why so much evidence was destroyed when EP knew JB was intent of fighting for his innocence... :) :) :)
The very fact the police destroyed that evidence on the exact day that they were permitted to is to my mind very suspicious indeed. I just wonder why the BGB are not really interested in police corruption in this case? Makes you wonder about the honesty of some people doesn't it.
-
I disagree Hartley. The argument over the windows could win a jury of today. The silencer evidence can throw doubts to a jury...for it is not 100% certain that Shelia's DNA is on there; plus it might be proved that a silencer was not on the rifle during the murders. It's not a safe bet anymore Hartley...
I know JB was found guilty in 1986, but...and a big but...and in all fairness, the evidence was rather thin......
I agree the mere fact they destroyed the majority of the evidence when told not too...makes it very difficult....I suppose one might have to ask why so much evidence was destroyed when EP knew JB was intent of fighting for his innocence... :) :) :)
The prosecution indicated at the original trial that there was a remote chance of the blood not being Sheilas, the jury specifically asked that question.
The case against Jeremy is stronger now than it ever has been in my opinion.
I'll eat my hat if leave to apply for a JR isn't refused.
We could go back and forth all evening, but I'll still think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Plus it would be pretty pointless. :P
-
I understand what you are suggesting, but that is simply not the case at all.
The evidence against JB has not been weakened at all, it might be a fun thing for somebody protesting his innocence to cling to, but the reality is very different.
Take the window entry for example, the prosecution do not claim that they knew how Jeremy entered and exited the house, they simply demonstrated that he could have.
The silencer evidence most certainly would be admissible in court today, the crime scene would have been locked down and investigated more thoroughly (in my opinion) before it was handed over to Basil. The police would have found the sound moderator themselves, they would also have been able to carry out DNA tests using Sheila's DNA as a comparison rather than her biological mothers.
If anything, I'd say that the case against Jeremy has been reinforced considerably over the years, Jeremys defence teams opportunities have diminished a little more each time the CCRC responded to an application for leave to appeal and each time a Court of Appeal dismissed his case.
That's without mentioning all of the exhibits which have degraded due to the passage of time or been destroyed, which are no longer available to the defence, which makes questioning the original findings rather difficult.
Just saying Patti. :P ;)
A skewed slant that is Hartley. Give you your dues, you've certainly got some loyalty.
-
A skewed slant that is Hartley. Give you your dues, you've certainly got some loyalty.
I gues the fact that you think my slant is skewed, is a skewed slant. :P
-
The prosecution indicated at the original trial that there was a remote chance of the blood not being Sheilas, the jury specifically asked that question.
The case against Jeremy is stronger now than it ever has been in my opinion.
I'll eat my hat if leave to apply for a JR isn't refused.
We could go back and forth all evening, but I'll still think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Plus it would be pretty pointless. :P
You've been drinking lol :P :P :P :P
-
You've been drinking lol :P :P :P :P
I wish I had. :(
-
I'll eat my hat if leave to apply for a JR isn't refused.
There's a good chance that your hat will remain unEaton (sorry... couldn't help it :-[)
-
There's a good chance that your hat will remain unEaton (sorry... couldn't help it :-[)
Hahahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Essex police = one blunder after another
Essex police= failing to secure a crime scene
Essex police= failing to collect evidence
Essex police= burning evidence within 24 hours
Essex police= contaminating hand swabs
Essex police= making a crime fit with the persistence of the extended family
Essex police= error after error in the evidence they collected
Essex police= destroy vital evidence that could exonerate Jeremy Bamber
Essex police= investigated by LP
Essex police = still withholding evidence
Essex police = have a great deal to answer for.
-
Well said Caroline. :) :) :) :)
-
I think we are playing snap here...lol :) :) :)
-
The crime scene wasn't preserved
The argument seems to be deliberate vs incompetent
-
There's a good chance that your hat will remain unEaton (sorry... couldn't help it :-[)
I think you should stand in the corner with your hands on your head for that one. ;D
-
I think you should stand in the corner with your hands on your head for that one. ;D
Blame Grahame... he lent me his 'Big book of jokes' :D
-
No, anybody else could not enter and exit the house undetected, besides that, the suspect pool was limited to two.
I know what Patti meant, but it's irrelevant, unless you have a time machine?
-
Blame Grahame... he lent me his 'Big book of jokes' :D
I don't think I'm allowed to. ::)
-
No, anybody else could not enter and exit the house undetected, besides that, the suspect pool was limited to two.
I know what Patti meant, but it's irrelevant, unless you have a time machine?
Of course anyone can enter a house, in or out. But they wont get fool forensics....You and I maybe. Or are you saying forensics got it wrong...
Anyone can gain entry through a window....I dare bet half the country have entered their own home via a window at some point in their lives...The fact remains there is no proof JB entered the said windows on that night. We can argue till the cows come home, but I know who will win their point...moooooooo :) :) :) :)
-
Of course anyone can enter a house, in or out. But they wont get fool forensics....You and I maybe. Or are you saying forensics got it wrong...
Anyone can gain entry through a window....I dare bet half the country have entered their own home via a window at some point in their lives...The fact remains there is no proof JB entered the said windows on that night. We can argue till the cows come home, but I know who will win their point...moooooooo :) :) :) :)
No, only Jeremy appeared to know how to enter and exit, then bang the latch shut from the outside.
What's your point? You know I believe he is guilty and I know that you disagree. Is there any point to all this point scoring? :-\
-
No, only Jeremy appeared to know how to enter and exit, then bang the latch shut from the outside.
What's your point? You know I believe he is guilty and I know that you disagree. Is there any point to all this point scoring? :-\
Yes, but he did not know how to lock the latch....his family did though. Do you think he would have left a note for BW telling her to secure a lock on the window, if he knew how to lock it...I'm afraid the window locking through a umpteen bangs from the outside was never witnessed by the jury, other that the family and one officer that wasn't paying that much attention...
I am talking to you Hartley....having a debate, is that not what you are here for? Sorry if I upset you...I shall ignore you in the future. :-\
-
Yes, but he did not know how to lock the latch....his family did though. Do you think he would have left a note for BW telling her to secure a lock on the window, if he knew how to lock it...I'm afraid the window locking through a umpteen bangs from the outside was never witnessed by the jury, other that the family and one officer that wasn't paying that much attention...
I am talking to you Hartley....having a debate, is that not what you are here for? Sorry if I upset you...I shall ignore you in the future. :-\
I believe he did know how to. The jury believed that he did know how to. The jury believed that he told Julie that he did know how to.
Nobody else knew how to, which also helped to limit the suspects to two, along with Ralphs alleged call to Jeremy.
You haven't upset me, I am completely unupsettable, I'm just a bit bored of some the point scoring at times, that's all, no offence intended.
If people can't accept that others may have a different view then I'd suggest the problem is with them. :-\
-
I believe he did know how to. The jury believed that he did know how to. The jury believed that he told Julie that he did know how to.
Nobody else knew how to, which is helped to limit the suspects to two, along with Ralphs alleged call to Jeremy.
You haven't upset me, I am completely unupsettable, I'm just a bit bored of some the point scoring at times, that's all, no offence intended.
If people can't accept that others may have a different view then I'd suggest the problem is with them. :-\
Hartley , once on here MT made a mistake over something that you rightly
pointed out was wrong , you responded with , ' don't you just love it when that happens ' ,
was you point scoring then ? Or are you again talking nonsense above ?
-
Hartley , once on here MT made a mistake over something that you rightly
pointed out was wrong , you responded with , ' don't you just love it when that happens ' ,
was you point scoring then ? Or are you again talking nonsense above ?
No Jon, that was showing that Mike was telling lies on a particular issue.
Why so obsessed with me? You know my views on the case, so what what do you want from me?
That's rhetorical by the way, I'm not intrested in your rudeness and goading, sorry. ::)
-
No Jon, that was showing that Mike was telling lies on a particular issue.
Why so obsessed with me? You know my views on the case, so what what do you want from me?
That's rhetorical by the way, I'm not intrested in your rudeness and goading, sorry. ::)
Was you telling lies over SC appointments at the doctors ?
If you look back you replied to me first !!
I will let others judge , who is rude and goads !!
-
Was you telling lies over SC appointments at the doctors ?
If you look back you replied to me first !!
I will let others judge , who is rude and goads !!
People should start here when judging then:
Not that you need to read it Hartley , but as you are no doubt aware this is what i meant , i have noticed you making a lot of mistakes on here in the last few days , i hope you have found out whether SC did miss appointments at the doctors , or who produced what log at court , i think there was another , regarding NB chair !! Do you think you will ever make a mistake and it will point to JB's innocence ? Or will even your mistakes always point to his guilt ?
I forgot my ::) :P , do grow up !!
-
Yes, but he did not know how to lock the latch....his family did though. Do you think he would have left a note for BW telling her to secure a lock on the window, if he knew how to lock it...I'm afraid the window locking through a umpteen bangs from the outside was never witnessed by the jury, other that the family and one officer that wasn't paying that much attention...
I am talking to you Hartley....having a debate, is that not what you are here for? Sorry if I upset you...I shall ignore you in the future. :-\
When did he leave the note for BW? Was it on the occasion after the murders, when he entered WHF via the window, to collect his passport?
-
When did he leave the note for BW? Was it on the occasion after the murders, when he entered WHF via the window, to collect his passport?
Was it his passport?
-
Was it his passport?
Oh, probably not, my mistake. Whatever it was, the same question applies.
-
Oh, probably not, my mistake. Whatever it was, the same question applies.
I don't know that it wasn't his passport, I just haven't read that before that's all.
-
I don't know that it wasn't his passport, I just haven't read that before that's all.
I was referring to the occasion, shortly after the murders when he gained entry to the farm house via the window. He claimed that he was retrieving documents of one sort or another. Somebody earlier on in this thread stated that he left a note for BW, asking her to make sure that the window was secured. Was this note left on the occasion I've just mentioned? Or on another occasion?
-
I was referring to the occasion, shortly after the murders when he gained entry to the farm house via the window. He claimed that he was retrieving documents of one sort or another. Somebody earlier on in this thread stated that he left a note for BW, asking her to make sure that the window was secured. Was this note left on the occasion I've just mentioned? Or on another occasion?
I understood when you meant, I just hadn't seen the passport mentioned before.
It must surely have been on that occasion if it happened, any idea where this originally get's mentioned? It's not in BW's statement that is available on the forum.
-
Yes, but he did not know how to lock the latch....his family did though. Do you think he would have left a note for BW telling her to secure a lock on the window, if he knew how to lock it...I'm afraid the window locking through a umpteen bangs from the outside was never witnessed by the jury, other that the family and one officer that wasn't paying that much attention...
I am talking to you Hartley....having a debate, is that not what you are here for? Sorry if I upset you...I shall ignore you in the future. :-\
Having read Patti's post (above) I inferred that Jeremy had left a note. I must admit that I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else. Of course, I could have completely misinterpreted her post!
-
Having read Patti's post (above) I inferred that Jeremy had left a note. I must admit that I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else. Of course, I could have completely misinterpreted her post!
No I don't think you did, I'm just intrigued to know the source of the information.
-
No I don't think you did, I'm just intrigued to know the source of the information.
I am inclined to trust Patti's research, she seems quite thorough.
If he did indeed leave that note, on that occasion, I would suggest that that may appear quite incriminating.
I thought it odd that he chose to enter via the window anyway, but to leave a note, implying that he would be incapable of locking the window from the outside, might appear to be an attempt to cover his tracks. Whatever the reason, I think that this was incredibly foolish.
-
I am inclined to trust Patti's research, she seems quite thorough.
If he did indeed leave that note, on that occasion, I would suggest that that may appear quite incriminating.
I thought it odd that he chose to enter via the window anyway, but to leave a note, implying that he would be incapable of locking the window from the outside, might appear to be an attempt to cover his tracks. Whatever the reason, I think that this was incredibly foolish.
I'm not questioning Patti's reseach, just interested in where it came from.
Actually instead of being foolish, it's potentially very clever, it would account for any discovered evidence of entry, i.e. he could say it was from this occasion rather than on the night of the murders.
-
I'm not questioning Patti's reseach, just interested in where it came from.
Actually instead of being foolish, it's potentially very clever, it would account for any discovered evidence of entry, i.e. he could say it was from this occasion rather than on the night of the murders.
Yes he may well have averted potentially incriminating evidence, or on the other hand, there may have been none anyway. The actual reality was, the jury must have thought that this stank! Obviously not enough to convict him but another nail in his coffin nonetheless.
-
You also have to :) explain what telephone Ralph(Nevill) used at White House Farm. We know Nevill was shot upstairs,yet was either forcibly moved downstairs or managed to get into the kitchen,where the bedside phone was found plugged in,the normal kitchen phone was left in working order under some magazines. If Nevill phoned from the bedroom why was the phone moved from there? If he phoned from the kitchen why weren't there traces of blood on the phone after he had been shot upstairs?
