Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Sparkfilms on February 12, 2011, 10:14:PM
-
I'm not sure if Jeremy has anyone in mind to produce a possible case documentary in the future.
I worked alongside Darlow Smithson a couple of years ago on the Channel 4 docu 'Killer in a Small Town' ( Suffolk Serial Murders ). Darlow Smithson are a leading television / film production company in the UK ( though recently absorbed into the Endemol empire ).
I feel the power of television and a 75 / 90 minute production could make a very big difference as things stand.
John Smithson is the man to contact via Endemol / Darlow.
If anyone could do this case justice and give the British public an up to date overview of proceedings ( present and past ) then these guys should certainly be considered.
For all we know, public opinion may even influence the CCRC.
Just a thought.
-
have you been intouch with them and told them of this case,or the mysteries that surround it?
-
Hello Andrea,
No, but if anyone contacted me from Jeremy's camp with a view to pitching a short synopsis to Darlow or anyone else I would be quite prepared to assist.
I should imagine though that Jeremy may well be up to pace with ideas / contacts of this nature.
The other possibility, and I'm not sure if anyone has ever considered this in the past, is a feature film.
There have been 3 feature films based on the Rettendon Murders here in Essex that give variations on a theme. I should also add that convicted Micky Steele and Jack Wombes protested their innocence in these murders.
I see a little common ground with these two cases, the undercurrent of the Essex drug scene appears to connect some of the more radical views. Both of the cases appear to be linked by the light aircraft drops into lit up landing sites at night - that is, if the local folklore around Tollesbury is to be believed.
Wasn't there a programme about White House Farm some years back?
If so, perhaps someone could let me know what it was called.
-
Something else if I may, a full re-construction with the same rifle / ammo based on the shell drop positions, number of shots into victims, location of rooms, bodies etc could help determine how and who was most likely responsible.
There are signs of frenzied killings here, which just tips the scales towards Shelia in my view.
Not to mention the kitchen situation with Neville.
I listened to Stan Jones on Essex radio - he didn't really convince me.
How do we know that in a violent and manic rage Shelia wasn't capable of inflicting those wounds on Neville? And how do we know that she didn't cleanse her body before turning the gun on herself?
A reconstruction would have to show both options, ie. a Jeremy Bamber version, and a Shelia Caffell version.
A lot was made by Stan Jones about the way Jeremy Bamber acted after the killings, as far as I am concerned, this meant nothing.
-
i agree,, you cant make a case of how someone grieves after their family have been wiped out, jeremy was only a young lad at the time.
-
i agree,, you cant make a case of how someone grieves after their family have been wiped out, jeremy was only a young lad at the time.
Hardly a young lad - he was 24.
-
Something else if I may, a full re-construction with the same rifle / ammo based on the shell drop positions, number of shots into victims, location of rooms, bodies etc could help determine how and who was most likely responsible.
There are signs of frenzied killings here, which just tips the scales towards Shelia in my view.
Not to mention the kitchen situation with Neville.
I listened to Stan Jones on Essex radio - he didn't really convince me.
How do we know that in a violent and manic rage Shelia wasn't capable of inflicting those wounds on Neville? And how do we know that she didn't cleanse her body before turning the gun on herself?
A reconstruction would have to show both options, ie. a Jeremy Bamber version, and a Shelia Caffell version.
A lot was made by Stan Jones about the way Jeremy Bamber acted after the killings, as far as I am concerned, this meant nothing.
Stan Jones was rather contradictory. On the one hand he said that Jeremy was acting and pretending to be upset, and on the other hand he said that Jeremy offered a fry up for breakfast.
I agree that you can't really tell from the way Jeremy behaved.
-
Thanx Sarann, I just checked that out, very interesting.
Does Mike reside in Bolton?
This forum is a great way of finding stuff out at high speed!
-
Stan Jones gave the impression of a local bobby on a bycycle when he stated in the BBC Essex interview...
'Jeremy Bamber could have been convicted on Julie Mugford's evidence alone'
Imagine that. 33 times to get her story straight.
Was Jeremy Bamber actually convicted on no hard evidence at all?
-
If a film or documentary were to be made then it would be interesting to bring up the jury as a 10-2 majority some of the jurors must have been on the edge guilty or not guilty and I bet some of them are not happy with the withholding of evidence. I expect a lot of them even read this forum I would. No body would like to think they put an innocent man in jail. I believe if any of them spoke up it would go a long way to getting Jeremy out of prison. Your. Thoughts please
-
If a film or documentary were to be made then it would be interesting to bring up the jury as a 10-2 majority some of the jurors must have been on the edge guilty or not guilty and I bet some of them are not happy with the withholding of evidence. I expect a lot of them even read this forum I would. No body would like to think they put an innocent man in jail. I believe if any of them spoke up it would go a long way to getting Jeremy out of prison. Your. Thoughts please
Yes, it's a pity that juries don't tend to tell anyone why they reached the decision they did in this country. Obviously, two of them either thought he didn't do it, or they couldn't decide.
-
I was on jury service for a murder trial at Chelmsford crown court and I was in the minority wanting to plead not guilty and even felt slightly bullied by other jury members so if the case I was on came up as maybe a miscarriage of justice I would definitely want to have my say. I wonder if the jurors in this case think they could get in trouble for making it public that they could have made a mistake
-
I was on jury service for a murder trial at Chelmsford crown court and I was in the minority wanting to plead not guilty and even felt slightly bullied by other jury members so if the case I was on came up as maybe a miscarriage of justice I would definitely want to have my say. I wonder if the jurors in this case think they could get in trouble for making it public that they could have made a mistake
Yes - they must read about it. I would if I had been on that jury.
-
If only we could get them to speak up even anonomously
-
If only we could get them to speak up even anonomously
Yes - that would be really good. Are juries told not to discuss the case afterwards?
-
It was a long time since my jury service but as far as I can remember there were no restrictions on the jury speaking about the case after the trial just while the trial was going on. Now since reading a lot about this case i have realised we never read much
about what the jury think afterwards. Does anyone have any idea maybe someone from the media could tell me
-
Thought jurors cannot divulge anything that happens in the jury room, nor identify fellow jurors, unless it becomes a matter of court i.e. a jury nobbling case etc.
In England and Wales they cannot make financial gain (i.e. selling their story) from serving on a jury.
-
You say you think that is the case but does anyone else know if that is definitely the case and could any of the jurors speak about the verdict if they were not being paid. When I was on my jury service I clearly remember the lady who sat next to me had made up her mind from day one that the person on trial was guilty because of the way he looked with shaved head and earrings. There was also some police evidence in question when we went out to deliberate and a few jurors stated the police don't lie do they? I remember thinking I hope I am never tried by a jury for murder and I do feel maybe the jury in Jeremy's case mistook arrogance for something else. I do know that if I had been a jury member on Jeremy's case I could not have found him guilty on circumstantial evidence
-
You say you think that is the case but does anyone else know if that is definitely the case and could any of the jurors speak about the verdict if they were not being paid. When I was on my jury service I clearly remember the lady who sat next to me had made up her mind from day one that the person on trial was guilty because of the way he looked with shaved head and earrings. There was also some police evidence in question when we went out to deliberate and a few jurors stated the police don't lie do they? I remember thinking I hope I am never tried by a jury for murder and I do feel maybe the jury in Jeremy's case mistook arrogance for something else. I do know that if I had been a jury member on Jeremy's case I could not have found him guilty on circumstantial evidence
Don't forget that at the time the prosecution put forward a compelling argument that the blood in the silencer was Sheila's. They conceded that there was a "remote" chance it wasn't, but the jury must surely have been influenced by that a lot. Sheila couldn't kill herself and put the silencer back in the cupboard.
The other issue was Julie Mugford. Perhaps she came over as quite credible at the trial.
-
With regard to the part Jeremy's girlfriend Julie played in getting him found guilty I can't believe the jury found him guilty with her track record of lies in the past. The prosecution must have had an amazing barrister. There is a girl in our local pub whose boyfriend started to see someone else so she reported the girl to the police for drink driving when she left the pub and the girl was prosecuted. It didn't end there because the girl started driving again although she was banned. The jealous girlfriend reported her to the police and the girl was sentenced to three months in prison. What is that saying hell hath no fury like a women scorned
-
With regard to the part Jeremy's girlfriend Julie played in getting him found guilty I can't believe the jury found him guilty with her track record of lies in the past. The prosecution must have had an amazing barrister. There is a girl in our local pub whose boyfriend started to see someone else so she reported the girl to the police for drink driving when she left the pub and the girl was prosecuted. It didn't end there because the girl started driving again although she was banned. The jealous girlfriend reported her to the police and the girl was sentenced to three months in prison. What is that saying hell hath no fury like a women scorned
Perhaps the prosecution did have an amazing barrister, or perhaps the defence barrister didn't cross examine Julie very thoroughly. I haven't seen a transcript of that part of the trial.
-
Julie mugford took £25,000 of a national newspaper and ran off for a new life in Canada (what is the current value of £25,000 today) I wonder how much it would take to get her to take a lie detector today? I am just trying to chip away to get some answers and the truth.
-
i often wonder who reads or posts on this forum. i believe jeremy has offered a million pound reward for information that will lead to his conviction being overturned. wikileaks could be one route to get information out there.
-
With regard to the part Jeremy's girlfriend Julie played in getting him found guilty I can't believe the jury found him guilty with her track record of lies in the past. The prosecution must have had an amazing barrister. There is a girl in our local pub whose boyfriend started to see someone else so she reported the girl to the police for drink driving when she left the pub and the girl was prosecuted. It didn't end there because the girl started driving again although she was banned. The jealous girlfriend reported her to the police and the girl was sentenced to three months in prison. What is that saying hell hath no fury like a women scorned
I agree with your concerns over JM's role in this. But to rescind her statement would be admitting to perjury and certain imprisonment in this case - if she could be extradited from Canada.
However, if the girl in the pub was drink-driving and carried on regardless, prison seems appropriate to me, however jealous the ex may have been.
Witnesses like JM who have a history of lying and stealing are subject to the scrutiny of the barristers and judge and jury. People like her are very often torn apart by the professionals, so she must have stood up well to cross examination. She has gone on to have a successful life as a Head Teacher.
Let's not forget JB was shown to be a liar and thief as well over his dealings with the Caravan Site. So, do we assume everything he's done or said since is false and motivated by greed?
A character assination of JM (who isn't here to defend herself) won't free JB. PROVING she lied would.
-
With regard to the girl in the pub i agree that the girl should have been prosecuted but i meant to add the jealous girl in the pub actually went to considerable lengths to have the girl caught by the police following her on many occasions to see what route she took home not just informing the police. Julie mugford the headteacher and also the girl that carried on seeing Jeremy before the killings and after the killings. This good upstanding citizen could maybe have stopped the murders couldnt she. She stood at that funeral next to Colin caffell knowing that Jeremy planned to kill the family and she hadn't told anyone look at her face in those photographs what do you see
-
With regard to the girl in the pub i agree that the girl should have been prosecuted but i meant to add the jealous girl in the pub actually went to considerable lengths to have the girl caught by the police following her on many occasions to see what route she took home not just informing the police. Julie mugford the headteacher and also the girl that carried on seeing Jeremy before the killings and after the killings. This good upstanding citizen could maybe have stopped the murders couldnt she. She stood at that funeral next to Colin caffell knowing that Jeremy planned to kill the family and she hadn't told anyone look at her face in those photographs what do you see
There's one thing that struck me when I looked at the photos of the funeral. It's been said that Jeremy was play acting and pretending to be upset. Well look at Julie. She's wearing a hat with a net veil which she must surely have got just for the funeral. I don't know anyone who wears that kind of thing at a funeral or has something like that in their wardrobe. I think they were both playing up to the media a bit there.