You do not know that Ralph was shot upstairs. There is no corroborating independant evidence except to a dody claim that 12 spent bullet cases were found in the bedroom, when originally there were only 8? Four exhibits (DRH1, 2, 3 and 4) were vacated to allow four addition bullet cases to be introduced into the main bedroom scenario, thus altering the total of bullet cases allegedly found in the bedroom from its original total of 8 to 12. Without adding those 4 additional bullet cases into the main bedroom equation, there wasn't enough bullet cases in there to allow Ralph to have been shot there upstairs in the bedroom...
-
You do not know that Ralph was shot upstairs. There is no corroborating independant evidence except to a dody claim that 12 spent bullet cases were found in the bedroom, when originally there were only 8? Four exhibits (DRH1, 2, 3 and 4) were vacated to allow four addition bullet cases to be introduced into the main bedroom scenario, thus altering the total of bullet cases allegedly found in the bedroom from its original total of 8 to 12. Without adding those 4 additional bullet cases into the main bedroom equation, there wasn't enough bullet cases in there to allow Ralph to have been shot there upstairs in the bedroom...
Yet to be fathomed out, is why DC Hammersley forgot he found four bullet cases (originally unidentified by any exhibit reference) in the main bedroom?
-
Yet to be fathomed out, is why DC Hammersley forgot he found four bullet cases (originally unidentified by any exhibit reference) in the main bedroom?
You do not I would suggest forget you had found four bullet cases at the scene, next to the body of the prime suspect and which to all intents and purpose would have been the very first exhibits you took possession of (DRH/1, 2, 3 and 4), and then have to vacate four other exhibits which originally had those very same identifying marks, if you genuinely did find and recover 12 bullet cases from inside the main bedroom, not 8?
-
You do not I would suggest forget you had found four bullet cases at the scene, next to the body of the prime suspect and which to all intents and purpose would have been the very first exhibits you took possession of (DRH/1, 2, 3 and 4), and then have to vacate four other exhibits which originally had those very same identifying marks, if you genuinely did find and recover 12 bullet cases from inside the main bedroom, not 8?
There was not found, not detected, not identified one microscopic piece or trace of any blood which could have remotely originated from any wound sustained by Ralph Bamber whilst he was present in the main bedroom...
No blood at all from Ralph in the bedroom, is consistent with no blood having been found on the phone downstairs in the kitchen - you do not have to be a genious to work that out for yourself. Everything points to Ralph not being shot at all in the bedroom, a fact easily arrived at because there was non of his blood found in the bedroom...
If I am wrong you will no doubt draw my attention to it and provide references to your source for such information - non exists to my knowlege...
-
I did not say that Ralph(Nevill)was shot in the bedroom;I said he was shot upstairs. I just do not accept this Police conspiracy of fabricating evidence;in my mind it was more of a cock-up. There has been a £1million reward put up on the part of the Jeremy Bamber team to prove innocence which has not been claimed by any of the Police involved in the investigation.
If Nevill is not incapacitated on the landing or stairs one has to ask oneself why he does not attempt to arm himself with one of the many guns we are told are located inside the farm. Are we also to believe that a 6ft 4ins man who was a member of the RAF during the war succumbs meekly to Sheila during a telephone call simply because she depresses the switchhook with one of her well-manicured fingernails?
I am still looking for a realistic scenario which accounts for Nevill Bamber dialling a 7 figure number to Jeremy,when any normal person would have dialled 999 first.
-
Police photographs taken which show views of the round finger dial phone in the kitchen, do not prove that this was the phone with its handset off its cradle at the time police first entered the premises - such photographs only prove it was there at the time police photographed it there? It remains a possibility that police involved in the training exercise moved the phone to the kitchen to try and make the staged scene more realistic, based upon information regarding a telephone call made by Ralph to Jeremy and to the police...
-
Paragraphs 279 - 287 of the Court of Appeal Judgment make for very interesting reading.
JB admitted entering WHF via the "loo window" for the purpose of retrieving "car documents" and he left a note for BW requesting that she pay his Solicitor's bills
-
Paragraphs 279 - 287 of the Court of Appeal Judgment make for very interesting reading.
JB admitted entering WHF via the "loo window" for the purpose of retrieving "car documents" and he left a note for BW requesting that she pay his Solicitor's bills
So the note said nothing about securing the window? I wonder what Patti was reading then.
-
I still can't envisage the circumstances in which a telephone call was made from White House Farm by Ralph(Nevill). Does he hear Sheila going into the twins' bedroom and hear the shots she fires into their bodies,then comes out onto the landing where he is shot four times,Sheila then goes into the master bedroom and shoots June,during which time Nevill manages to stagger downstairs..however he doesn't make for the gun cupboard but the telephone in the kitchen. Let's say Nevill at this stage knows he is wounded too badly to manipulate a gun,but with one hand can dial a number..it's an emergency situation as he relates to Jeremy that "Your sister has gone crazy and has got the gun" which is echoed in Jeremy's call to the Police from Goldhanger("You've got to help me..")..whilst Sheila is shooting June seven times Nevill manages to make another phone call to the Police,which is logged as "daughter gone berserk with one of my guns".
At this stage in the scenario therefore Nevill has already made two telephone calls from the kitchen. Nevill then has a little more time to twist his bloodstained watch off his wrist and hide it under the rug,before Sheila comes back into the kitchen where she bashes him brutally in the head,then fires three more times to finish him off.
I'm wondering why,when Nevill manages to get downstairs in a fight or flight situation if ever there was one he wastes time phoning what must have at least been a 7 figure number to Jeremy when one's only thought must be for the safety of those upstairs? The 999 number would have been in anyone's mind first especially since he is injured with his motor skills impaired. There is no blood on the downstairs phone,yet we know from the wristwatch that he had been wounded,unless he somehow in his dying moments manages to unfasten his wristwatch and hide it under the rug.
I would suggest that it's far more likely that it was Jeremy whom Nevill heard moving about in the early hours of that morning and tried the bedroom phone which was disabled as Jeremy had already unplugged the kitchen phone which was later proved to be in working order. Nevill comes out of the bedroom and Jeremy shoot him four times,then goes into the master bedroom where June is shot seven times in total,the first as she is sat up in bed,one shot aimed straight between the eyes.
Nevill is then frogmarched downstairs by Jeremy to the kitchen- in Dr. Vanezis's report there are marks on Nevill's back to suggest that a hot rifle butt is held against his skin for a short period,where he is then assaulted with the rifle and left for dead. Nevill manages to release his wristwatch and hide it under the rug,hoping against hope that its bloodstained state might be useful to investigators. Jeremy then races back upstairs,finishes June off,hurries back downstairs and fires three more bullets into Nevill,which prove fatal.
I just don't see a scenario where Nevill makes any telephone calls to the Police that morning. I can see a scenario where another person,whether Jeremy or a hitman does make a call,with gloved hand on the kitchen phone to the cottage at Whitehanger,which if records do exist,would show that calls were made,but not by whom.
The above is what I originally posted,minus smiley face,in the telephone logs section.
-
Mike, I just don't understand your point about the "training exercise". Why would the Police, at such an early stage, and when it appeared to everyone that this was a case of 4 murders and 1 suicide, seek to manufacture the crime scene?
-
There was not found, not detected, not identified one microscopic piece or trace of any blood which could have remotely originated from any wound sustained by Ralph Bamber whilst he was present in the main bedroom...
No blood at all from Ralph in the bedroom, is consistent with no blood having been found on the phone downstairs in the kitchen - you do not have to be a genious to work that out for yourself. Everything points to Ralph not being shot at all in the bedroom, a fact easily arrived at because there was non of his blood found in the bedroom...
If I am wrong you will no doubt draw my attention to it and provide references to your source for such information - non exists to my knowlege...
Morning Mike. I don't know how this sits with you but IMO, had Neville been shot when he phoned Jeremy, his wording would surely have been other than it was. He would have been less concerned that Sheila HAD the gun, than, that having demonstrated she could use it once, might use it again. "I've been shot. Come quick/get help" come to mind as more appropriate.
-
Hi Bridget
You are correct, the note did not say anything at all about securing the window
-
I did not say that Ralph(Nevill)was shot in the bedroom;I said he was shot upstairs. I just do not accept this Police conspiracy of fabricating evidence;in my mind it was more of a cock-up. There has been a £1million reward put up on the part of the Jeremy Bamber team to prove innocence which has not been claimed by any of the Police involved in the investigation.
If Nevill is not incapacitated on the landing or stairs one has to ask oneself why he does not attempt to arm himself with one of the many guns we are told are located inside the farm. Are we also to believe that a 6ft 4ins man who was a member of the RAF during the war succumbs meekly to Sheila during a telephone call simply because she depresses the switchhook with one of her well-manicured fingernails?
I am still looking for a realistic scenario which accounts for Nevill Bamber dialling a 7 figure number to Jeremy,when any normal person would have dialled 999 first.
I did not say Ralph had not been shot on the upstairs landing or the stairs, I was making the point that he was not shot at all in the bedroom. There is a big difference between the two scenarios. Furthermore, I would be prepared to except that Ralph may have already been shot before he either called Jeremy, or before he called the police, or both, or before he activated the attck alarm which went straight through to the police...
-
Why unplug the kitchen phone and hide it under a pile of magazines? Nobody in their right mind would attempt to stage manage a crime scene and gainsay the orders of their boss DCI "Taff" Tom Jones,who was satisfied that it was four murders and a suicide.
-
Could anybody furnish me with a possible reason for Neville's removal and hiding of his watch?
-
Could anybody furnish me with a possible reason for Neville's removal and hiding of his watch?
I was wondering that.
-
Hi Bridget
You are correct, the note did not say anything at all about securing the window
Well that puts a different slant on it then doesn't it.
-
Morning Stranger Bridget I read Nevill,s watch fell off in the struggle I don,t think he would try to hide a watch a cartier I believe when fighting for his life.
-
Morning Stranger Bridget I read Nevill,s watch fell off in the struggle I don,t think he would try to hide a watch a cartier I believe when fighting for his life.
Morning Susan - I tend to agree..
-
Could anybody furnish me with a possible reason for Neville's removal and hiding of his watch?
It would prove to Police that he had put up a fight and had been in the location of the rug in case someone tried to move his body,or set fire to the farm,a last desperate attempt of a dying man to leave a clue that he had been overpowered,yet remained defiant.
-
Hi april1 Another theory about Nevill,s watch is before going to bed he took his watch off and placed it on the table and it was knocked off in the struggle and just got underneath cushions on the floor can,t see any reason at all for him to try and hide his watch.
-
Hi Mike I was lead to believe that Ralph was shot in the arm on his way downstairs to the phone and blood was evident on the surface where the phone was sitting.
-
So the note said nothing about securing the window? I wonder what Patti was reading then.
Me too. :-\
-
I did not say Ralph had not been shot on the upstairs landing or the stairs, I was making the point that he was not shot at all in the bedroom. There is a big difference between the two scenarios. Furthermore, I would be prepared to except that Ralph may have already been shot before he either called Jeremy, or before he called the police, or both, or before he activated the attck alarm which went straight through to the police...
So the alarm was defiantly activated,in what order of the other phone calls,do we know?
-
It would prove to Police that he had put up a fight and had been in the location of the rug in case someone tried to move his body,or set fire to the farm,a last desperate attempt of a dying man to leave a clue that he had been overpowered,yet remained defiant.
Morning Steve. Forgive me if I say you sound as is you've just put down a copy of "Dan Dare." Just can't imagine all that logic being worked through when some one is fighting for their life, BUT in fairness, I've not been in that situation.
-
Hi april1 Another theory about Nevill,s watch is before going to bed he took his watch off and placed it on the table and it was knocked off in the struggle and just got underneath cushions on the floor can,t see any reason at all for him to try and hide his watch.
Morning Susan. Can go with that. Must dash, back later.
-
Me too. :-\
It's in Scott Lomax's book, but he doesn't give a source for the information.
-
Hi april1 Another theory about Nevill,s watch is before going to bed he took his watch off and placed it on the table and it was knocked off in the struggle and just got underneath cushions on the floor can,t see any reason at all for him to try and hide his watch.
Hi Susie I agree the simple answer is usually the correct one. A man of Ralphs era would be highly unlikely to keep his watch on at night and it was probably placed on the worktop or the table each evening.
-
Good Morning Maggie so glad you are back at least I have three or 4 people replying to my posts had thought of replying to them myself :) ;) ;)
-
Why unplug the kitchen phone and hide it under a pile of magazines? Nobody in their right mind would attempt to stage manage a crime scene and gainsay the orders of their boss DCI "Taff" Tom Jones,who was satisfied that it was four murders and a suicide.
You do not know who inplugged any phone, and you do not know how the other digital phone ended under the pile of magazines weeks later. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the actions you speak of had anything at all to do with Jeremy. It could just as easily have been Ralph, or June, or as the case may be, Sheila, or the police during the reconstruction which took place during a training exercise whilst the bodies of the victims were still in situ?
-
Could anybody furnish me with a possible reason for Neville's removal and hiding of his watch?
There is no evidence at all that Ralph was wearing a watch when he got attacked in the kitchen, and no explanation worthy of note to account for how that watch found its way underneath the kitchen rug, other than to say it got there accidentally when police stage managed the kitchen scene...
-
Good morning girls. Nice to see you Maggie,,you've been missed,girl.
I'm almost sure that if Nevill had seen Jeremy in the house that night,,that this tragedy would never have happened because Nevill would immediately have both dialled 999 and also activated the alarm,,,given that the antis' on the forum believed the remark about " not turning his back on that young man ". Nevill hadn't bargained for it being Sheila,,,and didn't expect what happened to them all.
The reason none of this appeared to be an emergency at the onset was because it wasn't Jeremy. Instead,,,it was Sheila,,whom Nevill thought that it was possible to talk her round,,,but sadly,the attack was so frenzied,that it gave no time or chance for Nevill to reason with her.
I would imagine that the watch if it was on Nevills' wrist,,would have been wrenched off when Sheila dug her nails in his arms.The watch having been found under the rug/carpet possibly would have been a valuable one,,even a Rolex,,,and seeing that Jeremy was described as being greedy,,,wouldn't have remained there at all if he was purported to have been responsible for the murders.
( by rights,he should have his fathers' watch anyway ) But that's another story.
-
Nevill would not have classed the situation as being an emergency because of it being Sheila.
Nobody,but nobody,however big,tall,can overpower anyone with a rifle,,,no matter who's on the other end of it.
-
Hi lookout, good to be back. What a really good point you make about Ralph's probable different reaction if Jeremy had crawled through a window and attacked them. It would have been 999, panic alarm and there were so many guns available Jeremy would never have walked away without a scratch. Imho
-
It's in Scott Lomax's book, but he doesn't give a source for the information.
Okay, thanks Bridget. :)
Barbara made a statement on 27/9/85, some 11 or 12 days after Jeremy entered the house via a window, it may be described there but it hasn't been posted on the forum.
There is no mention of it in her statement dated 26/11/85.
-
Nevill would not have classed the situation as being an emergency because of it being Sheila.
Nobody,but nobody,however big,tall,can overpower anyone with a rifle,,,no matter who's on the other end of it.
The fact is a father would find it much more difficult to attack back or shoot their own daughter, than to lock horns with a son.imo
-
The fact is a father would find it much more difficult to attack back or shoot their own daughter, than to lock horns with a son.imo
Hi Maggie,,,yes Nevills' initial reactions would have been totally different than that of someone creeping in through a window. The whole thing hasn't been thought out logically at all. Oh dear,,I'm not very patient when it comes to incompetence and the robotic attitudes of the police who all speak the same,,,by the book,,,, instead of using their gumption.
-
Hi Maggie,,,yes Nevills' initial reactions would have been totally different than that of someone creeping in through a window. The whole thing hasn't been thought out logically at all. Oh dear,,I'm not very patient when it comes to incompetence and the robotic attitudes of the police who all speak the same,,,by the book,,,, instead of using their gumption.
lookout, I always have the feeling that something is staring us in the face about this case but we canr see it. Sometimes we need to really think outside the box and consider things from a different angle. As you say the pilice went about the whole thing with tunnel vision. We often argue from assuned positions when in fact there are no actual known facts except that five people were shot and killed between about 10pm and 6pm.
-
Both Nevill and Jeremy would have been confused that night.
Nevill,,,to think that his daughter would finally carry out what she'd threatened to do,,,and Jeremy on first waking up and not thinking it was as urgent as it turned out to be.
Academically aware maybe,,,but totally lost when it came to the real world of the irrational behaviour of a paranoid schizophrenic. Theirs was a hard lesson to learn.
-
Hi Mike I was lead to believe that Ralph was shot in the arm on his way downstairs to the phone and blood was evident on the surface where the phone was sitting.
I am prepared to accept that he did get shot in the arm coming downstairs, or going upstairs, and that the fingers of his hand got bloodied as a result of being shot in the arm, because a set of bloodied fingermarks were found on the edge of the kitchen worktop close to where the telephone handset, and a pile of tipped out .22 bullets were found. However, there is no way of knowing whether or not Ralph sustained this injury before he made the call to Jeremy, or not? It is just as likely that even if Ralph had been shot by the time he made the call to Jeremy, that Ralph used the other uninjured arm and hand to use the phone? Furthermore, how come their was no blood on the wristwatch found under the kitchen rug? If Ralph had been wearing it when he got attacked surely it would have become heavily bloodstained and perhaps damaged?
-
lookout, I always have the feeling that something is staring us in the face about this case but we canr see it. Sometimes we need to really think outside the box and consider things from a different angle. As you say the pilice went about the whole thing with tunnel vision. We often argue from assuned positions when in fact there are no actual known facts except that five people were shot and killed between about 10pm and 6pm.
Maggie,,,in a way,it's plain to see what did happen,,,without Jeremy in the equation at all.
It does show how people can be swayed,,,and remain blinkered,,,just because the law says so,,,and we know that the law isn't always right,or there wouldn't be any MOJ's.
How easy is it to nail the remaining member of a family.? Just because Stan Jones didn't like Jeremy.?
-
I am prepared to accept that he did get shot in the arm coming downstairs, or going upstairs, and that the fingers of his hand got bloodied as a result of being shot in the arm, because a set of bloodied fingermarks were found on the edge of the kitchen worktop close to where the telephone handset, and a pile of tipped out .22 bullets were found. However, there is no way of knowing whether or not Ralph sustained this injury before he made the call to Jeremy, or not? It is just as likely that even if Ralph had been shot by the time he made the call to Jeremy, that Ralph used the other uninjured arm and hand to use the phone? Furthermore, how come their was no blood on the wristwatch found under the kitchen rug? If Ralph had been wearing it when he got attacked surely it would have become heavily bloodstained and perhaps damaged?
The wristwatch was bloodied.
-
The wristwatch was bloodied.
You can bet your life no prints/tests were done on the watch,,,nor the kitchen top,nor the big " bloodied " hand mark on Sheilas' nightie. ( which was probably Nevills,trying to reach out to his daughter. )
-
Hi Mike I don,t think Ralph was wearing his watch I think he left it on the kitchen table before retiring I don,t think it was the norm for men to go to bed wearing a watch or indeed women.
-
Maggie,,,in a way,it's plain to see what did happen,,,without Jeremy in the equation at all.
It does show how people can be swayed,,,and remain blinkered,,,just because the law says so,,,and we know that the law isn't always right,or there wouldn't be any MOJ's.
How easy is it to nail the remaining member of a family.? Just because Stan Jones didn't like Jeremy.?
Yes I agree but we all need to be careful of making assumptions. There are so few facts that theories and assumptions are rife. The simple explanations are usuly the right ones, all this talk of complicated plots is too far fetched. Sadly Sheila was very sick, more than likely she was suicidal as that is a common symptom of schizophrenia, there were guns and ammunition easily accessible. That was a tragedy waiting to happen.
-
Both Nevill and Jeremy would have been confused that night.
Nevill,,,to think that his daughter would finally carry out what she'd threatened to do,,,and Jeremy on first waking up and not thinking it was as urgent as it turned out to be.
Academically aware maybe,,,but totally lost when it came to the real world of the irrational behaviour of a paranoid schizophrenic. Theirs was a hard lesson to learn.
Lookout let's assume for sake of argument that Jeremy has just received the call from his father to say Sheila had got hold of a gun and gone crazy. How can one possibly not take that call seriously? He had left a loaded rifle in the kitchen only a few hours ago. The first thing he does is telephone Julie Mugford. He then looks around in the Yellow Pages for the Chelmsford number,wastes ten minutes,then it's his calm public schoolboy voice initially as he gives his name and location,then it's back to the "you've got to help me" tone. After being put on hold for a few minutes it's then "Christ..you took your time". Then upon being asked who the occupants of the farm are it's back to the public schoolboyspeak:"My father obviously". The whole thing is suspicious,in fact it stinks.
-
Hi Mike I don,t think Ralph was wearing his watch I think he left it on the kitchen table before retiring I don,t think it was the norm for men to go to bed wearing a watch or indeed women.
I always wear my watch to bed, i never take it off!
-
Lookout let's assume for sake of argument that Jeremy has just received the call from his father to say Sheila had got hold of a gun and gone crazy. How can one possibly not take that call seriously? He had left a loaded rifle in the kitchen only a few hours ago. The first thing he does is telephone Julie Mugford. He then looks around in the Yellow Pages for the Chelmsford number,wastes ten minutes,then it's his calm public schoolboy voice initially as he gives his name and location,then it's back to the "you've got to help me" tone. After being put on hold for a few minutes it's then "Christ..you took your time". Then upon being asked who the occupants of the farm are it's back to the public schoolboyspeak:"My father obviously". The whole thing is suspicious,in fact it stinks.
Sorry,,Steve,,,I don't see,or find anything untoward in whatever Jeremy did at all. What's with the " public schoolboy "?.
Jeremy left the rifle knowing that at some point,his father would put it away. It was not unusual for rifles to be left out of their cupboard,,,even other peoples !.
How do we know that Nevill didn't finally put the rifle away,,on account of the twins being there.? We don't,,,do we.?
-
Hi Andrea some do some don,t I very rarely wear a watch does yours not get wet when you have a shower or perhaps its waterproof :)
-
Steve jeremy had worked 15 hours in the fields,got home about 10 watched bit of tv, maybe a beer no doubt a joint or two and collapsed into bed.At 3am he would be in his deepest sleep and the phone rings.Its surprising maybe that he woke enough to answer it.It takes time to sort our thoughts and his head would be slow at first. Hed heard it all before but slowly came round.Got up maybe tripped over on something, searched for some clothes.You know the scenario we've all been there. The truth is we all tend to move slowly in these situations but for sone reason Jeremy is supposed to have reacted like a robot and turned into action man. Hes just a human being with human responses.
-
Hi Andrea some do some don,t I very rarely wear a watch does yours not get wet when you have a shower or perhaps its waterproof :)
Yeah its waterproof, i get up to allsorts wearing it!
-
Steve jeremy had worked 15 hours in the fields,got home about 10 watched bit of tv, maybe a beer no doubt a joint or two and collapsed into bed.At 3am he would be in his deepest sleep and the phone rings.Its surprising maybe that he woke enough to answer it.It takes time to sort our thoughts and his head would be slow at first. Hed heard it all before but slowly came round.Got up maybe tripped over on something, searched for some clothes.You know the scenario we've all been there. The truth is we all tend to move slowly in these situations but for sone reason Jeremy is supposed to have reacted like a robot and turned into action man. Hes just a human being with human responses.
Had Jeremy admitted to smoking Cannabis on the night in question?
-
Andrea the mind boggles what you get upto wearing your watch hope you don,t go into storm drains like Bridget :) ;) ;)
-
Hi Andrea some do some don,t I very rarely wear a watch does yours not get wet when you have a shower or perhaps its waterproof :)
Susie would your dad have worn his watch to bed, mine would never have. I dont thibk men of Ralphs generation would have.Far nore likely to take it iff, wind it unless self winding and leave it in same place each night. Surely he wouldnt wear an expensive watch during harvesting?
-
Steve jeremy had worked 15 hours in the fields,got home about 10 watched bit of tv, maybe a beer no doubt a joint or two and collapsed into bed.At 3am he would be in his deepest sleep and the phone rings.Its surprising maybe that he woke enough to answer it.It takes time to sort our thoughts and his head would be slow at first. Hed heard it all before but slowly came round.Got up maybe tripped over on something, searched for some clothes.You know the scenario we've all been there. The truth is we all tend to move slowly in these situations but for sone reason Jeremy is supposed to have reacted like a robot and turned into action man. Hes just a human being with human responses.
Well put Maggie,,,and yes,we've all been there. Even the alarm going off for work is confusing at times,,,as you're not always " with it ".
Jeremy would have been the typical male at that age,,,having to do things for himself,etc,,instead of being " carried " at home,,so his clothes would have been in a heap. Besides anything else,,,I would have doubted he'd have slept at all if he'd just murdered 5 people. His mind would have been alert as to what clues he could have left behind. Sorry,,,but he didn't do it.! I'm positive about that.