-
when questioned in court julie mugford continualy broke down and sobbed when questioned by the defence, making it impossible for them to cross examine her properly as she had to keep stopping to try compose her self.however, when questioned by the prosecution she remarkably gained composure and kept it throughout their questioning.She made it more than difficult for the defence.
-
when questioned in court julie mugford continualy broke down and sobbed when questioned by the defence, making it impossible for them to cross examine her properly as she had to keep stopping to try compose her self.however, when questioned by the prosecution she remarkably gained composure and kept it throughout their questioning.She made it more than difficult for the defence.
I presume the defence was tougher on her though, so it's natural that she would be upset when being cross-examined.
-
How soon did Julie mugford sell her story after the trial and is it likely she did the deal with the newspaper before the trial. I suppose the jury had no idea she was going to sell her story. I live in Brentwood 20 minutes from Chelmsford crown court so it is likely that someone who was on that jury lives close to me so I am pleading with anyone on that jury either the ones who thought Jeremy was innocent or guilty to leave an anonymous post as to how they feel with what has come out since the trial. It is just not fair that anyone in any jury could make the wrong decision because of a bungling police investigation or withholding of evidence.
-
I'm not sure if Jeremy has anyone in mind to produce a possible case documentary in the future.
I worked alongside Darlow Smithson a couple of years ago on the Channel 4 docu 'Killer in a Small Town' ( Suffolk Serial Murders ). Darlow Smithson are a leading television / film production company in the UK ( though recently absorbed into the Endemol empire ).
I feel the power of television and a 75 / 90 minute production could make a very big difference as things stand.
John Smithson is the man to contact via Endemol / Darlow.
If anyone could do this case justice and give the British public an up to date overview of proceedings ( present and past ) then these guys should certainly be considered.
For all we know, public opinion may even influence the CCRC.
Just a thought.
I just wanted to say that I thought that "Killer In A Small Town" was a really good documentary, Spark Films. I thought that the subject matter and the girls relatives were handled in a sensitive manner, without soft soaping the realities of the worlds of hard drugs and prostitution.
I think that a documentary on this case is a very good idea. It would hopefully raise awareness about the case and keep Jeremy's attempts at appeal in the public eye.
-
How soon could a documentary be made in view of the ruling of the ccrc in three months. I would also like to make a point about the lie detector test that Jeremy took and passed roughly 3 times a day the Jeremy Kyle show is on national television. The show is very popular and many big companies spend millions advertising during that show. One of the most popular subjects on that show is the lie detector test which as far as
I know there have never been any formal or legal complaint about a lie detector result. I think that probably shows the accuracy of these tests over quite a few years. Could anyone let me know if I am wrong
-
Lie detector results are not permitted to be used as evidence in court in England, Wales + NI - not sure about Scotland.
Am I right in assuming the prison authorities must have sanctioned the legal team arranging the test? Was the tester allowed in with their kit? Which company administered the test?
-
With regard to the girl in the pub i agree that the girl should have been prosecuted but i meant to add the jealous girl in the pub actually went to considerable lengths to have the girl caught by the police following her on many occasions to see what route she took home not just informing the police. Julie mugford the headteacher and also the girl that carried on seeing Jeremy before the killings and after the killings. This good upstanding citizen could maybe have stopped the murders couldnt she. She stood at that funeral next to Colin caffell knowing that Jeremy planned to kill the family and she hadn't told anyone look at her face in those photographs what do you see
So are you saying JM should be charged as an accomplice after the fact? Therefore, JB is guilty and should remain in prison.
-
No I didn't mean that at all I have not up to this point seen anything to convince me Jeremy was guilty. I think she knew he did not do it and dressed for the occasion as at that point was Jeremy partner and would also enjoy any inheritance that came his way. I think as soon as it looked like she might not be part of Jeremy's future her attitude changed. Have you read horseydaves comments that she slept with two other men on a short holiday. It seems she didn't have a care in the world not someone racked with guilt that she could have prevented a whole family being killed. I can't see any reason for horsey dave to lie and just an add on to that he got to know Jeremy over a few weeks and he didn't think Jeremy did it. Maybe a better character reference than some of the general public making assumptions on a photo of Jeremy smiling in a photo !!!!
-
No I didn't mean that at all I have not up to this point seen anything to convince me Jeremy was guilty. I think she knew he did not do it and dressed for the occasion as at that point was Jeremy partner and would also enjoy any inheritance that came his way. I think as soon as it looked like she might not be part of Jeremy's future her attitude changed. Have you read horseydaves comments that she slept with two other men on a short holiday. It seems she didn't have a care in the world not someone racked with guilt that she could have prevented a whole family being killed. I can't see any reason for horsey dave to lie and just an add on to that he got to know Jeremy over a few weeks and he didn't think Jeremy did it. Maybe a better character reference than some of the general public making assumptions on a photo of Jeremy smiling in a photo !!!!
Thanks Jackie. I was getting confused as to whether you thought JM a co-conspirator who got away with it or a bitter woman who lied.
I'm willing to consider she was a bit of a wild one etc, who told a lie that snowballed out of control. Perhaps the consequences actually forced her to turn her life around.
But even if she did lie - and there seems to be no way of proving that - her lies didn't convict JB. The silencer did. And following on from today's discussions, perhaps the final shell casing not being in the gun and the position of the spent casings add to that. And clean feet.
I'm off to spend time mulling all the info regarding the silencer and casings!
-
I am confused now I thought Julie mugfords evidence was one of the reasons Jeremy was convicted so you are saying there is conclusive forensic evidence regarding the silencer (which was found by the relatives who inherited all the money) proving beyond reasonable doubt Jeremy was responsible for the murders
-
I am confused now I thought Julie mugfords evidence was one of the reasons Jeremy was convicted so you are saying there is conclusive forensic evidence regarding the silencer (which was found by the relatives who inherited all the money) proving beyond reasonable doubt Jeremy was responsible for the murders
I think Julie Mugford's evidence was important but there's no way of knowing why the jury convicted him really. The evidence re the silencer at the trial was very important as it was thought then that the blood in it was Sheila's.
If you're interested in the ins and outs of the trial and later appeals, you can read about it in the Appeal document of 2002. It does contain quite a lot about the original trial.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
-
I have read a lot of documents but certain subjects like the moderator I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make important comments but I really wanted to say that as I understand Jeremy would be happy to get a retrial he is not even asking for an instant release for an unsafe verdict and as we are talking about someone with a whole life tariff (to die in prison) for the sake of British Justice this case has to be looked at again. I truly believe the majority of the British public would also welcome a retrial. As I understand Jeremy is the only one of the prisoners with a whole life tariff that says he is innocent. Also is it true that if you continually protest your innocence in prison it can affect different aspects of how you are treated in prison.
-
I have read a lot of documents but certain subjects like the moderator I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make important comments but I really wanted to say that as I understand Jeremy would be happy to get a retrial he is not even asking for an instant release for an unsafe verdict and as we are talking about someone with a whole life tariff (to die in prison) for the sake of British Justice this case has to be looked at again. I truly believe the majority of the British public would also welcome a retrial. As I understand Jeremy is the only one of the prisoners with a whole life tariff that says he is innocent. Also is it true that if you continually protest your innocence in prison it can affect different aspects of how you are treated in prison.
I would like to see a retrial too, but I can't see it happening unless something dramatic happens.
-
Thankyou for that I just keep reading that this is such a political case and I worry because Jeremy keeps saying if the conviction is found to be unsafe he wants action taken against the people who have covered up evidence surely he will never get his case referred to the appeal court if he keeps saying that. From what I have read in depth nobody really believes the ccrc to be independant or impartial. 4% of cases referred ?
-
Thankyou for that I just keep reading that this is such a political case and I worry because Jeremy keeps saying if the conviction is found to be unsafe he wants action taken against the people who have covered up evidence surely he will never get his case referred to the appeal court if he keeps saying that. From what I have read in depth nobody really believes the ccrc to be independant or impartial. 4% of cases referred ?
In the appeal of 2002 there were accusations that the police witheld evidence and covered things up, and it didn't go down well with the appeal judges, so I think he should be careful about basing another appeal on similar accusations.
-
I have read a lot of documents but certain subjects like the moderator I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make important comments but I really wanted to say that as I understand Jeremy would be happy to get a retrial he is not even asking for an instant release for an unsafe verdict and as we are talking about someone with a whole life tariff (to die in prison) for the sake of British Justice this case has to be looked at again. I truly believe the majority of the British public would also welcome a retrial. As I understand Jeremy is the only one of the prisoners with a whole life tariff that says he is innocent. Also is it true that if you continually protest your innocence in prison it can affect different aspects of how you are treated in prison.
I would like to see a retrial too, but I can't see it happening unless something dramatic happens.
I agree - a retrial would be fair in light of the terrible mis-management of the case and the fact that he has been given a whole life tariff.
But it requires considerable doubt to be placed on the evidence used in the trial, or new evidence. Or a public campaign.
People would still need convincing about the silencer, casings and clean feet etc if the Sheila suicide/murder is given as the alternative. It appears JB's case is less about proving himself innocent and more about proving SC guilty, and those are notoriously hard to win. And they make people feel uncomfortable as the accused aren't able to defend themselves.
Me, I'm still bothered by the Horsey Dave's lights in concrete and small aircraft...
-
Landing lights were a common scene in the Essex outback for 20 years or so.
Not to mention light landing craft bringing weed and pills ashore.
'Drugs 'R' Us' was the word on the street from Basildon to Chelmsford to Tollesbury.
-
Landing lights were a common scene in the Essex outback for 20 years or so.
Not to mention light landing craft bringing weed and pills ashore.
'Drugs 'R' Us' was the word on the street from Basildon to Chelmsford to Tollesbury.
And there was a lot of drugs associated crime, including murders.
Was there ever any mention of JB being in big debt?
-
Some locals used to remind us that the landing strips would have been similar to the ones that Neville Bamber - who was a former R.A.F. pilot would have been capable of landing on himself - which leads to the question of who may or may not have been putting him under pressure at the time ( Neville's conversations with secretary etc ).
Neville Bamber believed his life to be under threat for some reason.
-
Some locals used to remind us that the landing strips would have been similar to the ones that Neville Bamber - who was a former R.A.F. pilot would have been capable of landing on himself - which leads to the question of who may or may not have been putting him under pressure at the time ( Neville's conversations with secretary etc ).
Neville Bamber believed his life to be under threat for some reason.
What conversations with his secretary? I seem to have missed something.
-
I get occasional info from former criminals in Jaywick, most of them in 'retirement' and in their 70's. In their time they were major league players and certainly would have had dealings with the Krays. One of them phoned me about the Bamber thing some time ago but there was no mention of any big money being owed. That is not to say some kind of operation may not have been going down.
It is true that quick cash seems to have been raised by Jeremy from furniture / paintings and other items that were taken from White House Farm, yet having said that, I did the same when my mother died a few years ago.
-
Are people now trying to imply Jeremy killed his family over a drugs debt or that a hit man killed the family so Jeremy collected money to pay debts I think if we bring that complication into the case Jeremy will never get his retrial at this late date and remember horseydave said he did not think Jeremy murdered the family.
When I try to look at all aspects of this case I have tried to read as much about Jeremy and most of the people who knew him don't think he carried out the murders and I even read some stuff that there was some favouritism to him in prison this makes me think that maybe even the people who lock him up maybe think he is innocent. People who have worked in the prison service for a long time must have a good judgement about who might be innocent or guilty and Jeremy took a massive risk taking the lie detector test (one of the most experienced testers in the country)
-
For Kaldin.
Neville confided in his secretary - he told her of a dark threat hanging over him. I don't think anyone, including the secretary quite understood what he meant by this.
It might even have a connection to his days in the forces.
The R.A F. days certainly came back to haunt some of those close to Neville, but that's a whole different story, and I doubt it has any kind of connection to WHF.