-
Hi mags not sure my Dad had a watch certainly not whilst I was living at home ;) My other half takes his off at night and leaves it on the bedside cabinet then without fail when he rises in the morning he takes it through to the kitchen puts it on the worktop goes for his shower then comes back for the watch. What a performance. Now you know why I am nuts ;)
-
Had Jeremy admitted to smoking Cannabis on the night in question?
I believe Jeremy was a regular smoker so its probably how he relaxed but even if he didnt hed still find it difficult to wake in such circumstances. Also why choose to stay up all night and murder your family when your knackered from 3or4 days harvesting. I would have thought that was completely irrational.
-
You can bet your life no prints/tests were done on the watch,,,nor the kitchen top,nor the big " bloodied " hand mark on Sheilas' nightie. ( which was probably Nevills,trying to reach out to his daughter. )
Was there a big bloodied hand mark on the nightie? If so, what was the official explanation for this?
-
Steve jeremy had worked 15 hours in the fields,got home about 10 watched bit of tv, maybe a beer no doubt a joint or two and collapsed into bed.At 3am he would be in his deepest sleep and the phone rings.Its surprising maybe that he woke enough to answer it.It takes time to sort our thoughts and his head would be slow at first. Hed heard it all before but slowly came round.Got up maybe tripped over on something, searched for some clothes.You know the scenario we've all been there. The truth is we all tend to move slowly in these situations but for sone reason Jeremy is supposed to have reacted like a robot and turned into action man. Hes just a human being with human responses.
I can understand that maggie but if he's so worn out why telephone Julie Mugford first? He also makes a call to her at 6am in a call box in the village,suggesting that Julie has an importance to him which is inconsistent with the several people on this site who wish to rubbish the status of her in this whole affair.
-
Morning Mike. I don't know how this sits with you but IMO, had Neville been shot when he phoned Jeremy, his wording would surely have been other than it was. He would have been less concerned that Sheila HAD the gun, than, that having demonstrated she could use it once, might use it again. "I've been shot. Come quick/get help" come to mind as more appropriate.
Well I'm not sure Ralph was in a position to select the best phase to use so that it sounded better to Jeremy?
-
I believe Jeremy was a regular smoker so its probably how he relaxed but even if he didnt hed still find it difficult to wake in such circumstances. Also why choose to stay up all night and murder your family when your knackered from 3or4 days harvesting. I would have thought that was completely irrational.
It wasnt irrational that he stayed up all night after murdering his family, for him it was worth the effort. He believed he would be a rich man, everything would now pass to him.
-
I believe Jeremy was a regular smoker so its probably how he relaxed but even if he didnt hed still find it difficult to wake in such circumstances. Also why choose to stay up all night and murder your family when your knackered from 3or4 days harvesting. I would have thought that was completely irrational.
I have found that smoking cannabis, made me feel anxious and paranoid. Not at all relaxing!
-
I believe Jeremy was a regular smoker so its probably how he relaxed but even if he didnt hed still find it difficult to wake in such circumstances. Also why choose to stay up all night and murder your family when your knackered from 3or4 days harvesting. I would have thought that was completely irrational.
My belief is that had it been Jeremy,,he'd have been shot,,either as a frightener,or as an intention to wound. Either Nevill,,or even Sheila would have done so,on hearing a " noise ",or the dog barking would have alerted one of them that someone was around.
So saying,,as Maggie has already said,,that Jeremy didn't have a mark on his body,,as said by JM,,,and she'd have been the first to report if there had been.
-
Hi mags not sure my Dad had a watc ;Dh certainly not whilst I was living at home ;) My other half takes his off at night and leaves it on the bedside cabinet then without fail when he rises in the morning he takes it through to the kitchen puts it on the worktop goes for his shower then comes back for the watch. What a performance. Now you know why I am nuts ;)
SusieI think thats why all women end up nuts! Fortunately my other half doesnt wear a watch so Im spared that performance but there are many others! ;D
-
Lookout let's assume for sake of argument that Jeremy has just received the call from his father to say Sheila had got hold of a gun and gone crazy. How can one possibly not take that call seriously? He had left a loaded rifle in the kitchen only a few hours ago. The first thing he does is telephone Julie Mugford. He then looks around in the Yellow Pages for the Chelmsford number,wastes ten minutes,then it's his calm public schoolboy voice initially as he gives his name and location,then it's back to the "you've got to help me" tone. After being put on hold for a few minutes it's then "Christ..you took your time". Then upon being asked who the occupants of the farm are it's back to the public schoolboyspeak:"My father obviously". The whole thing is suspicious,in fact it stinks.
So wouldn't say that if Jeremy had dialed 999 he would have sounded more convincing to the police? I'm just trying to work out what difference it would have made if he had dialed 999? I think the argument that he didn't dial 999 is just a red herring put out by the BGB. What in fact does it prove if he did or didn't dial 999?
-
It wasnt irrational that he stayed up all night after murdering his family, for him it was worth the effort. He believed he would be a rich man, everything would now pass to him.
Well Andrea, you could never be accused of sitting on the fence! ;D
-
Well Andrea, you could never be accused of sitting on the fence! ;D
I used to think Bamber was innocent, Neil.
No evidence points to Sheila! Raining again, just for a change. :(
-
So wouldn't say that if Jeremy had dialed 999 he would have sounded more convincing to the police? I'm just trying to work out what difference it would have made if he had dialed 999? I think the argument that he didn't dial 999 is just a red herring put out by the BGB. What in fact does it prove if he did or didn't dial 999?
It doesn't prove anything Grahame except that Jeremywasn't thinking clearly which he wouldnt have been if wakened at 3am from a deep sleep
-
Well Andrea, you could never be accused of sitting on the fence! ;D
She's been too long with the BGB. She used to hold a reasonable argument. All of a sudden she developed BGB blinkers.
-
So wouldn't say that if Jeremy had dialed 999 he would have sounded more convincing to the police? I'm just trying to work out what difference it would have made if he had dialed 999? I think the argument that he didn't dial 999 is just a red herring put out by the BGB. What in fact does it prove if he did or didn't dial 999?
Grahame,,it proves nothing. In fact,back in 1985,it was as broad as it was long if you dialled 999 or not because things didn't move as quickly back then.Life in general was at a far slower pace than it is now.
The phone,the silencer, and all that claptrap just serve to be misleading issues in this case,,,and as long as those subjects keep cropping up it's becoming more and more unconvincing and a waste of time.
No real thought has gone into this case at all.
-
She's been too long with the BGB. She used to hold a reasonable argument. All of a sudden she developed BGB blinkers.
Whats BGB ? Im not blinkered, Grahame.
I changed my mind, thats all.
-
So wouldn't say that if Jeremy had dialed 999 he would have sounded more convincing to the police? I'm just trying to work out what difference it would have made if he had dialed 999? I think the argument that he didn't dial 999 is just a red herring put out by the BGB. What in fact does it prove if he did or didn't dial 999?
Grahame the suspicion is that he did not want two phone calls to the 999 number(one from White House Farm and the other from Goldhanger) as it was possible that the calls may have been traceable by the BT exchange,and therefore it would have come out that they were made from the same location,and same voice.
-
No evidence points to Sheila!
Then how on earth could another senior detective assigned to review the case evidence, as late as 6th September and reporting to the top brass of Essex Constabulary, conclude that Sheila was indeed culpable? if there is no evidence that points towards Sheila, that is because everything was done to make it point against Bamber. That in iteself cannot be achieved without the concealment of the evidence that pointed towards Sheila.
-
I used to think Bamber was innocent, Neil.
No evidence points to Sheila! Raining again, just for a change. :(
Hi Andrea, it's gonna rain here any minute I'm sure! I try not to complain about the weather because I actually quite appreciate the variation we get but......this persistent rain is genuinely really pi*sing me off now! Anyway, rant over. Was there one thing that changed your view, regarding JB's guilt? Or just a culmination of things?
-
Grahame the suspicion is that he did not want two phone calls to the 999 number(one from White House Farm and the other from Goldhanger) as it was possible that the calls may have been traceable by the BT exchange,and therefore it would have come out that they were made from the same location,and same voice.
But it was proved anyway that he dialed the police from his home anyway. So I can't see any difference if he had phoned 999 or the police station?
-
Hi mags in the little Yorkshire village where I was brought you we had a church a few yards from the house which had a clock on the steeple so when we wanted to know the time we just opened the door and looked out. When it was dark my Dad had to nip to the local pub to get the time :) :) :)
-
Grahame the suspicion is that he did not want two phone calls to the 999 number(one from White House Farm and the other from Goldhanger) as it was possible that the calls may have been traceable by the BT exchange,and therefore it would have come out that they were made from the same location,and same voice.
That is a good point, 999 calls were recorded at that time....
-
Hi Andrea, it's gonna rain here any minute I'm sure! I try not to complain about the weather because I actually quite appreciate the variation we get but......this persistent rain is genuinely really pi*sing me off now! Anyway, rant over. Was there one thing that changed your view, regarding JB's guilt? Or just a culmination of things?
All evidence points to Sheila and all officers on the soc that day thought so. These were all experienced police officers and it was their observation that all evidence pointed to Sheila. Rather no forensic evidence points to Jeremy. That is the point that should be emphasised. But the way Andrea used to think that Jeremy was innocent until she became involved secretly with horsey dave of the BGB.
-
Then how on earth could another senior detective assigned to review the case evidence, as late as 6th September and reporting to the top brass of Essex Constabulary, conclude that Sheila was indeed culpable? if there is no evidence that points towards Sheila, that is because everything was done to make it point against Bamber. That in iteself cannot be achieved without the concealment of the evidence that pointed towards Sheila.
Hi Roch,,of course it was Sheila. I won't be moved from that. Nothing points toward Jeremy having done it at all.
-
That is a good point, 999 calls were recorded at that time....
And Mikes logs show that all other calls were being monitored also as Bamber was under surveilance by the police for his drugs activities. So they had all records.
-
Wrong, Grahame.
It was a culmination of things, it was nothing to do with Horsey Dave.
I have explained before, you cant have taken note.
-
That is a good point, 999 calls were recorded at that time....
And if Jeremy had dialed 999 that would have given him a greater alibi because all 999 calls wrre monitored. He phoned from home remember.
-
Wrong, Grahame.
It was a culmination of things, it was nothing to do with Horsey Dave.
I have explained before, you cant have taken note.
Well it certainly wasn't a fair weighing up of evidence. bad communications corrupt good manners. Have you ever heard of that saying?
-
Hi Andrea, it's gonna rain here any minute I'm sure! I try not to complain about the weather because I actually quite appreciate the variation we get but......this persistent rain is genuinely really pi*sing me off now! Anyway, rant over. Was there one thing that changed your view, regarding JB's guilt? Or just a culmination of things?
It was a culmination of things, Neil. :D
-
Well it certainly wasn't a fair weighing up of evidence. bad communications corrupt good manners. Have you ever heard of that saying?
Grahame, i changed my mind, its as simple as that really.
I fail to see what the big deal is :-\
-
Hi mags in the little Yorkshire village where I was brought you we had a church a few yards from the house which had a clock on the steeple so when we wanted to know the time we just opened the door and looked out. When it was dark my Dad had to nip to the local pub to get the time :) :) :)
That's a good one Susie. He had his priorities right!
-
Hi Mike I don,t think Ralph was wearing his watch I think he left it on the kitchen table before retiring I don,t think it was the norm for men to go to bed wearing a watch or indeed women.
I was thinking that myself...
Which arm did he wear his watch on? The injured arm, or the other one that he may have handled the telephone with?
-
All evidence points to Sheila and all officers on the soc that day thought so. These were all experienced police officers and it was their observation that all evidence pointed to Sheila. Rather no forensic evidence points to Jeremy. That is the point that should be emphasised. But the way Andrea used to think that Jeremy was innocent until she became involved secretly with horsey dave of the BGB.
Good post Grahame. These officers also had the unique advantage of seeing the crime scene before everything was disturbed. From what I understand, the unanimous view of these officers, was that it was murders/suicide.
-
No Jon, that was showing that Mike was telling lies on a particular issue.
Why so obsessed with me? You know my views on the case, so what what do you want from me?
That's rhetorical by the way, I'm not intrested in your rudeness and goading, sorry. ::)
I don't tell lies, you invent them...
-
Good post Grahame. These officers also had the unique advantage of seeing the crime scene before everything was disturbed. From what I understand, the unanimous view of these officers, was that it was murders/suicide.
It was not unanimous at all. There was dissent in the lower ranks of those who attended White House Farm. In addition how could any of them possibly know anything about Jeremy Bamber and the comments he made to Robert Boutflour about how he could "easily kill his parents",a remark made to Goldsmiths' College student James Richards that he hated his "f***ing parents",and the sustained wish he expressed over the past year to Julie Mugford to kill his parents?
-
Good post Grahame. These officers also had the unique advantage of seeing the crime scene before everything was disturbed. From what I understand, the unanimous view of these officers, was that it was murders/suicide.
Murder / suicide it was, that went tragically wrong, with police shooting Sheila dead in the bedroom (accidentally or otherwise)...
-
Murder / suicide it was, that went tragically wrong, with police shooting Sheila dead in the bedroom (accidentally or otherwise)...
Oh for goodness sake..
-
Good post Grahame. These officers also had the unique advantage of seeing the crime scene before everything was disturbed. From what I understand, the unanimous view of these officers, was that it was murders/suicide.
That's the way I saw the verdict back in 1985,,as I watched,,,on television,,,,bewildered young man being handcuffed and led away. It was awful and so very cruel. He made no struggle because he thought for sure he'd be released,,,as afterall,,,his conscience was clear.
-
No, Lookout. He was cocky and arrogant and thought he would get off. Hence "that is what you have to establish" did him no favours that one!
-
It was not unanimous at all. There was dissent in the lower ranks of those who attended White House Farm. In addition how could any of them possibly know anything about Jeremy Bamber and the comments he made to Robert Boutflour about how he could "easily kill his parents",a remark made to Goldsmiths' College student James Richards that he hated his "f***ing parents",and the sustained wish he expressed over the past year to Julie Mugford to kill his parents?
You're right when you say that the officers first on the scene were not influenced by hearsay evidence when forming their opinions. To what extent was there dissent?
-
It was not unanimous at all. There was dissent in the lower ranks of those who attended White House Farm. In addition how could any of them possibly know anything about Jeremy Bamber and the comments he made to Robert Boutflour about how he could "easily kill his parents",a remark made to Goldsmiths' College student James Richards that he hated his "f***ing parents",and the sustained wish he expressed over the past year to Julie Mugford to kill his parents?
All classic verbal lines often introduced back in the mid 1980's designed to cast a poor light on the defendant...
I can't beleive how corny all of this was / is?
So, you expect us to beleive that Jeremy almost got away with the perfect murder, and part of that plan was to tell all and sundry that he wanted to kill his family, and how much he hated his parents?
Sorry, I don't buy into that fantasy...
-
He didnt tell all and sundry, Mike. He told Mugford.
-
He didnt tell all and sundry, Mike. He told Mugford.
I don't believe he told anybody anything of the sort. Mugford stitched Bamber up, and Bobby Boutflour was a lying scoundrel...
Why isn't Mugford volunteering to take the same lie detector test as Jeremy did?
-
Why should she take a Ld test? She has done nothing wrong. All the talk of lie detectors is going no where. Evidence relating to a LD wont be admissable in a court room. Theyre unreliable.
-
Because no time of death exists or has been guesstimated, it is not possible to say at what time or stage Ralph got shot or attacked? But there are time frames relating to when certain telephone calls were made...
-
There seems to be an indentation on Sheilas pillow, she could have been laying on top of the covers instead of under them.
-
How do we know that her bed had not been slept in?
-
There seems to be an indentation on Sheilas pillow, she could have been laying on top of the covers instead of under them.
There's no reason she couldn't have been under them either, they're pulled down from the pillow area and not everyone flings back the covers when they get out of bed.
-
It's not. The quilt has slid down the bed and is rucked on the floor at the foot end.
-
No, Lookout. He was cocky and arrogant and thought he would get off. Hence "that is what you have to establish" did him no favours that one!
Andrea,,,there aren't many 24 year olds in a good financial position who aren't cocky and arrogant. Still, it doesn't make them murderers though.
-
No one is suggesting she had a gun in her face whilst in her bed.
-
I'm just wondering, wouldn't JB's plan to stealthily creep into WHF by way of a window in the middle of the night, be somewhat hampered by the fact that firstly - they had a dog (at night dogs bark if a pin drops) and secondly - as Sheila's bed hadn't been slept in; she must have been up and about.
Hi Caroline, I have queried this before, surely Crispy would have reacted somehow to a visitor through the window at 3 am? I don't have dogs but I would have thought there would have been some reaction? Criispy didnt like Jeremy, why didn't he attack him, bite him that night if Jeremy was harming the family?
-
Andrea,,,there aren't many 24 year olds in a good financial position who aren't cocky and arrogant. Still, it doesn't make them murderers though.
But JB had robbed the caravan park, hadnt he. If he robbed it to show holes in security why didnt he give it back. No it doesnt make him a murderer, but it shows a motive as to why he did murder his family. Greed.
-
No one is asnwering the point about the dog either!
The dog knew Bamber, why would it bark?
-
You're right when you say that the officers first on the scene were not influenced by hearsay evidence when forming their opinions. To what extent was there dissent?
Bizarrely, Mike won't post the witness statements of PC Myall, PS Bews and PC Saxby, the first officers on the scene.
I'd suggest that their account of the incident is of utmost importance if people are actually interested in seeking the truth.
In fact, the reluctance to post them becomes increasingly strange when they become central characters in several of Mikes conspiracy theories.
-
The dog knew Bamber, why would it bark?
Are you certain about this? I am curious, I really dont know but dogs get excited and bark when people they know turn up. Surely Crispy would have done something?
-
No one is asnwering the point about the dog either!
Caroline,,,I'd mentioned the dog earlier,,that if Jeremy had got in through a window,,the dog would have alerted the family and I'm sure Nevill or Sheila would have been ready with a rifle. Jeremy himself could have been shot if that had been the case. This is why I say he didn't do it.
-
Hi Caroline, I have queried this before, surely Crispy would have reacted somehow to a visitor through the window at 3 am? I don't have dogs but I would have thought there would have been some reaction? Criispy didnt like Jeremy, why didn't he attack him, bite him that night if Jeremy was harming the family?
These are the White House Farm Murders,not Agatha Christie's "Elephants Can Remember"..
-
Caroline,,,I'd mentioned the dog earlier,,that if Jeremy had got in through a window,,the dog would have alerted the family and I'm sure Nevill or Sheila would have been ready with a rifle. Jeremy himself could have been shot if that had been the case. This is why I say he didn't do it.
I would have thought Jeremy would have had to shoot the dog because you would expect the dog to attack the killer. Even a small dog would have a good go you would have thought. It's a mystery how the dog survived really and why there is no sign of attack on either Sheila or Jeremy.
-
Dogs can yap for allsorts of reasons. All Bamber had to do was say the dogs name quietly, the dog would have recognised his voice and shut up. I do it with my dog, I half whisper and half say her name, then she shuts up.
-
These are the White House Farm Murders,not Agatha Christie's "Elephants Can Remember"..
You can talk, what are you on about? It was a fair point I made.
-
There was no need for anyone to sneak in to whf in the middle of the night to enable him to kill everybody, the killer was already inside, she was having withdrawal symptoms from failing to to take prescribed drugs such as anafranil, and she was operating on a drastically reduced dosage of Haloperidol. She was possessed by devils and harboured desire to kill all people because they were bad...
It would have been relatively easy and simple for someone in Sheila's state of mind and condition, to kill her kids, kill her mother, fight with (or not) and overpower Ralph, and then kill him. ..
-
The dog knew Bamber, why would it bark?
Andrea,,,neither the dog nor Jeremy liked each other,,it used to yap at him. So it would have excelled itself seeing Jeremy getting in through the window.
-
These are the White House Farm Murders,not Agatha Christie's "Elephants Can Remember"..
I object to that comment.
-
There was no need for anyone to sneak in to whf in the middle of the night to enable him to kill everybody, the killer was already inside, she was having withdrawal symptoms from failing to to take prescribed drugs such as anafranil, and she was operating on a drastically reduced dosage of Haloperidol. She was possessed by devils and harboured desire to kill all people because they were bad...
It would have been relatively easy and simple for someone in Sheila's state of mind and condition, to kill her kids, kill her mother, fight with (or not) and overpower Ralph, and then kill him. ..
Absolutely Mike.
-
Makes no difference, like i said all he had to do was give some indication to the dog that it was him. saying its name would have been sufficient.
Just because he was climbing through a window at the time doesnt make it hard to say the dogs name.
-
You could not enter through a window in the dead of night and fail to leave some evidence such as dirt, grit, soil, and vegitation on the inner window sill and floor beneath - I suppise the only other alternative is that once Jeremy climbed in, he must have donned his mothers apron, grabbed a cloth and a bucket of disinfected water and wiped the window down. He then must have got the hoover out before embarking on his killing spree?
-
Makes no difference, like i said all he had to do was give some indication to the dog that it was him. saying its name would have been sufficient.
Just because he was climbing through a window at the time doesnt make it hard to say the dogs name.
Andrea,,the dog clearly disliked Jeremy and vice-versa,,,probably because of its inane yapping,,so even if Jeremy had " spoken " to it as he " entered through the window ",,it would have kicked off.
-
You could not enter through a window in the dead of night and fail to leave some evidence such as dirt, grit, soil, and vegitation on the inner window sill and floor beneath - I suppise the only other alternative is that once Jeremy climbed in, he must have donned his mothers apron, grabbed a cloth and a bucket of disinfected water and wiped the window down. He then must have got the hoover out before embarking on his killing spree?
And put the cushions around his father to soak the
blood up , very thoughtful of him ;)
-
Andrea,,,neither the dog nor Jeremy liked each other,,it used to yap at him. So it would have excelled itself seeing Jeremy getting in through the window.
Do you realise how big the house is?
Crispy was a schitzu, not 'Superdog', he would have been thwarted by a simple closed door. ::)
This is just silly.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2BTegV9yKuc/Tzcz5pg4GII/AAAAAAAAHjI/h4VqRFlmgxM/s400/super%2Bdog.jpg)
-
I agree, Harts.
-
Do you realise how big the house is?
Crispy was a schitzu, not 'Superdog', he would have been thwarted by a simple closed door. ::)
This is just silly.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2BTegV9yKuc/Tzcz5pg4GII/AAAAAAAAHjI/h4VqRFlmgxM/s400/super%2Bdog.jpg)
Is it true that Jeremy had Crispy put down because it was chewing his stereo wires?
-
Do you realise how big the house is?
Crispy was a schitzu, not 'Superdog', he would have been thwarted by a simple closed door. ::)
This is just silly.
You could have photoshopped his 'bits' out...
-
Well if thats the case, then maybe Neville just ignored the dog.
-
Oh dear,,,I guess you're Bored with your other Board.
-
You could have photoshopped his 'bits' out...
Sorry. :-[
-
You could not enter through a window in the dead of night and fail to leave some evidence such as dirt, grit, soil, and vegitation on the inner window sill and floor beneath - I suppise the only other alternative is that once Jeremy climbed in, he must have donned his mothers apron, grabbed a cloth and a bucket of disinfected water and wiped the window down. He then must have got the hoover out before embarking on his killing spree?
Jeremy had covered himself by admitting in court that he had on occasion entered and exited the property that way.
-
Im not bored with ther other board lookout no, what makes you say that? im a member here too. just thought i would contribute today.
-
You could have photoshopped his 'bits' out...
Put some kegs on him... it's degrading :-[
-
Intertwined amidst these five unholy deaths was / is religeon - was it merely a coincedence then that on the eve (6th August) of this disaster the feast day 'Transfigurstion of god' was being celebrated?
Dog, spelt backwards, was / is God - so if Sheila didn't do it, perhaps the dog Crispy, did?
-
A tad facetious me thinks! You have no comment about the dog barking then?
Well really just look at the dog;it's hardly a Tibetan mastiff..
-
Intertwined amidst these five unholy deaths was / is religeon - was it merely a coincedence then that on the eve (6th August) of this disaster the feast day 'Transfigurstion of god' was being celebrated?
Dog, spelt backwards, was / is God - so if Sheila didn't do it, perhaps the dog Crispy, did?
Jb did suggest the the dog had stepped on the trigger and shot sheila, i kid you not!
-
Why should she take a Ld test? Theyre unreliable.
Should the authorities stop using them on sex offenders then? :-\
-
Well really just look at the dog;it's hardly a Tibetan mastiff..
Maybe not,,,but it could still take a piece out of your ankle. Mastiffs are more gentle than little yappers.
It's like men,,,the smaller they are,,the nastier.
-
Speculative.
I don't really see how an argument could be sustained either way. Whether the dog barked or not, whether Ralph or anybody else woke or not, who knows?
There's a good argument to suggest the dog didn't bark as the twins didn't wake. Although then somebody will come along and suggest that kids sleep through anything.
-
Should the authorities stop using them on sex offenders then? :-\
Dont know, its not for me to say. My point is they wont be accepted as evidence in a court room. So all talk of them is pointless.
We are talking about Ld's in relation to this case.
-
Speculative.