I will stick with three possible shooters, Jeremy, Shelia and McDonald.
What I would say though is that people with land, guns and outbuildings sometimes get involved in other business ventures. I can state with certainty that my research for material for my books and TV work has taken me into some extraordinary places in Essex and Suffolk in the last 10 years.
-
For Kaldin.
Neville confided in his secretary - he told her of a dark threat hanging over him. I don't think anyone, including the secretary quite understood what he meant by this.
It might even have a connection to his days in the forces.
The R.A F. days certainly came back to haunt some of those close to Neville, but that's a whole different story, and I doubt it has any kind of connection to WHF.
I will stick with three possible shooters, Jeremy, Shelia and McDonald.
What I would say though is that people with land, guns and outbuildings sometimes get involved in other business ventures. I can state with certainty that my research for material for my books and TV work has taken me into some extraordinary places in Essex and Suffolk in the last 10 years.
Interesting - thanks.
I hadn't heard any of that stuff about a dark threat. I said earlier that events leading up to the murders should be examined because murder doesn't usually happen out of the blue, but there's not much info out there. It might be an event or comment by someone which seems insignificant but could actually be important.
-
A car accident involving Jeremy which happened in November 1984 was mentioned somewhere. PC Saxby knew Jeremy because of that accident. Any info on that?
-
It might be worth my mentioning that I have worked on the McCann case for a national newspaper and the Suffolk Serial Murders for Sky News with Martin Brunt.
I am no expert, just a smalltime writer and film producer who pretty much lives hand to mouth. And yet, despite this, I do get the occasional commissions from press and tv.
Most of the stuff I work on is local, and that usually means that for the price of a breakfast in a cafe in Ipswich or somewhere I can get information that might not be available to the mainliners in media.
Having said this, and like many of those who contribute to this forum, I have to put in a many hours in the pursuit of information and most of the time one comes to a dead end - I did get some information from Portugal through to Leicestershire Police that just had to be acted on though.
I was interviewed in my Colchester home a month ago for 4 hours by the BBC. They were interested in my 'interview techniques' - it's a good job I'm for real as the BBC got on to Suffolk Constabulary the next day to verify my work. The police at least acknowleged my existence!
The police have been pretty fair with me most of the time. They were decent enough to give me assistance with my latest book - even though I was critical of some of their work in the Suffolk Murders.
Although the police work at WHF was quite appalling, I do not believe that they set up Jeremy Bamber in any way. As far as I see it the turning point in this case was the silencer. I'm not even sure if it was the intention of the relatives to frame Jeremy but everything changed when the silencer became the focal issue. I'm not ever sure if a silencer was used, certainly if Shelia did the shootings it would not have been.
Cross contamination could explain the minute trace of blood attributed to Shelia.
-
It might be worth my mentioning that I have worked on the McCann case for a national newspaper and the Suffolk Serial Murders for Sky News with Martin Brunt.
I am no expert, just a smalltime writer and film producer who pretty much lives hand to mouth. And yet, despite this, I do get the occasional commissions from press and tv.
Most of the stuff I work on is local, and that usually means that for the price of a breakfast in a cafe in Ipswich or somewhere I can get information that might not be available to the mainliners in media.
Having said this, and like many of those who contribute to this forum, I have to put in a many hours in the pursuit of information and most of the time one comes to a dead end - I did get some information from Portugal through to Leicestershire Police that just had to be acted on though.
I was interviewed in my Colchester home a month ago for 4 hours by the BBC. They were interested in my 'interview techniques' - it's a good job I'm for real as the BBC got on to Suffolk Constabulary the next day to verify my work. The police at least acknowleged my existence!
The police have been pretty fair with me most of the time. They were decent enough to give me assistance with my latest book - even though I was critical of some of their work in the Suffolk Murders.
Although the police work at WHF was quite appalling, I do not believe that they set up Jeremy Bamber in any way. As far as I see it the turning point in this case was the silencer. I'm not even sure if it was the intention of the relatives to frame Jeremy but everything changed when the silencer became the focal issue. I'm not ever sure if a silencer was used, certainly if Shelia did the shootings it would not have been.
Cross contamination could explain the minute trace of blood attributed to Shelia.
Sounds like you have an interesting job. :D
Re the silencer, it wasn't a minute trace of blood, and there was enough blood on the outside of the silencer for the relatives to notice it immediately after they found it.
-
To spark films
So what is your opinion right now do you think it's likely Jeremy carried out the murders and do you think he should have been found guilty and do you think he should die in prison. Also what is your opinion on lie detector tests and do you believe in them. If you are not happy with the above you sound an ideal person to make some sort of film to find out answers we don't know yet
-
For Jackie,
I would like to see Jeremy Bamber released from prison tonight! Guilty or innocent!
Either way, he has been cheated by the system.
Lie detector tests are for another Jeremy to earn his living with, but nevertheless, credit to Jeremy Bamber for taking - lie detectors are similar to extracting information via hypnosis ( another Essex murder was 'solved' by this method ) but could not be processed through courts.
The case I touch on re. 'Hypnotics' actually managed to get most of a number plate at a body deposition site. CPS and those in control can't work with this stuff. What a shame. The killer walked free, I think the police knew he did it.
I got inside information re. Huntley from Cambs Police - they used a form of entrapment to nail him - they wired his father's house when they were out - very clever and very slick work. Some modern police work is very impressive.
I'm in the middle of a film at the moment, so I'm tied up with that, and to be brutally honest, this case is too big for me to do it justice. I did recomment Darlow Smithson Production on another thread as a possible avenue. 'Tricksy' also identified a unit up in Bolton who have already made a programme for possible screening soon.
-
I really wish you were in a position to do something about this case because public opinion might be the only thing that gets Jeremy out of prison. Have you written to him or would you write to him?
-
I've had no contact with Mr Bamber.
There are enough very decent and loyal people on his side already, but you are correct about public opinion.
The Guardian have done some very good reporting on this case recently. You can't do any better in the British press than these guys, and unlike some newspapers they tend to print what they believe to be true.
-
But one person the right person might find some answers that no one else has I just wish I knew the thoughts of the jurors since 1986 I still havnt found out if jurors are allowed to talk about the case after the verdict.
-
Let's not forget JB was shown to be a liar and thief as well over his dealings with the Caravan Site. So, do we assume everything he's done or said since is false and motivated by greed?
A character assination of JM (who isn't here to defend herself) won't free JB. PROVING she lied would.
This is a very good point and one that is over looked I think.
JM is being labelled all sorts of things on threads on this site... druggy, thief, sleeps around etc... Jeremy by all accounts is guilty of exactly the same allagations.
Everything JM said before the trial and after that fingers Jeremy we are told is said by a druggy, thief and lier... where as Jeremy is being straight up and honest with everything he is saying?
My point is that they appeared to be cut from the same cloth so to speak... so labelling one as untrust worthy due to their background must apply to the other... in my opinion.
-
I have read a lot of documents but certain subjects like the moderator I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make important comments but I really wanted to say that as I understand Jeremy would be happy to get a retrial he is not even asking for an instant release for an unsafe verdict and as we are talking about someone with a whole life tariff (to die in prison) for the sake of British Justice this case has to be looked at again. I truly believe the majority of the British public would also welcome a retrial. As I understand Jeremy is the only one of the prisoners with a whole life tariff that says he is innocent. Also is it true that if you continually protest your innocence in prison it can affect different aspects of how you are treated in prison.
I welcome a retrial... but over the last couple of weeks I've become unsure as to whether their looking for release due to evidence that shows him innocent or released on a technicality.
We've seen alot of evidence come forward that shows things were done terribly badly.. but not alot of evidence that PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT he didn't do it.
Getting out on a technicality doesn't prove anything other than the Police screwed up.. which we already know.
Just a thought.
-
Some locals used to remind us that the landing strips would have been similar to the ones that Neville Bamber - who was a former R.A.F. pilot would have been capable of landing on himself - which leads to the question of who may or may not have been putting him under pressure at the time ( Neville's conversations with secretary etc ).
Neville Bamber believed his life to be under threat for some reason.
I remember the film about the Rettendon murders, Essex Boys i think with Sean Bean, used a farmer/land owner and associated people as part of their drug smuggling schemes. I know alot of the movie was fiction, but there was also parts that weren't.
I'm not suggesting the film was portraying JB's farm. Just that is was happening.. possibly.
-
It was happening for sure, the art of the craft was to drop the gear from 150 feet where the goods would be hurled into the back of a 4x4 and quickly disappear....then re-appear.
The main 'drop offs' in the 80's / 90's were into fields with a certain pre-planned light pattern....an octagon was popular for a while.
-
To. Pete
Now back to when the murders first happened
The police thought it was suicide
When Colin caffell opened the door to the police he said something like she's done it hasn't she
There was a strange phone call between mrs BAMBER and her sister re bambi the night of the killings
Well documented reports of bambis mental health even her attitude to her children
The investigation changed to a murder inquiry
When j mugford had a falling out with Jeremy BAMBER and told them she knew jb intended to kill his family before the event
A silencer was found long after the murders by one of the relatives who inherited money from the farm because of the conviction
It is well documented that this relation had a friendship with a policeman connected with the murder enquiry
I believe from what I have read that one of the policeman heading the second enquiry went on to work for the Balfour family who inherited the BAMBER money
I am trying to make a point that when you state jb and jm are both liars but if Julie mugford was lying she could potentially have put someone in prison for the rest of their life and I could never ever believe someones evidence that would quite happily sleep with someone who is planning murder and carry on sleeping with someone after the murders especially when that women knew two children had been murdered
-
I am trying to make a point that when you state jb and jm are both liars but if Julie mugford was lying she could potentially have put someone in prison for the rest of their life and I could never ever believe someones evidence that would quite happily sleep with someone who is planning murder and carry on sleeping with someone after the murders especially when that women knew two children had been murdered
The point really is that both JB and JM were cross examined in front of a jury by both defence and prosecution.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary it would be wrong to accuse or assume someone is lying just because it suits their theories.
-
To. Pete
Now back to when the murders first happened
The police thought it was suicide
When Colin caffell opened the door to the police he said something like she's done it hasn't she
There was a strange phone call between mrs BAMBER and her sister re bambi the night of the killings
Well documented reports of bambis mental health even her attitude to her children
The investigation changed to a murder inquiry
When j mugford had a falling out with Jeremy BAMBER and told them she knew jb intended to kill his family before the event
A silencer was found long after the murders by one of the relatives who inherited money from the farm because of the conviction
It is well documented that this relation had a friendship with a policeman connected with the murder enquiry
I believe from what I have read that one of the policeman heading the second enquiry went on to work for the Balfour family who inherited the BAMBER money
I am trying to make a point that when you state jb and jm are both liars but if Julie mugford was lying she could potentially have put someone in prison for the rest of their life and I could never ever believe someones evidence that would quite happily sleep with someone who is planning murder and carry on sleeping with someone after the murders especially when that women knew two children had been murdered
yes I understand what you are saying.
I'm merely trying to point out that if posters wish to queston Mugfords background and morals then one must do the same for Jeremy.
By all accounts they commited crimes together and lied together.
In a court of law you could stand up and sling all sorts of mud at Mugford and discredit her statement.. but in doing so you would have to sling the same mud at Jeremy.
I'm not qusetioning his guilt or innonce just that on the face of the accusations on this forum regarding Mugfords behaviour at the time, which is surely only mentioned to somehow discredit her and paint her in a bad light, the same must be done for Jeremy because he was the same!
If people don't want to hear that Jeremy was a theif and a lier then they shouldn't bring it up about Mugford.
Just my opinion.
-
To pete
As I understand Jeremy was convicted mainly on the silencer and Julie
Mugfords evidence .