I don't really see how an argument could be sustained either way. Whether the dog barked or not, whether Ralph or anybody else woke or not, who knows?
There's a good argument to suggest the dog didn't bark as the twins didn't wake. Although then somebody will come along and suggest that kids sleep through anything.
The poor boys would have been shot first so as not to be aware of what was going on,anyway.
-
Jb did suggest the the dog had stepped on the trigger and shot sheila, i kid you not!
Funny how the police didn't find any bloodied paw prints downstairs in the kitchen, or upstairs in the bedroom - perhaps the dog was acting as lookout for the killer...
-
I think you could be right. ;D
-
Morning Mike. I don't know how this sits with you but IMO, had Neville been shot when he phoned Jeremy, his wording would surely have been other than it was. He would have been less concerned that Sheila HAD the gun, than, that having demonstrated she could use it once, might use it again. "I've been shot. Come quick/get help" come to mind as more appropriate.
-
What connects Sheila to the crime, she had a mental illness, thats about it!
-
What connects Sheila to the crime, she had a mental illness, thats about it!
Errr , she was at the scene of the crime , prove JB was , at the relevant time !!
Also what was your view regarding LD tests , when you believed JB innocent ?
-
That's irrelevant and not actually true, if you replaced 'physical' with 'direct' then you would be more accurate.
By irrelevant, I mean that people are not trying to convict Jeremy, that's already been done, people are trying to show that he is innocent and that hasn't been done. The fact that you disagree with the evidence put forward during the original trial, in no way adds weight to any argument that he is innocent, unless you are providing contradictory evidence which suggests that something else took place.
-
Yes Sheila was at the scene because she was a victim!
Had sheila shot all her family her prints would have been on the gun. There was one.
She would have had other peoples blood on here, there was none.
Dont forget Bamber probably wore gloves, he had over a month to get rid of any evidence connecting him to the crime aswell.
No evidence points to sheila.
-
Hi Caroline R Yes I have a very large house and when my small doggie even heard a deer out in the grounds it barked like crazy when we were sleeping and awoke the whole house.
-
Yes Sheila was at the scene because she was a victim!
Had sheila shot all her family her prints would have been on the gun. There was one.
She would have had other peoples blood on here, there was none.
Dont forget Bamber probably wore gloves, he had over a month to get rid of any evidence connecting him to the crime aswell.
No evidence points to sheila.
I asked you to prove JB was at the scene of the crime , at the relevant time , it is usually the starting point in most crimes !!
-
Yes Sheila was at the scene because she was a victim!
Had sheila shot all her family her prints would have been on the gun. There was one.
She would have had other peoples blood on here, there was none.
Dont forget Bamber probably wore gloves, he had over a month to get rid of any evidence connecting him to the crime aswell.
No evidence points to sheila.
Yes, Sheila would have had some difficulty is wiping her fingerprints off of the murder weapon (all but one), or disposing of gloves, after she had committed suicide.
-
How do we know that her bed had not been slept in?
Hello Neil. Perhaps it hadn't been, but is there anything to suggest that she hadn't been in bed with one of the boys? I have the impression they may have felt spooked at WHF.
-
The pro speculations are better than the anti's speculations. ;D
-
I asked you to prove JB was at the scene of the crime , at the relevant time , it is usually the starting point in most crimes !!
I dont need to, John. That was dealt with 27 years ago when Jb was found Guilty. The onus is on you to prove Sheila did it.
There is none, hence why Jb is in the slammer.
-
Yes Sheila was at the scene because she was a victim!
Had sheila shot all her family her prints would have been on the gun. There was one.
She would have had other peoples blood on here, there was none.
Dont forget Bamber probably wore gloves, he had over a month to get rid of any evidence connecting him to the crime aswell.
No evidence points to sheila.
Oh yes I forgot he wore gloves and a wetsuit and flippers and a muffler and more clothes than he needed for the time of years. Oh I forgot. He rode a bike as well.
-
It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.
Sheila was murdered, like the others.
-
Hi Neil when marie27 was on the forum he said Sheila lay on top of the bed as it was a very humid night
but when it was mentioned 15minutes later that Ralph and June had quite alot of covers on their bed he said it was a very cool night for the time of year. The weather changed from room to room :)
-
I dont need to, John. That was dealt with 27 years ago when Jb was found Guilty. The onus is on you to prove Sheila did it.
There is none, hence why Jb is in the slammer.
The only difference is that 27 years ago Bamber was convicted on the word of one unreliable witness and a corrupted piece of silencer evidence. But today none of the BGB will be satisfied unless we PROVE bamber to be guilty. Hardly an equal challence.
-
I dont need to, John. That was dealt with 27 years ago when Jb was found Guilty. The onus is on you to prove Sheila did it.
There is none, hence why Jb is in the slammer.
Brilliant Andrea !! Never read an explanation like that on here before !!
When you get a chance remind us all , about your views regarding LD tests
when you believed JB innocent !!
-
It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.
Sheila was murdered, like the others.
Not so. The police searched his house after the crime and checked out his story. Even if he did have a month that still means there was no forensic evidence to connect him to the crimes. I would have thought that even if there was an inch of doubt that you would not rest until that doubt was erased?
-
It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.
Sheila was murdered, like the others.
No,,,Sheila had only one bullet for starters when she was first found. Unlike " the others ",,who were peppered. Strange,that.
JM was Jeremys' constant companion after the murders,,,and if she'd seen anything untoward after she was dumped,,,to be sure that would have gone into the police's little black book,pronto.Everything else did.
-
It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.
Sheila was murdered, like the others.
She was, thrre is no doubt whatsoever about it, the police shot sheila ubder the chin, they then tried to play her death off as a one shot suicide. Then when things started to vo pearshaped they were prepared to let Jeremy be thrown to the wolves, rather than them take the blame for killing Sheila...
-
No,,,Sheila had only one bullet for starters when she was first found. Unlike " the others ",,who were peppered. Strange,that.
JM was Jeremys' constant companion after the murders,,,and if she'd seen anything untoward after she was dumped,,,to be sure that would have gone into the police's little black book,pronto.Everything else did.
How do the anti Bambers explain the fact that Sheila only had 1/2 carefully placed bullets while the others had obviously been under attack? That alone sets Sheila apart from the others and she doesnt fit the rest of the pattern.
-
Bizarrely, Mike won't post the witness statements of PC Myall, PS Bews and PC Saxby, the first officers on the scene.
I'd suggest that their account of the incident is of utmost importance if people are actually interested in seeking the truth.
In fact, the reluctance to post them becomes increasingly strange when they become central characters in several of Mikes conspiracy theories.
Are you sure that Mike has these? They would be very interesting to read.
-
Brilliant Andrea !! Never read an explanation like that on here before !!
When you get a chance remind us all , about your views regarding LD tests
when you believed JB innocent !!
not actually true Jon.
ive said that in the past. Not that im a guilty camper,more i think you have to accept hes been found guilty,and now prove hes innocent. For 27 years peole have failed convince the powers that be his trial was flawed,so i dont expect they will change their minds now.
the photo on the bed or the itemissed bill can prove his innocence but they are not forthcoming
-
She was, thrre is no doubt whatsoever about it, the police shot sheila ubder the chin, they then tried to play her death off as a one shot suicide. Then when things started to vo pearshaped they were prepared to let Jeremy be thrown to the wolves, rather than them take the blame for killing Sheila...
yet you chose not to prove it Mike with the "photo on the bed" you have
-
It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.
Sheila was murdered, like the others.
That being the case why on earth didn't he dispose of the silencer that he supposedly hid in the gun cupboard.
-
Hi Neil when marie27 was on the forum he said Sheila lay on top of the bed as it was a very humid night
but when it was mentioned 15minutes later that Ralph and June had quite alot of covers on their bed he said it was a very cool night for the time of year. The weather changed from room to room :)
;D
-
Hi lebaleb my sentiments exactly if you are getting rid of evidence that may connect you to the crime you are not selective you get rid of everything and don't take a chance on leaving anything that can incriminate you.
-
Are you sure that Mike has these? They would be very interesting to read.
He has confirmed that he does have them, yes.
He won't post them because he claims they have been edited and therefore we don't need to see them. Whereas I believe he won't post them because they will undermine his theories.
I would suggest that for people looking into this case constructively, they would be required to see the witness statements of the first people to attend the scene.
-
It is sometimes hard to not get drawn in to all these evidence vs no evidence arguments for Sheila Caffell & Jeremy Bamber. At times they seem to be condutced on a peurile level and serve only to rub people up the wrong way.
My own opinion is that it is highly unlikely that no evidence ever existed to implicate Sheila Caffell. It is far more likely that the evidence which did exist, was subsequently concealed when the decision was made to create a new case against Jeremy Bamber. The police are hardly going to all out gun for Bamber, while simultaneouslly allowing the original case file evidence to undermine the entire aim of the second case file. We know that the original case file existed and we know that highly experienced detectives both ran with it / believed in it and reviewed it, reporting to top brass.
-
He has confirmed that he does have them, yes.
He won't post them because he claims they have been edited and therefore we don't need to see them. Whereas I believe he won't post them because they will undermine his theories.
I would suggest that for people looking into this case constructively, they would be required to see the witness statements of the first people to attend the scene.
So are these statements that Mike has copies of, the ones that were presented in court during the original trial?
-
So are these statements that Mike has copies of, the ones that were presented in court during the original trial?
You would need to ask Mike I guess.
-
Can't help but wonder if that statement applies as equally to the subjective as the objective!!!!
-
Can someone please tell me what the BGB are?
-
Can someone please tell me what the BGB are?
Bamber Guilty Brigade.
-
Bamber Guilty Brigade.
Gee thanks. I wondered too.
-
Hi lookout I was going to ask what BGB meant but thought it maybe really bad swear words so I thought I better not ask on the open forum ;)
-
Hi lookout I was going to ask what BGB meant but thought it maybe really bad swear words so I thought I better not ask on the open forum ;)
Hi Susan. Have to confess. That was the route I took.
-
Hi lookout I was going to ask what BGB meant but thought it maybe really bad swear words so I thought I better not ask on the open forum ;)
Hi Susan,,,it is a really bad swear word.
-
Hi lookout you had me going there for a minute :)
-
JB might have called JM that morning. Nobody seems to be precise about who called who and when. Maybe the call he made to her was after the police contacted him. I mean it is a very small time frame and why believe what JM said. She could have lied for her own reasons. Doesn't matter what they were but I don't trust that bitch. She had ulterior motives. Whether JB was guilty or not she had a agenda. Either of her own making or one given to her by Essex police.
Jeremy did admit to making the call to Julie which could have been any time from 2:59am-3-26am. He admits to making this call after he allegedly receives one from Ralph(Nevill) before any call to the Police station in response to his father's call.Another strange thing is why he called her at 6:00am from the call box in the village. At this point in his life with the bodies still undiscovered Julie is still the most important person in his life,the person he wishes to consult,to keep on side.
-
Details contained on the metered call logs which police have possession of, show that call to girlfriend Julie Mugford (which was of short duration), took place before longer call made by Jeremy to the police - the correct sequence of events, therefore, was that (a) Jeremy received a call from whf, (b) followed by him calling Julie to tell her that something was wrong at the farm, then (c) Jeremy called the police...
-
Details contained on the metered call logs which police have possession of, show that call to girlfriend Julie Mugford (which was of short duration), took place before longer call made by Jeremy to the police - the correct sequence of events, therefore, was that (a) Jeremy received a call from whf, (b) followed by him calling Julie to tell her that something was wrong at the farm, then (c) Jeremy called the police...
Once you know the true sequence of events (above0 it helps to put two other pieces of evidence into perspective, namely the time Jeremy called his girlfriend (around 3:30am) and the time Jeremy called the police (3:36am)...
-
Jeremy did admit to making the call to Julie which could have been any time from 2:59am-3-26am. He admits to making this call after he allegedly receives one from Ralph(Nevill) before any call to the Police station in response to his father's call.Another strange thing is why he called her at 6:00am from the call box in the village. At this point in his life with the bodies still undiscovered Julie is still the most important person in his life,the person he wishes to consult,to keep on side.
Jeremy was sent to a call box at 6am to get him out of the way for when the police broke in using a sledge hammer. I suggest that they entered the property before the time of 7am. I believe it to be much earlier. Because it got light a long time before 7am in August. The whole point of the police sending Jeremy to the phone box was so that he would not be present when they actually broke in. Which gave Jeremy the impression that those men with the guns killed my family. For that was roughly what he called out at the time.
-
In response to Steve-uk post #286,
It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that DCS(Ops) George HARRIS, needed to get JB away from the vicinity.
Remember, Daybreak on that morning was approx 5.30. The Raid Team was scheduled to break in at daylight! So for whatever reason, JB was offered the facility to telephone JM from the PCB in T-D.
The reason being that there is alot of noise associated with Breached Entry!!
In addition to the sound of Woodcock sledging the oaken door, breaching entry M.O., apart from the possibility of gunshot noise, advocates the creation of noise and fright, to the occupiers.
So what went on in WHF, from JB's timely temporary removal from the scene of inactivity, for the TFG to RUN RIOT IN THE PREMISES, for several hours?
-
In response to Steve-uk post #286,
It is not beyond the realms of possibility, that DCS(Ops) George HARRIS, needed to get JB away from the vicinity.
Remember, Daybreak on that morning was approx 5.30. The Raid Team was scheduled to break in at daylight! So for whatever reason, JB was offered the facility to telephone JM from the PCB in T-D.
The reason being that there is alot of noise associated with Breached Entry!!
In addition to the sound of Woodcock sledging the oaken door, breaching entry M.O., apart from the possibility of gunshot noise, advocates the creation of noise and fright, to the occupiers.
So what went on in WHF, from JB's timely temporary removal from the scene of inactivity, for the TFG to RUN RIOT IN THE PREMISES, for several hours?
Interesting. I think people have trod that path before you. 'Shaw' claims no earlier entry, according to his sources....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,776.0.html
-
I was going to say.. just when you think you've heard it all... but clearly I missed the earlier foray.
-
Thankyou for you reply, Roch,- and reference to David Shaw.
Could there have been two parts to the entry by TFG, to the Farmhouse?
a) Whilst JB was conveniently escorted to the PCB in T-D, when Sheila got shot in the neck, in the 'den'/back-kitchen. EP withdraw to reassess the situation.
b) Later, Harris asks JB to show him where the Opium is being cultivated, under Licence, about a 1/4 mile down the track, from the Farmstead.
This may be when the TFG encounter the internal door, apparently blocked by a deceased Nevill, at repose in his favourite armchair!
-
Thankyou for you reply, Roch,- and reference to David Shaw.
Could there have been two parts to the entry by TFG, to the Farmhouse?
a) Whilst JB was conveniently escorted to the PCB in T-D, when Sheila got shot in the neck, in the 'den'/back-kitchen. EP withdraw to reassess the situation.
b) Later, Harris asks JB to show him where the Opium is being cultivated, under Licence, about a 1/4 mile down the track, from the Farmstead.
This may be when the TFG encounter the internal door, apparently blocked by a deceased Nevill, at repose in his favourite armchair!
Campion, I always enjoy reading your cynical take on aspects of the case, sneaky coppers an' all. This is one for Mike? I don't believe he has ever posted anything that contradicts Shaw's answer, though he must at one stage have been on the said foray as Bridget described it, in order to have asked the question in the first place. So what was Mike thinking to ask the question back in 2006?
-
Along the same lines or just so you no longer have to wonder. I is femail. I wuz born one and last time I looked I still IS one. As you say, if you don't ask the question, or voice your uncertainty, you'll never know what the answer might have been!!!!
-
'April' would be a funny name for a bloke.
-
His remark to police "she's lovely" sounds like an involuntary remark, made by a person in a truly dire situation.
-
His remark to police "she's lovely" sounds like an involuntary remark, made by a person in a truly dire situation.
and a bit odd seeing as later he told the police their relationship had been on the rocks for ages.
-
and a bit odd seeing as later he told the police their relationship had been on the rocks for ages.
I would say possibly not. Reason being, a person placed in a situation as dires as that, is stripped of all pettiness and baggage. I do not think he would have viewed Julie Mugford negatively in that snap shot of time , regardless of what had been going on in their relationship good or bad.
-
'April' would be a funny name for a bloke.
The great John Wayne was called 'Marion' so it takes all-sorts!
-
The great John Wayne was called 'Marion' so it takes all-sorts!
Shirley Crabtree...
-
Hi Bridget how are you today. Strange Jeremy saying his relationship with Julie was on the rocks yet confessing he had murdered his entire family to her and according to the nice Julie she said he had been talking about doing it for awhile (don't you dare ask me where I read that :))maybe she should have warned Ralph or the police.
-
Hi Bridget how are you today. Strange Jeremy saying his relationship with Julie was on the rocks yet confessing he had murdered his entire family to her and according to the nice Julie she said he had been talking about doing it for awhile (don't you dare ask me where I read that :))maybe she should have warned Ralph or the police.
I'm fine thanks Susan :)
Yes, I assume that's exactly why he said it.
-
Possibly because he feels he doesn't need her any more with the investigation as far as he is concerned,closed. He is living in the Maida Vale flat which I assume he has also inherited from Sheila when Julie begins to think about their future together and becomes more possessive,at which point Jeremy wants out.
-
Hi Caroline R how did she stand up in Court and say he had confessed the murders to her don't understand. Hope Alfie is well. :)
-
Hi Caroline R how did she stand up in Court and say he had confessed the murders to her don't understand. Hope Alfie is well. :)
She said he told her he'd paid a hitman to do it.
-
Hi Bridget I thought the hitman theory had been thrown out as the MacDonald guy had a cast iron alibi this was before it got to Court come on in Patti I need your help :)
-
Hi Bridget I thought the hitman theory had been thrown out as the MacDonald guy had a cast iron alibi this was before it got to Court come on in Patti I need your help :)
Correct, but Julie's testimony was that he had said it, not that it was true.
-
Have you read Mugford's News of the World Article in which she states 'he never admmited his guilt, not even to me. Not even later in court"
As I say,I haven't ruled out the hitman theory,just he might have given himself a better alibi had he hired one. Re-reading the reports about the life and death struggle Ralph(Nevill) had in the kitchen with his assailant it was suggested that this person might have been left with scratches,yet there were no marks found on either Sheila or Jeremy.
-
She said he told her he'd paid a hitman to do it.
So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.
Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.
-
So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.
Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.
Hi april :) I think they only believed the bits they wanted to believe in. Well said! btw. :)
-
So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.
Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.
How would introducing a hitman (expecially one with an alibi) prevent him from getting a life sentance?
-
How would introducing a hitman (expecially one with an alibi) prevent him from getting a life sentance?
Presumably she wasn't aware he had one as it was possibly about make it up as you go along. Had she been right Jeremy could only have been convicted of the crime by proxy. A life sentence seems to come in all sizes from a few years to throw away the key, if he hadn't laid a finger on the victims, the onus of responsibility would surely have fallen on the hitman, who could have absconded and retired on the £2000 Jeremy had paid him,.......so JM said he said, without firing a shot, his, not Jeremy's would have been the deciding factor . It seems unlikely to me that, HAD that been the scenario, Jeremy would have received the "life" he did. That may well have been what JM hoped for as an outcome.
-
Julie only gets the £25000 from the News of the World if he is convicted;additionally she has to be careful to be shown as a sympathetic character and not as an accessory to murder,hence the floods of tears. As I have said before,she doesn't come out of the trial pristine,but the fact that Jeremy did not cut off all involvement with her before the murders suggests her connivance has become requisite,and makes her evidence all the more damning.
-
Presumably she wasn't aware he had one as it was possibly about make it up as you go along. Had she been right Jeremy could only have been convicted of the crime by proxy. A life sentence seems to come in all sizes from a few years to throw away the key, if he hadn't laid a finger on the victims, the onus of responsibility would surely have fallen on the hitman, who could have absconded and retired on the £2000 Jeremy had paid him,.......so JM said he said, without firing a shot, his, not Jeremy's would have been the deciding factor . It seems unlikely to me that, HAD that been the scenario, Jeremy would have received the "life" he did. That may well have been what JM hoped for as an outcome.
He may have avoided the whole life tariff (or maybe not) but she didn't know he was going to get that anyway. I don't think hiring a hitman would have avoided a life sentance, but maybe NGB could help clear that up.
-
Julie only gets the £25000 from the News of the World if he is convicted;additionally she has to be careful to be shown as a sympathetic character and not as an accessory to murder,hence the floods of tears. As I have said before,she doesn't come out of the trial pristine,but the fact that Jeremy did not cut off all involvement with her before the murders suggests her connivance has become requisite,and makes her evidence all the more damning.
Calculating female that she appears to have been, she may well have thought to hedge her bets and go for damage limitation. If she had managed to insinuate herself back into his life she could have ended up with more than £25000 and possibly a new deal on "How I stood by my convicted lover."
-
I think Julie Mugford at this point is just wanting to extricate herself from the whole business which is why she might break down spasmodically thereby giving herself more time to think in the witness box. I'm also wondering about Jeremy's decision to testify,as he does not need to,yet if he chooses so to do he can be cross-examined by the Prosecution. For an innocent man his answers ever since that first morning have been evasive and taciturn,and as we subsequently discovered,not believed by the jury.
-
Hi Bridget I thought the hitman theory had been thrown out as the MacDonald guy had a cast iron alibi this was before it got to Court come on in Patti I need your help :)
Hi Susan
His cast iron albi was that he was with another woman, the same woman he married in 1992...Hardly cast iron is it? He wasn't with the wife...that's for sure. :)
-
I think Julie Mugford at this point is just wanting to extricate herself from the whole business which is why she might break down spasmodically thereby giving herself more time to think in the witness box. I'm also wondering about Jeremy's decision to testify,as he does not need to,yet if he chooses so to do he can be cross-examined by the Prosecution. For an innocent man his answers ever since that first morning have been evasive and taciturn,and as we subsequently discovered,not believed by the jury.
Just my thoughts, Steve, but i think, if I was guilty, I would choose to say as little as possible(a hard one for me) in case I was asked a question I wasn't prepared for and it tripped me up. Jeremy probably believed his innocence was obvious to all and may have been irritated by what he saw as pointless questions.
-
Just my thoughts, Steve, but i think, if I was guilty, I would choose to say as little as possible(a hard one for me) in case I was asked a question I wasn't prepared for and it tripped me up. Jeremy probably believed his innocence was obvious to all and may have been irritated by what he saw as pointless questions.
He said that it had never crossed his mind that he would ever be convicted. Because he was innocent.
-
She said he told her he'd paid a hitman to do it.
And that would mean he was still guilty!
-
Remember that she volunteered the information about her offences. As to her motives for saying what she did, I'm sure the jury were invited to believe that, and didn't.
-
Remember that she volunteered the information about her offences. As to her motives for saying what she did, I'm sure the jury were invited to believe that, and didn't.
I wonder what sort of conversations she may have had and with whom before she volunteered the information. Methinks that whilst there may have been several agendas going on, they weren't all compatible and whilst I would not question that the jury was told the truth, I doubt very much that they were told ALL of the truth.
-
She said that the solicitor told her that if she made a deal with one of the papers that this would stop her being hounded by the others. Utter rubbish. She was still hounded and the solicitor's advice was wrong. Anyone with common sense could see that.
-
She contradicts herself on this as well. For she says, the harassment of media went quiet inbetween, then in the next breath she said the media harassment never stopped...So which is it?
PC Jones informed her of the verdict, she was in an hotel at the time...was it provided by the NOTW? Was she ever asked which hotel she was in...was there any investigation about it at the time with JB's defence lawyer?
I agree with your last comment... :) :)
-
Remember that she volunteered the information about her offences. As to her motives for saying what she did, I'm sure the jury were invited to believe that, and didn't.
How true is it that deals can be done regarding prosecutions? If this is so, wouldn't it make sense for her to own up to the cheque book fraud in order to have dismissed that she may have been seen as colluding with a murder plan and withholding information about a murder having been committed.
-
Did JB not say to Mugford words to the effect that all is going well, there is trouble at WHF - that makes it somewhat different....
Also if the call to his house from WHF was logged how else could he explain that phone call ? Maybe that was a big mistake on the part of the killer and JB had to subsequently try and explain it by telling Police that it was his Father that made the call in an attempt to explain how a call was made from a house full of corpses....
Jeremy by saying he had a phone call and going along with the Police was his alibi for the night-if left till next morning he would have been a suspect with no alibi!
-
Jeremy by saying he had a phone call and going along with the Police was his alibi for the night-if left till next morning he would have been a suspect with no alibi!
Yes Ben that's a good point. We're back to the bicycle scenario again..
-
Oh yes I forgot he wore gloves and a wetsuit and flippers and a muffler and more clothes than he needed for the time of years. Oh I forgot. He rode a bike as well.
Yes and left a fully loaded Gun on the table with his Mad sister about and young children!! Who would believe it!!
-
At that stage Julie Mugford was trying to avoid an accessory to murder charge,so it's not surprising she goes along with DS Stan Jones' suggestion if it was his to admit to the cheque fraud. She didn't know what lay ahead as far as the trial was concerned-for all she knew Jeremy Bamber could have pleaded guilty and implicated her in the murders.