I do not believe Julie mugford apparently was told by Jeremy tonights the night on the day of the murders yet she continued to see Jeremy after the murders.
There are lies and there are lies that could have put someone in prison for the rest of their lives.
And apparently from the proceeds of the Newspaper article she bought a property outright
I think it is a disgrace she was used as a credible witness and I think she is lucky no charges were bought against her. If she had told the police the story in the beginning then the police probably would have sealed of. The property and done a proper job of forensics. If you think about all of that why wasn't she charged with perverted the course of justice Stealing £1000 and taking a few drugs does not make someone a mass murderer
-
To pete
As I understand Jeremy was convicted mainly on the silencer and Julie
Mugfords evidence .
To clarify, that is not completely true. They were the points highlighted in the Judges summing up when asking if the jury had come to a verdict.
The jury sat through the entire court case and their verdict must have been based on the entire trial.
-
To pete
As I understand Jeremy was convicted mainly on the silencer and Julie
Mugfords evidence .
I do not believe Julie mugford apparently was told by Jeremy tonights the night on the day of the murders yet she continued to see Jeremy after the murders.
There are lies and there are lies that could have put someone in prison for the rest of their lives.
And apparently from the proceeds of the Newspaper article she bought a property outright
I think it is a disgrace she was used as a credible witness and I think she is lucky no charges were bought against her. If she had told the police the story in the beginning then the police probably would have sealed of. The property and done a proper job of forensics. If you think about all of that why wasn't she charged with perverted the course of justice Stealing £1000 and taking a few drugs does not make someone a mass murderer
Jackie.. I'm not arguing any of what you say.. and by your repsonce I'm inclined to think it strenghtens what I've said.
All I'm suggesting is to label Mugford a lier and theif you have to do the same to Jeremy.. by all accounts the pair of them were petty thieves and liers. So to base ones opinion on someone from previous history you must the other.
Right.. Mugford says Jeremy told her he was going to do it, Jeremy obviously says thats not true. Forget the rest.. why believe one over the other.. they both have history as crooks and liers.
-
Julie mugford appeared for the prosecution and would have been a very plausible witness after the performance at the funeral supporting Jeremy who had supposedly slaughtered all his family and standing next to Colin caffell whose children she knew were going to be murdered (tonights the night apparently Jeremy said) It all worked out wonderfully for her nice lot of money and new life in Canada. That womens evidence was part of the prosecution case that put Jeremy BAMBER in prison for the rest of his life. As far as I can see Jeremy was not convicted on any forensic evidence so the evidence that Julie mugford gave was essential in sealing Jeremy's fate
-
Julie mugford appeared for the prosecution and would have been a very plausible witness after the performance at the funeral supporting Jeremy who had supposedly slaughtered all his family and standing next to Colin caffell whose children she knew were going to be murdered (tonights the night apparently Jeremy said) It all worked out wonderfully for her nice lot of money and new life in Canada. That womens evidence was part of the prosecution case that put Jeremy BAMBER in prison for the rest of his life. As far as I can see Jeremy was not convicted on any forensic evidence so the evidence that Julie mugford gave was essential in sealing Jeremy's fate
Ok, so what was her motive for lying? (I'm asking as a genuinly interested person.. I'm not in either camp guilty or innocent).
They were very close before that night, had committed crimes together and lied together.. many would argue that hereing the person your deeply in love say they would kill their family would be taken as nothing more than angst or rubbish talk. Many people say "I'll kill you!" or " your dead meat!" in the heat of the moment or a means to show anger... but its not taken seriously.
Because she was offered money for her story and because she stood next to jeremy at the funeral doesn't mean she made the whole thing up.
The fact that Jeremy went on wild spending sprees after the murders, bought expensive clothes and went on holidays was his way of dealing with grief apparently.. some might suggest otherwise.
Your saying Mugfords behaviour was not that of someone who knew her boyfriend had killed his family... Was Jeremys behaviour that of someone who's family had just been murdered?
Just posing questions.. I'm not decided either way... but until REAL HARD evidence comes to light we won't know.
But I do agree he needs a retrial.
-
I don't think there's any way to know if Julie Mugford was lying or not. It seems bizarre however you look at it. Either she went around for a month with someone who had confessed to hiring someone to kill his entire family, or she thought nothing of putting a man in prison for something he didn't do.
I wonder how she coped in that year between the murders and the trial. I also wonder if she was afraid that he might get off.
-
Thank god you agree that Jeremy needs a retrial. That all he wants right now
-
It's all rather similar to the David Bain case in New Zealand, which happened in the 90s. He had a retrial and got off.
-
Thank god you agree that Jeremy needs a retrial. That all he wants right now
Yes I do want a retrial but I want it on hard evidence and facts that will prove his innocence.. Not a technicality that proves nothing other than if you look hard enough you will find fault in most things!!
I've yet to see any evidence that proves he's innocent.
-
But he was not convicted on hard evidence that's why a lot of knowledgable people are supporting Jeremy BAMBER gets a retrial
Don't forget the police have admitted a bumbling investigation
For some reason evidence has been destroyed even though there was always likely to be an appeal
Also police are still withholding over 200 negatives and 340,000 documents
Maybe the hard evidence is sitting there
Open and transparent might be the way forward for Essex police
-
Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.
The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.
A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.
Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.
Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.
-
You did say previously you didn't think Jeremy had carried out the murders didn't you?
Also the short time you spent with Julie mugford you said she slept with 2 men on a holiday was she seeing Jeremy at that time and how soon after the murders was that
I just cannot believe she was a credible witness she had prior knowledge Jeremy might kill his family the murders happened and she supported Jeremy although she knew he was involved in the murders and within a few weeks took a short holiday and slept with 2 men
I get the impression she knew members of the BAMBER family as Jeremy's girlfriend yet the murders didn't seem to affect her at
-
The only way this case will turn is if the police say Shelia was alive in the house after 3.30am.
Not much chance of that after a quarter of a century.
Plenty of people think she may have been alive, it would be the most extraordinary cover up if any of the police had lied.
It was interesting to recall the particular police officers who gave evidence at the trial, but more interesting to me are the police officers who did not ( for whatever reason ) appear at the trial.
The truth is with the police, they know what happened.
The silencer issues mean nothing to me.
Mugford's rantings should have been discounted.
That leaves virtually nothing more than what the police saw and heard between 3.50am and around 7.50am.
It's with the police.
I'm for a retrial.
-
That's what I think . Is it unusual to destroy evidence like the bible etc when the accused person maintains they are innocent and there is likely to be appeals
-
The silencer is the sticking point here. Without that there wouldn't have been much evidence. Sure there was Julie Mugford, but even after they arrested Jeremy after she told her story on 7th September, they bailed him on 13th September and let him go on holiday. He was re-arrested when he returned on 29th September, so what led to that re-arrest? It must surely have been because of what they discovered on and in the silencer.
-
The only way this case will turn is if the police say Shelia was alive in the house after 3.30am.
Not much chance of that after a quarter of a century.
Plenty of people think she may have been alive, it would be the most extraordinary cover up if any of the police had lied.
It was interesting to recall the particular police officers who gave evidence at the trial, but more interesting to me are the police officers who did not ( for whatever reason ) appear at the trial.
The truth is with the police, they know what happened.
The silencer issues mean nothing to me.
Mugford's rantings should have been discounted.
That leaves virtually nothing more than what the police saw and heard between 3.50am and around 7.50am.
It's with the police.
I'm for a retrial.
Yes I totally agree... but as you say it has to be some kind of solid evidence.
Regardless of what he was convicted on the retrial has to be something new, unseen, dramatic to the point where a a retrial would seem pointless and the judge frees him without delay.
I just can't see where that might come from... and Im sorry to say I don't see that evidence on here. I'm still of the opinion one of them did it... I can't see a 3rd party being involved.
But I'm also having problems believing sheila killing her family upstairs, fighting her dad downstairs and killing him, removing the silencer shooting herself, waking up semi concious after a gun shot wound, walking around the house with Police all over the place and then killing herself up stairs. Are you telling me this is what happened?
-
Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.
The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.
A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.
Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.
Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.
If I had both feet in the JB camp, I'd say he drove slowly that night because he was scared.
Imagine, you've done nothing wrong, your father tells you you're sister's going mad with a very powerful gun, and the police (further away?) ask you to meet them there. Would you want to be there on your own?
-
That's what I think . Is it unusual to destroy evidence like the bible etc when the accused person maintains they are innocent and there is likely to be appeals
I can't really comment on why they destroyed this evidence but its really not as unusual as you think unfortunately.
Evidence stores and the logs kept have always been a sketchy business and relies solely on a handful (at most in most nicks I would think) of officers logging things in and out and then there comes a point when someone comes along who has no prior knowledge of events or what is and isn't being used and evidence gets destroyed. I'm not saying its right.. but I think it does happen.
If you consider the amount of evidence logged since evidence logging began that would take some storage.
Again, I'm not saying this is RIGHT or indeed what happened here... but it does happen and doesn't always mean a cover up.
Just my opinion.
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
-
Someone has mentioned JB's behavior, one minute appears upset, the other he's offering to cook breakfast.
The JB I knew was a public school boy, he never 'aired' his own feelings, typical stiff upper lip, and not youre 'comprehensive school public display'.
A few days after the shooting, I had a problem with too much grain and nowhere to store it, i rang him and he organised Banks to collect a lorry load and i remember he showed no emotion at all, just very matter of fact.
Ive now read every post on here - I must say several of you are on cloud cuckoo land, and seem to imagine things that have no argument at all. Raising "points that have no bearing" and if you stick to the main points, the case (as it stands)against him is weak, i see no mileage in it, and i do wonder who is advising JB, as some of it seems so pointless.
Personally Id come clean over the aircraft lights, prove his sister was alive when he was with the police and work on the phone log as i dont see how it can be discredited.
My one iffy moment is caused by what i witnessed daily - JB NEVER drove anywhere slow, he was a maniac behind a wheel, even the lawn mower was driven flat out.
If I had both feet in the JB camp, I'd say he drove slowly that night because he was scared.
Imagine, you've done nothing wrong, your father tells you you're sister's going mad with a very powerful gun, and the police (further away?) ask you to meet them there. Would you want to be there on your own?
Yes, I don't think him driving slowly that night is an indication of guilt for the reasons you've just given.
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.
That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! ;))
If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact?
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.
That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! ;))
If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact?
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.
Yes.. I think alot more facts need to be posted with regards the sale of her story. What is the official line?
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
Re the business of Julie Mugford selling her story, I get the impression that the defence wanted to pursue that at the appeal of 2002 but dropped it themselves.
That's interesting. 'Blood money' stories never go down well in court, so I'd assumed they had tried this attack at some point. Was it mentioned in the previous appeal? (Still wading through the 2002 you provided here... not sure if we should say thanks! ;))
If JM was after money, why didn't she try to blackmail JB? Scared because he's a 5x murderer? Yet not too scared to live with him after the fact?
And chequebook journalism wasn't quite as rife 25 years ago, so she couldn't guarantee a payout for a 'I lived with killer' story.
The 2002 appeal document is rather long I agree. ;D
There were two references to the issue of Julie Mugford selling her story - at para 158 and para 363-36. It seems to have been raised before at the previous appeal, but I'm not sure what happened.
-
How incredible that it seemed to be common practice on White House Farm to leave loaded weapons around the house when there were children there, not to mention Shelia's mental state.
Something else that was mentioned to me by someone who worked on the farm in 1982 and 1983.
He was referring to the telephone calls and how it should be very easy to establish the difference in accents of a 61 year old country farmer and a 20 something former public schoolboy.
Something like an elderly member of The Archers and Hugh Grant comes to mind.
( My reference source is a former Heybridge Swifts footballer ).
-
Are you saying that it would be easy for someone to tell the difference between Neville and Jeremy's voice because some people on here are saying Jeremy could have made two calls to the police.