-
Until you can prove that Julie Mugford lied on the salient points of her evidence,namely that Jeremy Bamber had discussed with her the means of disposing by force of his family on several occasions for a year in the run-up to the events at White House Farm I doubt that the authorities will move for a retrial.
-
One wonders how two students managed to pay back to the bank such a substantial sum within 3 weeks.
-
Yes Ben that's a good point. We're back to the bicycle scenario again..
Yes back to the silly old RWB crackpot idea again. What will we ever do without good old Agatha Christie RWB? ::)
-
Yes and left a fully loaded Gun on the table with his Mad sister about and young children!! Who would believe it!!
Well why would he admit to leaving the gun on the settle if he was going to do himself? He needen't have said anything at all.
-
Until you can prove that Julie Mugford lied on the salient points of her evidence,namely that Jeremy Bamber had discussed with her the means of disposing by force of his family on several occasions for a year in the run-up to the events at White House Farm I doubt that the authorities will move for a retrial.
You don't need to prove that she was lying simply because she has no one to back up her story.
-
One wonders how two students managed to pay back to the bank such a substantial sum within 3 weeks.
We would even be forgiven in thinking that someone else paid of their debts for them wouldn't you?
-
Grahame how much was the debt the two of them paid back to the Bank in 3 weeks.
-
We would even be forgiven in thinking that someone else paid of their debts for them wouldn't you?
e
Grahame, hi, good morning, tut tut and meeouw!!! Yes, we would!!!
-
Morning april1 I read that Jeremy gave Julie Mugford £400 towards her holiday to Malta (this was after the murders) she cashed the cheque then hung Jeremy out to dry :(
-
Yes and left a fully loaded Gun on the table with his Mad sister about and young children!! Who would believe it!!
Ben,,how do you know that Nevill didn't put that gun away after Jeremy had left.? It wasn't unusual for guns to be in various areas until Nevill cleared up,,,which is what Jeremy thought,,or knew that his father would do.
-
Morning april1 I read that Jeremy gave Julie Mugford £400 towards her holiday to Malta (this was after the murders) she cashed the cheque then hung Jeremy out to dry :(
Susan, hi and good morning to you too. Last night I suggested the possibility that JM may have started to backtrack from her original stance and was going for damage limitation. The gift of £400 for a holiday, on it's own, would have made little difference, but memories of that, and other similar gestures during their time together as lovers, may have triggered a last minute turnaround.
-
Hi April yes I think Jeremy had some very kind qualities maybe a little misguided but most 24 year old males are quite full of themselves. I wonder what goes on in Julie' head at times she can't say now that she made it all up and get him released as she would be done for perjury very sad indeed. Off now for my walk/run walk up the hills run down them :) :) :)
-
Ben,,how do you know that Nevill didn't put that gun away after Jeremy had left.? It wasn't unusual for guns to be in various areas until Nevill cleared up,,,which is what Jeremy thought,,or knew that his father would do.
An everyday story of country folk. Not only in this family but if you got every farmer to admit it, it was a common enough thing back then.
-
Susan, hi and good morning to you too. Last night I suggested the possibility that JM may have started to backtrack from her original stance and was going for damage limitation. The gift of £400 for a holiday, on it's own, would have made little difference, but memories of that, and other similar gestures during their time together as lovers, may have triggered a last minute turnaround.
Also if she was to finally tell the truth now she would almost certainly go to prison. Not only that but it would mean her career down the pan and her reputation shot for good.
-
Also if she was to finally tell the truth now she would almost certainly go to prison. Not only that but it would mean her career down the pan and her reputation shot for good.
Grahame,,,because JM " knew that JB was either going to,,,or had committed the murders ",,,why was she never arrested for being an accessory.? Convicted by Asscociation.!
-
Grahame I wonder if the Julie woman can live comfortably with herself knowing she was partly responsible for Jeremy (the love of her life) spending his life in prison. The older she gets the more difficult it will become we all think and act differently in our twenties than we do as we get more mature
-
Grahame,,,because JM " knew that JB was either going to,,,or had committed the murders ",,,why was she never arrested for being an accessory.? Convicted by Asscociation.!
That has always been my question lookout. That smacks to me of an unwritten deal with Mugford by the police?
-
Grahame I wonder if the Julie woman can live comfortably with herself knowing she was partly responsible for Jeremy (the love of her life) spending his life in prison. The older she gets the more difficult it will become we all think and act differently in our twenties than we do as we get more mature
I think she copes by justifying herself Susan. That is the only way someone like that can cope.
-
I think she copes by justifying herself Susan. That is the only way someone like that can cope.
Also her career and the fear of discovery drive her on in her lie.
-
Also her career and the fear of discovery drive her on in her lie.
No wonder the harridan is as far away as she is.
-
I think she copes by justifying herself Susan. That is the only way someone like that can cope.
.......and as therapists are ubiquitous over there, she probably has regular appointments with several...................as well as needing anti depressants and sleeping pills.
-
.......and as therapists are ubiquitous over there, she probably has regular appointments with several...................as well as needing anti depressants and sleeping pills.
Name on the door: PSYCHO THE RAPIST. Ooops I mean PSYCHOTHERAPIST.
-
Name on the door: PSYCHO THE RAPIST. Ooops I mean PSYCHOTHERAPIST.
Hahahaha,Grahame.You are awful,but I like you.
-
He may have avoided the whole life tariff (or maybe not) but she didn't know he was going to get that anyway. I don't think hiring a hitman would have avoided a life sentance, but maybe NGB could help clear that up.
Hiring a hitman still consitutes murder, and therefore a mandatory life sentence would follow a conviction.
-
Name on the door: PSYCHO THE RAPIST. Ooops I mean PSYCHOTHERAPIST.
Grahame!!! What are you on today and please may I have some!!!
-
Hiring a hitman still consitutes murder, and therefore a mandatory life sentence would follow a conviction.
Thank you.
-
Hiring a hitman still consitutes murder, and therefore a mandatory life sentence would follow a conviction.
Would that be a "We'll consider the possibility of parole after X years" type of life sentence or a "We'll throw away the key on this one" type of life sentence?
-
Would that be a "We'll consider the possibility of parole after X years" type of life sentence or a "We'll throw away the key on this one" type of life sentence?
I think hiring a hitman would haver been considered just as serious as committing the murders directly, therefore it would have resulted in a whole life tarrif.
-
I think hiring a hitman would haver been considered just as serious as committing the murders directly, therefore it would have resulted in a whole life tarrif.
Hi ngb,,,so let's say a hitman was involved ( as JM allegedly had said ) then why wasn't she made an accessory if this was/is to be believed.? As today,,she would have been imprisoned by asscociation.
-
I think hiring a hitman would haver been considered just as serious as committing the murders directly, therefore it would have resulted in a whole life tarrif.
Thanks for that, ngb. I'm surprised that the hiring of a hitman, who ultimately make the decision about whether the crime is committed, carries the same weight of sentence as the crimes carried out by Hindly and Brady, the Wests, Peter Sucliffe and Ian Huntley, and I feel perfectly certain that JM wouldn't have known this, either.(I of course realize that the Wests and Huntley were yet to commit the atrocities that put them behind bars)Nevertheless, I bow to superior knowledge.
-
Hi ngb,,,so let's say a hitman was involved ( as JM allegedly had said ) then why wasn't she made an accessory if this was/is to be believed.? As today,,she would have been imprisoned by asscociation.
Julie Mugford could have been charged as an accessory to murder. However, the decision was taken at the highest level (DPP) not to charge her and to give her immunity on the basis that she gave evidence for the prosecution.
-
Hi Lookout - I don't buy the hit man 'theory' at all! What? You just blatantly go up to someone and ask them to kill your entire family - including two young children and obviously the first person you ask say's yes? Otherwise there would have been other people coming forward to say they had been approached. And the News of the World would have been full of stories for would be hit men telling of how 'Evil Jeremy offered a measly £2,000 quid to slaughter his entire family'. However, the guilty gang will say that because she 'offered' to testify against him, she wasn’t charged.
Hi Caroline. I don't believe anything other than Sheila carried out the killings,then committed suicide.
-
Mugford wasn't charged with being an accessory because the police know what she had to say had no truth to it, she was just there to fill in the gaps to try and get Jeremy arrested and convicted in connection with the deaths. She would have said anything, and she did, it was irrelevant whether what she said at one time or another was proven or disproved, police would not prosecute her because she was worth more to the prosecutions case, than any desire to prosecute her for being a criminal type...
-
Mugford wasn't charged with being an accessory because the police know what she had to say had no truth to it, she was just there to fill in the gaps to try and get Jeremy arrested and convicted in connection with the deaths. She would have said anything, and she did, it was irrelevant whether what she said at one time or another was proven or disproved, police would not prosecute her because she was worth more to the prosecutions case, than any desire to prosecute her for being a criminal type...
In my view, Mugford was not a grass, she was / is a conspirator...
-
Hi Lookout - I don't buy the hit man 'theory' at all! What? You just blatantly go up to someone and ask them to kill your entire family - including two young children and obviously the first person you ask say's yes? Otherwise there would have been other people coming forward to say they had been approached. And the News of the World would have been full of stories for would be hit men telling of how 'Evil Jeremy offered a measly £2,000 quid to slaughter his entire family'. However, the guilty gang will say that because she 'offered' to testify against him, she wasn’t charged.
Hello Caroline. I have real difficulty in getting my head round £2000. As far back as 1985 it was a paltry amount. Whether mor or less was offered for the adults is irrelevant, it still only averages at £400 per person, which, if the possible costs of petrol, train fare or overnight stay into consideration, it would hardly be worth getting out of bed for. One imagines that numerous hitmen weren't fighting over the offer. The other thing is, where and how would Jeremy have known how to make contact with such a person, other than in his dreams of being seen as a bigshot?
-
Hello Caroline. I have real difficulty in getting my head round £2000. As far back as 1985 it was a paltry amount. Whether mor or less was offered for the adults is irrelevant, it still only averages at £400 per person, which, if the possible costs of petrol, train fare or overnight stay into consideration, it would hardly be worth getting out of bed for. One imagines that numerous hitmen weren't fighting over the offer. The other thing is, where and how would Jeremy have known how to make contact with such a person, other than in his dreams of being seen as a bigshot?
The story is of course "unbelievable" and it was rejected by the prosecution just as the rest of her swtory should have been.
-
Exactly! Where indeed - the rumour that Matthew McDonald was a 'mercenary' made him the perfect target for gossip mongers and I believe this is where JM got her hitman story from! I have to wonder also if the seed was planted by the family and it was embroidered into the elaborate tapestry of hearsay and conjecture we have today!
If my memory serves me right, I think the idea that Jeremy could have paid someone £2000 to carry out the murders was borne out of the fact that whilst Jeremy was touring New Zealand or Australia , or somewhere like that, he got himself into a spot of financial difficulty and he had to contact his parents and ask them to send him some money out so that he could buy a ticket to fly back to England, or something like that? I believe that June sent about £2000 out to Jeremy, and although it was used to enable Jeremy to get back to the UK, Mugford picked up on this amount and started spreading misinformation that this was the money Jeremy could have paid to a hit man to carry out the murders?
-
If my memory serves me right, I think the idea that Jeremy could have oaid someone £2000 to carry out the murders was borne out of the fact that whilst Jeremy was touring New Zealand or Australia , or somewhere like that, he got himself into a spot of financial difficulty and he had to contact his parents and ask them to send him some money out so that he could buy a ticket to fly back to England, or something like that? I believe that June sent about £2000 out to Jeremy, and although it was used to enable Jeremy to get back to the UK, Mugford picked up on this amount and started spreading misinformation that this was the money Jeremy could have paid to a hit man to carry out the murders?
Mike, how did she think he got back to England, flying carpet?
-
D; D; D; D; D; D; D;
-
D; D; D; D; D; D; D;
Not sure what went wrong there, they were supposed to be smilies. D;D;D;
-
Not such a crazy idea given the suggestion of how he might gotten home from WFH :)
Better than a bike though.
-
Hello Caroline. I have real difficulty in getting my head round £2000. As far back as 1985 it was a paltry amount. Whether mor or less was offered for the adults is irrelevant, it still only averages at £400 per person, which, if the possible costs of petrol, train fare or overnight stay into consideration, it would hardly be worth getting out of bed for. One imagines that numerous hitmen weren't fighting over the offer. The other thing is, where and how would Jeremy have known how to make contact with such a person, other than in his dreams of being seen as a bigshot?
Why does it have to be a pro ? Who was the man in the window? Certainly not sheila....
-
Why does it have to be a pro ? Who was the man in the window? Certainly not sheila....
Hello Boheme. You know what they say? When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!!!
-
Hello Boheme. You know what they say? When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!!!
nah! they would have said so if it was a monkey.
-
nah! they would have said so if it was a monkey.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D