I also wondered if anyone over the years has done a proper reconstruction like showing things in detail as the bike ride Jeremy supposedly took.
The other point I have queried is much was made of Jeremy was after buying a porche but I read somewhere the balfours had money troubles do you know if that was true
-
jeremy tells julie severaltimes before the murders that he plans to wipe out his family, yet when she recieved the phone call from him in the early hrs of the morning she tells him not to worry and go back to bed? i find that strange.
-
Are you saying that it would be easy for someone to tell the difference between Neville and Jeremy's voice because some people on here are saying Jeremy could have made two calls to the police.
I also wondered if anyone over the years has done a proper reconstruction like showing things in detail as the bike ride Jeremy supposedly took.
The other point I have queried is much was made of Jeremy was after buying a porche but I read somewhere the balfours had money troubles do you know if that was true
Check out the phone thread. Kaladin's spot on re phone calls.
There was one non-999 call made to the police station by JB. The officer recorded that JB phoned, stating his father had called saying the daughter had gone beserk with a gun. That officer put JB on hold, then phoned the control room where the officer wrote father says daughter has gone berserk with a gun.
One phone call, one message repeated chinese whisper style from one officer to another.
-
For Andrea,
I have long eliminated anything that Julie Mugford said.
It's a great shame Stan Jones could not see beyond his bycycle handle bars where that young lady is concerned.
Again, I will repeat, both Jeremy and Julie were bad news in those days.
As far as I can see, Julie may well have been in a possible corner as an accomplice if she was aware of her boyfriend's plans to wipe out his family.
You would have thought that if she had really believed that Jeremy was going to kill his family that she would have the common sense to safeguard her position by informing the police.
The word in Colchester was that Julie's long and drawn out statements were made with the help of a close friend, perhaps her story was more the work of a third party than herself, and that's why she kept making a complete hash of her statements to the police - in short, she may well have been lying all the way through.
More soon, feeding my dog and cat.
-
For Jackie,
The bike thing. The family members spent many hours trying to re-construct the bike ride.
They could often be seen crawling along on all fours looking for matching tyre tracks and the like.
Nothing could be found by the young farmers, middle aged farmers or any of the police that linked the bike.
We took a look at the bike routes, it seems way off the mark.
The car thing, that's what Mark E Smith would rightly describe as 'clutter'.
( I had those kind of cars though ).
-
Something else for Jackie,
Some of the locals thought the family members who were crawling around in the lanes surrounding White House Farm were plain clothed police officers from another force, such was their dedication to the cause.
Their gun cupboard find moved the case 180 degrees.
Another such find and they might have been up for some kind of reward, but I suppose they got their 'reward' anyway.
The family won out, and Julie Mugford too.
-
Check out the phone thread. Kaladin's spot on re phone calls.
There was one non-999 call made to the police station by JB. The officer recorded that JB phoned, stating his father had called saying the daughter had gone beserk with a gun. That officer put JB on hold, then phoned the control room where the officer wrote father says daughter has gone berserk with a gun.
One phone call, one message repeated chinese whisper style from one officer to another.
Bang on... exactly how I see the phone call... One call that due to an error in time logged suddenly became two calls each by a different person.... my feeling is there is very little evidence if at all to back that theory up. It was just an error in time logging due to station clock being fast.
-
Something else for Jackie,
Some of the locals thought the family members who were crawling around in the lanes surrounding White House Farm were plain clothed police officers from another force, such was their dedication to the cause.
Their gun cupboard find moved the case 180 degrees.
Another such find and they might have been up for some kind of reward, but I suppose they got their 'reward' anyway.
The family won out, and Julie Mugford too.
"Crawling around" merely proves that the family were very concerned by
i) The police investigation
or
ii) The idea that Sheila was capable of murdering both her parents and children
or
iii) Both
It proves they were actively looking for evidence. So would I if it had been my family and an ill member was being blamed for something so monstrous and unexpected while the police were busy sitting on their hands.
-
Mr sparkfilms
When you said Julie and Jeremy were a bad lot I did read that Julie had been in trouble for cheque forgery was she in trouble before she met Jeremy and sort of encouraged him and I am fascinated that someone who new a murder was being planned supported the murderer after the killing robbed a caravan park forged cheques etc then hit the jackpot with the newspaper pay off is now a headteacher. Good work. I bet the parents at the school she is a teacher at don't know her history
I definitely don't think Jeremy is an angel but I have read lots about people that knew him and I don't think he murdered his whole in fact he could be in the position he is in just because his behaviour in front of the media jm was a hundred times cleverer than him she set her self up for life and if she did stitch Jeremy up how does she sleep at night
-
For Pete,
I have to admit that if I was in a house with my wife and grandchildren and my daughter ( step-daughter ) who was clearly unstable at the time, was running around with a gun, then just about the last thing I would consider is phoning my son, the police or anyone else.
My only focus would be to somehow disarm her, get the situation under control, and maybe then phone Jeremy.
This is an area of concern.
I've spoken to the CCRC and they seem to be unmoving on the issues raised.
I really thought the Sutherst study of the photographic evidence of the scratch marks could pull off this appeal for Jeremy's team, but when I mentioned it to the CCRC I was very quickly rebuffed.
-
To mb1
I take it you have read the doctors reports what bambi said about your children and you have read what Colin caffell said when he opened the door to the police something like she's done it then
Everyone keeps forgetting that the police were quite happy with their investigation at first definitely thinking it was a suicide why didn't they question if she was capable of controlling a gun. That's why evidence was destroyed that could have been vital
When Julie mugford went to the police and the relatives said they found the moderator Essex police found they they had this massive murder case on their hands and we have seen the length the police go to so they can say they have solved a case (rachel nickel the Honeytrap). I bet the police could not believe their luck when the press snapped Jeremy smiling. It was a 10-2 majority and I bet a lot if jurors wavered one way or the other. I don't know what happened that night but I think the investigation stinks and Essex police should be ashamed of themselves. Julie mugford got a flat out of it the family got all the money and one of the policeman got a new job dossing around at the families caravan park and Jeremy got life great British justice!!!!
-
For Pete,
I have to admit that if I was in a house with my wife and grandchildren and my daughter ( step-daughter ) who was clearly unstable at the time, was running around with a gun, then just about the last thing I would consider is phoning my son, the police or anyone else.
My only focus would be to somehow disarm her, get the situation under control, and maybe then phone Jeremy.
This is an area of concern.
I've spoken to the CCRC and they seem to be unmoving on the issues raised.
I really thought the Sutherst study of the photographic evidence of the scratch marks could pull off this appeal for Jeremy's team, but when I mentioned it to the CCRC I was very quickly rebuffed.
One of the most difficult things is trying to work out what happened in that house and in what order, regardless of who the killer was. The fact that Neville was in the kitchen and had that fight really confuses it all.
Re your last point, I just don't see how there could be any close up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece which were taken the day after the murders, and therefore I don't see how anyone could say that the scratches weren't there at the time.
-
Good morning Kaldin,
As there were no paint flakes / debris on the floor this did seem to back up Sutherst's study of the area.
At least, that's what I took from it.
Sutherst is a world expert in photographic study and I was inclined to go along with his findings.
-
Good morning Kaldin,
As there were no paint flakes / debris on the floor this did seem to back up Sutherst's study of the area.
At least, that's what I took from it.
Sutherst is a world expert in photographic study and I was inclined to go along with his findings.
I'm not disrespecting Mr Sutherst, and I think this is all interesting, but re for paint flakes on the floor, he was looking at the mat directly in front of the cooker, but there's some carpet to the right of that which is darker, so was he looking in the right place? Mike did a diagram to show that the scratch marks were on the right side of the underneath of the mantleshelf - ie, above where the darker carpet was.
-
For Pete,
I have to admit that if I was in a house with my wife and grandchildren and my daughter ( step-daughter ) who was clearly unstable at the time, was running around with a gun, then just about the last thing I would consider is phoning my son, the police or anyone else.
My only focus would be to somehow disarm her, get the situation under control, and maybe then phone Jeremy.
Yes, true... As I've said before some people are not the sort to involve outside help, they deal with their own problems in their own way.
Having the Police come to the farm to investigate why sheila was waving a gun about would have had dire consequences to Sheila's future and I'm sure Neville would have known that... from what I've read Neville and Sheila had a good relationship.
If you choose to believe that the 2 phone calls theory is just that, a theory, then the whole case falls down to JB's word that Neville phoned him and told him what he told the Police.
I do still believe that the logs of the phone calls are describing just the one call, but documented differently and with a time error.
-
As there were no paint flakes / debris on the floor this did seem to back up Sutherst's study of the area.
There is a difference between not having any evidence of something being there, and having evidence that something wasn't there.
-
What I don't understand is.... regardless of who's an expert in what...
Either there is contradictory evidence that there is no scratch in the paint work on the photo's taken on the morning of the murders or there isn't. Full stop, end of.
I don't understand how the evidence can be questionable if it is there... unless we are talking of photo's that requiere you to squint a bit here and there, hold it in a certain light and you might just see it standard.
Either there are pictures taken on that morning that show no scratches or there are pictures taken around that area that just about include the scratch area on a funny angle that could be construde as having no scratches... which is it?
-
What I don't understand is.... regardless of who's an expert in what...
Either there is contradictory evidence that there is no scratch in the paint work on the photo's taken on the morning of the murders or there isn't. Full stop, end of.
I don't understand how the evidence can be questionable if it is there... unless we are talking of photo's that requiere you to squint a bit here and there, hold it in a certain light and you might just see it standard.
Either there are pictures taken on that morning that show no scratches or there are pictures taken around that area that just about include the scratch area on a funny angle that could be construde as having no scratches... which is it?
I think that is the crux of the matter, the photographs appear to show no scratches. Appear to is not evidence, Mr Sutherst has then used enhancement methods to try and show the scrratches "really" aren't there. The CCRC don't agree with the methods of photo enhancement.
-
There has always been a fine line between enhancement and manipulation.
A gouge out of paint work from some angles wouldn't show depending how the gouge runs... you have to compare like for like to make it hard evidence in my opinion. Is this what the expert did?
Would be interesting to see the prosecutions image of the scatch and the experts take on the same area.
-
On a similar note, the fact that it appears that no paint was found on the floor, it doesn't mean that no paint was on the floor.
It's something the media can pick up on and sensationalise, but it's not evidence.
There has always been a fine line between enhancement and manipulation.
A gouge out of paint work from some angles wouldn't show depending how the gouge runs... you have to compare like for like to make it hard evidence in my opinion. Is this what the expert did?
Would be interesting to see the prosecutions image of the scatch and the experts take on the same area.
I'm not sure how the photographs were enhanced/investigated. I agree it would be interesting to know.
-
With so many questions and no definately answers and someone whole life on the line I think the ccrc have to allow the other 200 photos and 340,000 documents to be released and then give extra time to Jeremy's legal team to go through them. I don't know the facts of the Guildford 4 but I thought the evidence for the conviction to be unsafe was in undisclosed evidence that the character Emma Thompson played was allowed to see because of a mistake by a clerk (I have no idea if that was fact or fiction). Another important fact for any documentary maker is do I understand ewen smith used to be Jeremy's solicitor and fight to prove him innocent and now one of the ccrc commissioners turning him down for a referral to the appeal court. I can only feel I have this wrong
-
Enhancement, or atleast when I do it for clients, is usually done to pull out detail that already exists in the image but can not be seen clearly and sometimes at all at its current exposure/light settings etc.
I really would be interested to see the image the expert worked on and compare against...
-
With so many questions and no definately answers and someone whole life on the line I think the ccrc have to allow the other 200 photos and 340,000 documents to be released and then give extra time to Jeremy's legal team to go through them.
Yes I agree.. and have done since the start... but things need to happen first.. on the evidence what we've seen here I didn't and don't fancy his chances.
I'm not putting a downer on all this evidence because I think he's guilty.. I'm just testing it so as to make up my own mind.
I don't know the facts of the Guildford 4 but I thought the evidence for the conviction to be unsafe was in undisclosed evidence that the character Emma Thompson played was allowed to see because of a mistake by a clerk (I have no idea if that was fact or fiction).
This is my understanding of that particular case too. Purely through a admin error the lawyer was able to look at files the Police never wanted anyone to see. Truly shocking events.
Another important fact for any documentary maker is do I understand ewen smith used to be Jeremy's solicitor and fight to prove him innocent and now one of the ccrc commissioners turning him down for a referral to the appeal court. I can only feel I have this wrong
Yes I mentioned this on a different thread and never got a reply. I really thought there would be a conflict of interest.. One could argue that he would be bias towards JB or that having seen the evidence he has he no longer thought JB had a case and was in fact guilty... either way it must be a conflict?
-
Maybe he really wanted that job and 'decided to believe the prosecution case' if he has more evidence to proof without doubt Jeremy carried out the murders as a commissioner of the ccrc he could put this evidence out there it would save a lot of time and money
To some people a powerful job is everything and they would sell their sold for it
-
Two questions if anyone knows
How much would it cost to keep someone in a high security prison for the next thirty years even though the majority of the british public are unsure that he is really guilty and could someone let me Know the correct date the silencer was found by the family and exact date Julie mugford first went to the police
Also my last post the word should have been soul not sold !
-
Two questions if anyone knows
How much would it cost to keep someone in a high security prison for the next thirty years even though the majority of the british public are unsure that he is really guilty and could someone let me Know the correct date the silencer was found by the family and exact date Julie mugford first went to the police
Also my last post the word should have been soul not sold !
That's not true?
-
How do you know that and find me one person amongst the general public who would not want all documents regarding the Jeremy BAMBER case released. Why is this case continually in the media?
-
How do you know that and find me one person amongst the general public who would not want all documents regarding the Jeremy BAMBER case released. Why is this case continually in the media?
The majority of the British public probably aren't even aware of the case or only aware of it's existence and nothing more.
It's a bit of a sweeping statement to say that the majority of the British public are unsure of his guilt, the majority of the British public probably have no opinion.
He's in prison because he was found guilty by a jury verdict.
-
For Hartley
Truth never damages a cause that is just
Ghandi.
-
I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George, Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake
-
I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George, Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake
Errrm okay? Why bring up things which I haven't stated or suggested or well, anything really? ???
-
1) I don't think the police release ALL the evidence they have in any case. Regardless of verdict and that's because alot of the evidence is meaningless, just things gathered during an enquiry. (I'm not saying that's the case hear.. but within those thousands of documents there will be documents on vehicle lisence checks, house insurance, life insurance, previous employment checks.. all sorts of things that bare not relevance.)
2) I do think alot of the evidence that keeps getting thrown around here does nothing for proving he's innocent.. it just shows Police errors which don't make the conviction unsafe in a lot of instances.
I think there is an element of getting out on a technicallity as there really isn't the evidence to prove his innocence.
-
If he is released then it needs to be down to evidence and nothing else. At this moment it time until proven otherwise you have to consider the possibility that he committed the crime.
Stating that it's a miscarriage of justice etc, etc, etc without anything to support that view is ridiculous.
Yes there is this purported withheld evidence, but who is to say that it only reaffirms his guilt rather than prove his innocence?
-
what possible reason would the photographs be witheld
-
I too, would like to see all the photographs and documents that
the Police are holding onto, out in the open for all to see.
When a person is in Prison for life it is the least that the Police
could do to prove to us once and for all that the verdict was just
and not a botched piece of Police work. ???
Surely the Police must be fed up with all the speculation from the
Public that this verdict may be unsafe? ???
Goodness knows they have destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed nearly
everything else that was physically linked to this case!
-
what possible reason would the photographs be witheld
No idea, I haven't seen them.
I take it you've lobbied your MP etc regarding this matter?
-
I too, would like to see all the photographs and documents that
the Police are holding onto, out in the open for all to see.
When a person is in Prison for life it is the least that the Police
could do to prove to us once and for all that the verdict was just
and not a botched piece of Police work. ???
Surely the Police must be fed up with all the speculation from the
Public that this verdict may be unsafe? ???
Goodness knows they have destroyed, or allowed to be destroyed nearly
everything else that was physically linked to this case!
There is the problem I guess. The Police think they have done the job they needed to do to get the conviction. They have not been forced to hand over this file and until they are forced to they will see no need to offer it up as they are not on trial.... yet!
Obviously they are worried about the contents. If the investigation that the public have seen is anything to go by then they know their in for a right slating/disciplinary....
I wonder if the file will be made ore accessible when certain important people retire? (I've no idea who.. but sometimes its easier to place blame, have a scapegoat etc when the officers/chiefs in general are no longer in a position to answer.) Just a thought.
-
what possible reason would the photographs be witheld
Also their notebooks to be ESDA tested ! Another thing they refuse to do !
-
If he is released then it needs to be down to evidence and nothing else. At this moment it time until proven otherwise you have to consider the possibility that he committed the crime.
Stating that it's a miscarriage of justice etc, etc, etc without anything to support that view is ridiculous.
Yes there is this purported withheld evidence, but who is to say that it only reaffirms his guilt rather than prove his innocence?
Because if it pointed to his guilt the police would release the specific documents/photos that have been requested but withheld and put an end to it. But they haven't.
But rightly of wrongly the Police need to prove nothing at the moment! He is in prison serving the sentence for the crime they charged him with.
-
I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George, Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake
not to mention the carl bridgewater case, stefan kiszco (locked up for yrs and yrs for a child murder he didnt commit) and died soon after released.
-
I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George, Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake
It's posts like this that stop some people wanting to be involved in discussion. Who are you suggesting wants to bring back hanging??? Because some people on this thread choose to question things put to them they are now labeled as pro death penalty?
-
I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George, Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake
It's posts like this that stop some people wanting to be involved in discussion. Who are you suggesting wants to bring back hanging??? Because some people on this thread choose to question things put to them they are now labeled as pro death penalty?
+1 Pete
-
Information held from the public in a murder trial.
Here are a couple of things that came up when I was working on The Suffolk Murders case ( Steve Wright ).
A gentleman who claimed that he saw someone other than Steve Wright parked in his car by one of the murder deposition sites.
The unusual aspect being that who he saw was not parked in a layby, there was one a short distance away.
The gentleman was driving a 'people carrier' which was high enough to enable him to see what he described as a blanket in the back seat of ******* **** appeared to be covering something large.
This occured at 13.50 hours.
Police later released information that the body of one of the girls may have been dumped in broad daylight.
This particular body was left a few metres away from where the car was parked and was just 'dropped'.
Another body - left at a deposition site nearby was laid out in such a way that it resembled a piece of Dada art by Max Ernst.
What was not known to the public at the time ( or even now ) was that an image of the piece of Dada art was found at the home of the owner of the car ******* ****.
Another body had also been laid out in identical fashion.
I know that the police thought the owner of the ******* **** was their man.
When the DNA results came back the head of the investigation actually said 'It's not who we thought it was going to be'. I know all this as I worked on the documentary that went out on Channel 4, and Stewart Gull actually repeated this for the television programme.
Had the defence have been in possession of some of the information that was witheld they may have changed their direction.
I can see now that the police / CPS did not want to cloud the issue, and as with the WHF murders, a huge number of files were effectively witheld, once again, the case file ran to millions of pages.
-
Information held from the public in a murder trial.
Here are a couple of things that came up when I was working on The Suffolk Murders case ( Steve Wright ).
A gentleman who claimed that he saw someone other than Steve Wright parked in his car by one of the murder deposition sites.
The unusual aspect being that who he saw was not parked in a layby, there was one a short distance away.
The gentleman was driving a 'people carrier' which was high enough to enable him to see what he described as a blanket in the back seat of ******* **** appeared to be covering something large.
This occured at 13.50 hours.
Police later released information that the body of one of the girls may have been dumped in broad daylight.
This particular body was left a few metres away from where the car was parked and was just 'dropped'.
Another body - left at a deposition site nearby was laid out in such a way that it resembled a piece of Dada art by Max Ernst.
What was not known to the public at the time ( or even now ) was that an image of the piece of Dada art was found at the home of the owner of the car ******* ****.
Another body had also been laid out in identical fashion.
I know that the police thought the owner of the ******* **** was their man.
When the DNA results came back the head of the investigation actually said 'It's not who we thought it was going to be'. I know all this as I worked on the documentary that went out on Channel 4, and Stewart Gull actually repeated this for the television programme.
Had the defence have been in possession of some of the information that was witheld they may have changed their direction.
I can see now that the police / CPS did not want to cloud the issue, and as with the WHF murders, a huge number of files were effectively witheld, once again, the case file ran to millions of pages.
And if pii didn't exist, this would all be in the public domain, placing a cloud of suspicion of a man never charged with anything... unless you're saying he did it but was a freemason so the dna results are a frame up.
-
I don't get this PII thing. Has it actually been said that evidence is being withheld because of it, or is that just speculation?
-
If I may, I will return to the reference to the CPS in the case of The Suffolk Murders.
I watched a television interview by Michael Crimp of the CPS where he was making a statement about the accused. I know that what he said in this statement was incorrect and said as much in my book that was released on the first of February.
There was nothing sinister in what Mr Crimp implied, he just didn't know what he was talking about in this particular instant.
So mistakes can be made, though to be fair to Michael Crimp it made very little difference in general terms.
It is worrying though, that senior people that we put our trust in can be so wide of the mark.
-
was it you sparkfilms that was going on the matthew wright show today?
-
Hello Andrea,
No, I've been dog walking, picking up my grandkids from school and shopping....not to mention buying up loads of vinyl records in charity shops - which are playing now.
-
I don't get this PII thing. Has it actually been said that evidence is being withheld because of it, or is that just speculation?
The request has to be specific.
My understanding is that 'no response' means nothing found to the specific request.
A request is deemed reasonable if equivalent to one person spending 35 hours evaluating the documents, or up to £600 cost (to the public purse).
Persistent trivial requests by the same applicant can result in blanket refusals. There are some people who write to their local authorities on a weekly basis!
-
somebody yesterday on this forum, mentioned that they were goin on the matthew wright show today, and was going to ask matthew if he could discuss jeremy bambers case on his show.i cant remember which thread it was though.....damn!!
-
Hello Andrea,
No, I've been dog walking, picking up my grandkids from school and shopping....not to mention buying up loads of vinyl records in charity shops - which are playing now.
The crackle of vinyl... wonderful!
I have a Roxy Music track lovingly worn by overplay - every listen's a memory!
-
Let's just start with those 200 photos please
-
Christine Perfect on the turntable here, she was half way between Chicken Shack and Fleetwood Mac at the time.
-
why dont we start a "anything goes thread" for a bit of "lighter" chat?
-
For Andrea,
Any of the following could possibly appear on television to discuss this case.
Each of these guys are dedicated supporters of Jeremy Bamber.
Scott Lomax
Andrew Hunter
Bob Woffinden
( Bob pretty much goes along with Mike Tesko I think ).
-
but would they be limited as to what they could say due to legal reasons? as it all stands now
-
For Andrea,
I'm not sure - but if you get a chance go to the Jeremy Bamber page on Wikipedia and check out what Bob Woofinden says about the case, I would say from reading this that Bob and Mike Tesko are in complete agreement that Shelia was alive in the house, and it was her that Jeremy and the police saw in the window.
I have always believed someone was seen in the window.
-
By saying that you must definitely think Jeremy is innocent
-
Back to the window thing.
I've just read the Bob Woofinden piece again that was in The Daily Mail a few years back.
I had to read it three or four times to get my head straight on what he is saying - most of you will get it quicker than that. He seems sure that the figure moving in the window was that of Shelia Caffell.
The key piece for me is how the police have searched upstairs and only accounted for the bodies of the twins and June Bamber. The officers return to a hallway and with 3 staircases in the farmhouse his theory is that Shelia was moving around in the house while the police were checking all the rooms upstairs.
They hear a sound from upstairs and call out for Shelia, was it the gun shot that they heard? I know this has been covered many times, and I have always wondered ( this is for Mike ) if this common theory has been discussed between Bob Woofinden, Scott Lomax and Mike Tesko at any time. Or perhaps more interestingly, if three different individuals have come to the same conclusion without conferring with one another.
After using mirror devices and the like a later inspection upstairs accounts for a total of 4 bodies.
This cameo of events makes the telephone calls and pretty much everything that has been processed in the appeal documents seem far less significant.
As I mentioned a few days ago, only the police can confirm if this description by Mr Woofinden ( and Mike ) actually occured.
It's only a complicated case if a simple answer was witheld.
-
Depends how thoroughly police were examining each room on that first recce. They would have been racing through, seeing who was alive, who dead, trying not to damage evidence, tread in spatter etc.
Sheila's body was the other side of the bed. Could that have been seen from the doorway? Would an officer have the viewed the scene and said "1 in here", particularly if they were using a mirror device?
One thing - there's a door connecting to other bedrooms on Neville's side of the bed. That was open, right?
-
One would like to think that the police covered every possible angle, I really don't see how they could have missed a dead body.
If Shelia died when the police were in the house, could they possibly have been covering for themselves? Was this the reason why all the 'extras' ( from London? ) put in an appearance?
I find it hard to believe that a cover up of this magnitude could have occured, and yet, there is always that nagging doubt. A doubt that is shared by Bob Woofinden and many others it seems.
If it was a cover up ( and for the sake of everyone concerned, let's hope it wasn't ) murder and suicide, or murder, would clear the police of any responsibilty for the death of Shelia Caffell - not that anyone could have blamed them for her death though.
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-
Julie Mugfords evidence should have been discredited as my memorie fails me but I am sure she was paid by a newspaper for her story providing she was a witness for the crown at the trial.
I think at the last appeal the Bamber legal team wanted to use this evidence but the judges refused to allow it even though they had proof that she received about £20000 pound.
I am unable to back this up with any evidence but thats one of them things that i seem to remember from last time around.
Nothing dynamite in its self but an interesting snippet non the less
Newsman.
I agree with what you say here. As far as I am aware, isn't it a big no-no for someone who was in her position to have sold her story?
I always thought that doing that (and I'm talking in general here, not just about JM) automatically would lead the courts to question someone's testimony and credibility as a witness?
-
If I may, I will return to the reference to the CPS in the case of The Suffolk Murders.
I watched a television interview by Michael Crimp of the CPS where he was making a statement about the accused. I know that what he said in this statement was incorrect and said as much in my book that was released on the first of February.
There was nothing sinister in what Mr Crimp implied, he just didn't know what he was talking about in this particular instant.
So mistakes can be made, though to be fair to Michael Crimp it made very little difference in general terms.
It is worrying though, that senior people that we put our trust in can be so wide of the mark.
I am very interested in reading your book, as I know that case fairly well and would like to read your opinions on it.
Could you tell me where it can be bought from please? Or the name of it, so I can seek it out please?
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-------------------------------------------------------
The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?
Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?
The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?
To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-------------------------------------------------------
The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?
Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?
The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?
To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?
So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.
But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-------------------------------------------------------
The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?
Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?
The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?
To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?
So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.
But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?
----------------------------------
The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...
Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-------------------------------------------------------
The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?
Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?
The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?
To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?
So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.
But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?
----------------------------------
The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...
Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?
Have you got any photos without the jacket to post?
-
I am interested in that blue and white jacket for a number of different reasons - but chiefly because if the silencer was fitted to the gun as alleged, blood from the end of the silencer would have become transferred onto that jacket when the end of the weapon came into contact with it, during the supposed struggle...
Now what are Essex police doing covering up and disposing of a crucial piece of evidence, of this nature, whilst at the same time arguing that the silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time of an alleged struggle in the kitchen, where the end of the silencer makes these supposedly deep scratch and gouge marks on the aga surround?
That jacket was a key piece of evidence, that Essex police, and the DPP just took it upon themselves to get rid of - so conveniently, just like that...
Abracadabra, it was there one moment, and then in the blink of an eye, it was gone forever...
-
I'm posting this on this thread because on page 8 people were discussing the photos of the kitchen mantlepiece.
Just to recap - some people were saying that the scratches caused by the silencer might not have showed up on the photos taken straight after the killings because these photos might have been taken at the wrong angle.
First of all, does anybody know how big the scratches were? I can't tell properly from the photos or parts of photos I've seen because they are close-ups and there's nothing to compare the scratches to.
If they weren't very small, I find it strange that the police didn't notice them or consider them significant.
Let's say that the scratches were there. You've got the body of a man who appears to have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with a person holding a rifle. He's slumped right next to the cooker. Above him at eye level are scratch marks in a brightly painted piece of wood that ought to have looked fresh and are consistent with being made by the end of a rifle/silencer.
But nobody seems to notice this, because the scratches had to be pointed out later, and when they were shown to the court, they were on photos taken at a later date.
On the other hand, I notice that on one of the earlier photos there is some item of clothing (a jacket?) that is obscuring part of the mantlepiece on the right. Would that have covered up the scratches?
As for the flecks of paint falling on to the dark or light bits of carpet, I doubt very much that all the flecks would have fallen vertically on to the ground and so only on to the darker piece of carpet. Wouldn't at least some of them have sprayed out to each side?
-------------------------------------------------------
The point about the blue and white striped coat, hanging so conveniently down, over the crucial area of the aga, has some merit, but in addition I would like tom add that in my view, the coat itself would have prevented any damage occurring to that part of the aga surface, because any silencer which came into contact with the aga at that stage, would surely strike and come into contact with the material of the jacket first and foremost?
Why did the police move this jacket and take further pictures of that area of the aga?
The police at the scene didn't touch or move anything, right, so who moved the blue and white jacket, and why was it never exhibited?
To whom did that Blue and white jacket belong to, anyway?
So, I take it that what you're saying is that the supposedly scratched area was indeed hidden behind the jacket.
But have you actually seen pictures that were taken after the jacket was moved? If so, were they close-ups?, and can you post them?
----------------------------------
The area that was later scratched was behind where the blue and white striped jacket was hanging down on the morning in question, yes...
Yes, I have seen pictures taken at the scene on the morning in question, after the jacket was removed?
Have you got any photos without the jacket to post?
--------------------------------------------------------
A couple that I might add sometime tomorrow if I can lay my hands on them in time...
-
For Tricksy,
My book about the Suffolk Murders is called 'Ipswich Zero 6' and is up on the Amazon site & pretty much available at any online outlet.
You should read the synopsis ( Amazon ) first, the book is very different in format / style.
Apologies for advertising one of my titles.
-
In the judges summing up VERY IMPORTANT the judge said you either believe jeremy or julie. Were the police so desperate to notch up a conviction that they let someone that was implicated in the murder of 5 people before the murder, the day of the murder, the night of the murder and weeks after the murder. This person could have prevented the murders happening. This person perverted the course of justice after the murders while forensic evidence was being removed from the scence of the murders. This person put on an oscar winning performance at the funeral of the people she knew were going to be murdered. This person went on holiday with Jeremy twice the month after the murders.This person managed to persuade a jury that they should believe her side of the story rather than Jeremys. This person managed to gain immunity from prosecution for giving evidence against her boyfriend.
Do you think the jury would have believed her if they knew she had sold her story.
Do you think this women would be allowed to work with children if people thought she was implicated in a murder of five people
Would you trust this star witness at a murder trial
This person went on to sell her story to a national newspaper for £25,000.
Julie Mugford by Scott Lomax
Once he ended their relationship she went to the police with information that led to his initial arrest. The evidence was not thought to be credible and he was released without charge. Yet at trial she provided testimony that formed a part of the prosecution’s case.
She told the court that Jeremy had plotted to kill his family for many months before their deaths.
On the eve of the shootings Jeremy told Mugford, "Tonight's the night", she claimed.
He later phoned to tell her that everything was going well. It was shown Mugford had become incredibly hurt and upset with the breakdown of the relationship. At one point in time she had tried to smother Jeremy with a pillow, by her own admission, stating "If I can't have you, nobody can."
Mugford named a man who she alleged was hired by Jeremy to carry out the crime.
That man was found to have an alibi and he was quickly eliminated from the investigation.
There was no evidence to support Mugford’s ‘hit man’ story.
When Mugford was shown to be wrong, the police eventually came to the conclusion that the ‘hit man’ story was simply a veiled confession by Jeremy who, they argued, commited the murders himself.
Mugford’s evidence was exceptionally controversial
Julie Mugford was Jeremy’s girlfriend at the time of the deaths.
Article from 2001 about Julie Mugford saying how great her life is now!!!!!!!!!!!!
I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY
| Sunday Mirror, Apr 1, 2001 | by ANNETTE WITHERIDGE in Winnipeg
THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.
Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.
Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.
Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.
He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.
Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."
A friend added: "It is something Julie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."
Julie now fears she could be called to give evidence at the appeal - and last week she consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.
"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. And she's afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."
Initially, police accepted Bamber's claim that ex-model Sheila, suffering from depression in the wake of her marriage break-up, killed the family then turned the gun on herself.
But as he attracted attention by spending his pounds 500,000 inheritance on champagne, drugs and a lavish lifestyle, police pressed his girlfriend of three years to tell them what she knew.
Julie, who stood alongside Bamber at the family funeral as he cried what prosecutors called "crocodile tears," finally gave in when he humiliated her by asking out another girl in front of her.
After giving her evidence, Julie fled Britain to travel the world.
In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski.
"They fell in love but it was a long, long time before she could bring herself to tell him about her life," the friend said. "It was only after he asked her to marry him and move to his home town of Winnipeg that she began to open up.
"He knew she was running away from something but it took her a long time to tell him. Gradually Glen coaxed it out of her and, bit by bit, the whole sorry story came out.
"Glen reassured her constantly, telling her the past didn't matter. Even so, she didn't want his family to know. He even kept it from his mother."
When Julie first left Britain in 1986 she promised her mother Mary she would return for a big white wedding. So after briefly setting up home with Glen in Winnipeg, the couple married in Essex in July 1991. The following month they had an church blessing in Canada.
Julie worked as a special needs teacher while Glen built up a career as a computer salesman, then she also began doing volunteer work for a charity for sick children and helping Glen collect money door-to-door for the Salvation Army.
Five years ago the couple's son Benjamin was born, followed by Hannah, now two.
Julie continued working and was recently appointed vice-principal at John M King Elementary, an inner- city junior school. Only two weeks ago they moved into a detached house with its own swimming pool in one of Winnipeg's best suburbs.
"Julie is a pillar of the community - you would never believe she was once tangled up in a mass murder," her friend said.
"The Bamber case was kept a complete secret. Only Glen and a handful of people knew about it."
Sandy-haired Glen, 40, said: "I've known about this for many years, but we only told a few family members and very close friends. Julie just wishes it would all go away and we could get on with our lives.
"We just can't believe this man could be freed. We are worried about our kids. We hope it never happens."
Everyone on hear can make their own mind up if they thought she made the whole thing up to frame Jeremy because he didnt want to be with her anymore or she all of a sudden developed a concience
-
If we can go back to the original topic? who could we possibly get to play the JB role because it would have to be an oscar winning performance of Richard Burton class. First this guy has to cycle from Goldhanger to WHF, shoot dead his mother father nephews and his sister and try to make it look like a suicide and murder, wipe clean the silencer and return to the cupboard,escape from the farm on cycle back home. Also not to be seen whilst doing all this. Then contact police and arrange to meet at the farm half an hour later! He has got to show no sign of stress, panic, blood, sweating, nerves,emotion ect. He has got to convince every police officer he comes into contact with he had nothing to do with also all the press ect. Then this guy has to pass a lie detector test and prove that he is not a crazy. Can anyone imagine what state you would be in after doing all this, i no there are people out there that can do this BUT they dont after ring the police and meet them just after? My own personnel opion he just could not have done all this, and before anyone gets on their high HORSE, are you a townie yes, have you ever worked on a caravan site in that area yes, 10 years, do you understand the minds and how caravan site owners work yes, have you ever met a certain family yes, have you ever seen A CERTAIN fire arms police team in operation in recent years and make not a very good job in which they had all day to plan YES, did you get caught up in it yes was it frightening my god was it it took 24 hours to come down, this is why i just dont think he could have done it someone would have noticed. mike you are doing a fantastic job mate lol thats essex talk if it wasnt for people like you the bakewell murder conviction would never have got over turned. ps kaldin you have been a breath of fresh air to this forum you and mike would make a good team, credit due to you both.
-
hey Crooner1
When you put it like that, yes, it's all very hard to believe... it also makes me wonder what the hell JB's original defense team were doing?!?!?
I know that a theory of what he would have to have done is not evidence but by christ it's a starter for ten at the very least.
-
If we can go back to the original topic? who could we possibly get to play the JB role because it would have to be an oscar winning performance of Richard Burton class. First this guy has to cycle from Goldhanger to WHF, shoot dead his mother father nephews and his sister and try to make it look like a suicide and murder, wipe clean the silencer and return to the cupboard,escape from the farm on cycle back home. Also not to be seen whilst doing all this. Then contact police and arrange to meet at the farm half an hour later! He has got to show no sign of stress, panic, blood, sweating, nerves,emotion ect. He has got to convince every police officer he comes into contact with he had nothing to do with also all the press ect. Then this guy has to pass a lie detector test and prove that he is not a crazy. Can anyone imagine what state you would be in after doing all this, i no there are people out there that can do this BUT they dont after ring the police and meet them just after? My own personnel opinion he just could not have done all this, and before anyone gets on their high HORSE, are you a townie yes, have you ever worked on a caravan site in that area yes, 10 years, do you understand the minds and how caravan site owners work yes, have you ever met a certain family yes, have you ever seen A CERTAIN fire arms police team in operation in recent years and make not a very good job in which they had all day to plan YES, did you get caught up in it yes was it frightening my god was it it took 24 hours to come down, this is why i just don't think he could have done it someone would have noticed. mike you are doing a fantastic job mate lol that's Essex talk if it wasn't for people like you the bakewell murder conviction would never have got over turned. ps kaldin you have been a breath of fresh air to this forum you and mike would make a good team, credit due to you both.
The first part of your post ties in with a previous post of mine.
Previous post - One point that concerns me over whether Jeremy committed the murders, which the act in itself is an incredibly highrisk undertaking, is that if he had entered the house alone with murder on his mind he would have dispatched Nevill (the strongest first) and in my view would not have allowed him to get downstairs (basically emptying the whole magazine in Nevill if required).
If JB had killed the children first (even with a silencer) his movements in the house and shots would have risked him being detected by Nevill / June/ Sheila, allowing their escape or JB being overpowered.
If JB had killed his parents first (including struggle with Nevill in Kitchen) this would almost certainly have alerted Sheila and the children (and the children, I believe, died in their sleep). Sheilas bed was not slept in – where was she? - maybe saying goodbye to the children?
Therefore, if JB has shot Nevill first (and failed to kill him) he finishes off June in the bedroom. He surely cannot afford to let Nevill escape so immediately follows him downstairs to finish him off.
There then follows the alleged struggle in the kitchen between JB and Nevill leaving no discernable marks on JB? The infamous (and pivotal) mark on the kitchen mantelpiece being allegedly made by the silencer now under serious doubt!
All this time there is a risk of SC and the children waking and escaping or SC attacking JB to protect her parents and children - there is no evidence of this.
All through this hectic slaughter of 5 people JB has to quickly reload the magazine at least twice leaving time for someone to escape (i.e. no body was found near a door / window) or stop him - no evidence of this.
For SC (the last to die) to remain passive all this time and then to lie / sit down and let JB kill her is very difficult to believe.
And then JB decides to hide the silencer, rather that take it with him to dispose of (as previously posted)?
JB now probably has blood on him and has to get out through a small window leaving no blood traces on any exit surface, the window or outside – highly implausible
He then cycles home in bloody clothing – again very high risk, unnoticed by anyone (okay it's dark and late) and at some stage cleans the bike so thoroughly that no blood traces remain – again difficult to believe.
I believe the prosecution case was based on the use of his mothers bicycle to get to and from the murder scene.
He then disposes of all his bloody clothing so that no item is ever found!!
We are also led to believe that having just killed 5 people JB then calls the police, joins them at WHF and, in their company, appears reasonably calm and normal under the circumstances (as reported by at least one officer at the scene) and helps the police in their efforts to assess the situation at WHF – JB is 24 years old and not an experienced killer – I cannot believe he would act this way!
Quite a sequence of events to believe!
New - In my opinion JB either did this with an accomplice or it was Sheila!
I find it hard to believe it could have been all third party (over drugs) as this does not tie in with JB's 3.26am call to the police, unless he was invloved (this call being one of the rare facts of this case that I think everone agrees with).
Of couse the Jury at the time believed JB did all this alone!!
Quote -it also makes me wonder what the hell JB's original defense team were doing?!?!? - cross over from Pete0001
-
Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike? I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.
-
......but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.
Yes.. I'm affriad this is the case too... and if ever they are forced to release more, one must be concerned about what will make it out and what will/or has been already destroyerd.
-
Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike? I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.
Hi crooner1 - simliar again!
Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.
However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!
It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!
JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.
-
Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike? I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.
Hi crooner1 - simliar again!
Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.
However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!
It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!
JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.
I reckon they need to hire Donald Macintyre to infiltrait EP records library...
In all seriousness I truly and with regret believe that only an inside job will ever get those files out in any kind of intact way...
-
Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike? I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.
Hi crooner1 - simliar again!
Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.
However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!
It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!
JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.
I reckon they need to hire Donald Macintyre to infiltrait EP records library...
In all seriousness I truly and with regret believe that only an inside job will ever get those files out in any kind of intact way...
Previous post - Problems (pii rules) are there to be ovecome - surely someone with a strong scense of justice might be inclined to borrow / photo copy file SC/688/85 - this kind of activity has been undertaken many, many times before!!
Maybe it will all appear on Wikileaks in the near future ;)
-
Wonder if Sparkfilm's suggestion will ever come to fruition for the defence? I've always thought a good title for the film on the case would be Bamber/Caffell - as this was the choice given to the jury and nation. Then I read Colin's piece in the appendix in CAL's book - and for a while, I thought perhaps this wouldn't be a good idea, due to the impact upon those relatives with the same surname.
There has been so much tripe on telly over the years about this case. Cliched and flattering portrayals of the relatives' dogged discovery. Grinning cops peddling anecdotes about Hugo Boss suits.
I think there are going to be a lot of people made to look FOOLS by their own previous actions, if a decent media company marries-up with the defence.
-
Wonder if Sparkfilm's suggestion will ever come to fruition for the defence? I've always thought a good title for the film on the case would be Bamber/Caffell - as this was the choice given to the jury and nation. Then I read Colin's piece in the appendix in CAL's book - and for a while, I thought perhaps this wouldn't be a good idea, due to the impact upon those relatives with the same surname.
There has been so much tripe on telly over the years about this case. Cliched and flattering portrayals of the relatives' dogged discovery. Grinning cops peddling anecdotes about Hugo Boss suits.
I think there are going to be a lot of people made to look FOOLS by their own previous actions, if a decent media company marries-up with the defence.
I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".
-
I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".
Even if that were true.. you seem to think it's OK for one side to have 30 years of spin on telly, virtually without reply from the other side. I mean - in terms of spin - it's not very even is it?
Tall tales about silencers and the like.
I will rephrase. If a decent media company marries-up with those in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge.
Bit of a mouthful that though.
-
Even if that were true.. you seem to think it's OK for one side to have 30 years of spin on telly, virtually without reply from the other side. I mean - in terms of spin - it's not very even is it?
Tall tales about silencers and the like.
I will rephrase. If a decent media company marries-up with those in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge.
Bit of a mouthful that though.
Not at all. There's been the same BS on television docudramas as there's been on this forum. They ALL claim to be "in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge". What's a bit more from a different view point. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.
-
Not at all. There's been the same BS on television docudramas as there's been on this forum. They ALL claim to be "in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge". What's a bit more from a different view point. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.
How much air time given to prosecution police / relative bullshit and how much airtime given to defence bullshit? and regarding the defence - haven't they at least tried to question the actual facts, for example gunshot wounds and logs content - whereas the others just get free reign to spout anything. For example, did Babs Wilson go on telly and repeat that she told police - that she had never seen Jeremy and Nevill argue apart from farm matters and treated Jeremy a bit like as if he were her own son? Or did she just go on telly and say 'he never showed any remorse'.
David Boutflour was allowed to go on one documentary and spout absolute piffle. Literally. It's incredible how they have got away with it so far.
-
How much air time given to prosecution police / relative bullshit and how much airtime given to defence bullshit? and regarding the defence - haven't they at least tried to question the actual facts, for example gunshot wounds and logs content - whereas the others just get free reign to spout anything. For example, did Babs Wilson go on telly and repeat that she told police - that she had never seen Jeremy and Nevill argue apart from farm matters and treated Jeremy a bit like as if he were her own son? Or did she just go on telly and say 'he never showed any remorse'.
David Boutflour was allowed to go on one documentary and spout absolute piffle. Literally. It's incredible how they have got away with it so far.
Well, unless you see things only in terms of black or white, you'll realize that the opinions we hold aren't the result of only one thing. BW isn't a particularly reliable witness but it MAY be true that she gave Jeremy a character witness because she thought it would help him. It equally possible that she'd felt bullied/threatened into it. She MAY have given a sigh of relief when he was convicted and realized she could tell the truth. DB ISN'T particularly erudite, NOR is he trained in public speaking. He isn't the only one to falter in front of a camera. It must be remembered that your hostility comes from your implacable stance. It's perfectly possible that those who believe Jeremy guilty would be as pedantic about a defense docudrama.
-
Well, unless you see things only in terms of black or white, you'll realize that the opinions we hold aren't the result of only one thing. BW isn't a particularly reliable witness but it MAY be true that she gave Jeremy a character witness because she thought it would help him. It equally possible that she'd felt bullied/threatened into it. She MAY have given a sigh of relief when he was convicted and realized she could tell the truth. DB ISN'T particularly erudite, NOR is he trained in public speaking. He isn't the only one to falter in front of a camera. It must be remembered that your hostility comes from your implacable stance. It's perfectly possible that those who believe Jeremy guilty would be as pedantic about a defense docudrama.
Points taken. But they could hardly be pedantic about indisputable facts or obvious and blatant acts of omission brought to the public's attention.
He may not be particularly erudite but DB seems well trained in bullshit.
-
I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".
Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.
who tells the best story on the day wins!
-
Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.
who tells the best story on the day wins!
That's it. Forget about forensic & circumstantial evidence. It's who tells the best story.
-
Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.
who tells the best story on the day wins!
I couldn't agree more, Notsure. ANY one of our great actors would be in their element.
-
That's it. Forget about forensic & circumstantial evidence. It's who tells the best story.
Adam stop being so sarcastic it does not become you well maybe it does :))