Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: lebaleb on March 04, 2011, 09:36:AM
-
1.As to Sue Battersby's insistance that she remembered the time of the phone call as 3.12am, I did an experiment; when I woke up during the night I deliberately checked the time on my clock with the aim of remembering what it said next morning, I was consistantly unsure. I wonder if she had been consuming any alcohol or drugs that evening. And why after being unsure did she suddenly remember so definately?
2.In my opinion Neville Bamber's call to Jeremy must have been before anyone had been shot, otherwise he would surely have called 999 for an ambulance or at least told Jeremy he'd been shot. Therefore one wouldn't expect to find blood on the kitchen telephone. If someone calls you rather than 999 one would automatically assume that the situation was not out of control or extreemly urgent.
3.Police officer DS Ainsley noted that a call had been made by a TFG police officer from another phone which wouldn't have worked with the kitchen phone off the hook. Statements from 10 officers that nothing was moved were accepted by the appeals commision but what about all the other policemen?
4.The police allowed the silencer to become contaminated thus denying the DNA evidence but somehow not affecting the blood flake evidence. Even a remote possibility of a false bloodmatch means doubt. I worked in a blood lab and I know false matches happen frequently sometimes resulting in death.
5. Julie Mugford is guilty. If she lied about Jeremy's call she committed perjury if she told the truth, she witheld evidence and became an accomplice to murders she could have prevented and then went on to enjoy the spoils.
-
1.As to Sue Battersby's insistance that she remembered the time of the phone call as 3.12am, I did an experiment; when I woke up during the night I deliberately checked the time on my clock with the aim of remembering what it said next morning, I was consistantly unsure. I wonder if she had been consuming any alcohol or drugs that evening. And why after being unsure did she suddenly remember so definately?
2.In my opinion Neville Bamber's call to Jeremy must have been before anyone had been shot, otherwise he would surely have called 999 for an ambulance or at least told Jeremy he'd been shot. Therefore one wouldn't expect to find blood on the kitchen telephone. If someone calls you rather than 999 one would automatically assume that the situation was not out of control or extreemly urgent.
3.Police officer DS Ainsley noted that a call had been made by a TFG police officer from another phone which wouldn't have worked with the kitchen phone off the hook. Statements from 10 officers that nothing was moved were accepted by the appeals commision but what about all the other policemen?
4.The police allowed the silencer to become contaminated thus denying the DNA evidence but somehow not affecting the blood flake evidence. Even a remote possibility of a false bloodmatch means doubt. I worked in a blood lab and I know false matches happen frequently sometimes resulting in death.
5. Julie Mugford is guilty. If she lied about Jeremy's call she committed perjury if she told the truth, she witheld evidence and became an accomplice to murders she could have prevented and then went on to enjoy the spoils.
Point 4 is questionable, since DNA testing (for Police at this level) simply wasn't available, so it's a little disingenuous to say denying the DNA evidence'. Technically, it did inhibit the future ability, but the inference drawn from your statement is that they could have foreseen it. Blood samples are much simpler than DNA samples, and DNA usually has to be of sufficient quantity AND to be able to find enough markers to suggest a 'match'. Even with LCN, enough markers have to match to be statistically likely to belong to someone (although it often discount something more readily than it can prove (depending on the circumstances of course)).
Point 5 is simply incorrect.
Julie Mugford's guilt or innocence remains unproven and will almost certainly remain so. But a jury found her credible and assumed her to be innocent. Notwithstanding all of that, she would NOT be an accomplice to murder for her delay in telling the police. Nor is it likely she would have been charged for not having mentioned to the police JB's 'plotting' and 'talk' of murder.
She, in theory, the murder MIGHT have been considered a joint enterprise, if they could convince a jury that she considered his plotting and planning to be clear plans AND that she knew of a genuine intent or likelihood that he was going to carry out his plans.
Joint Enterprise is a tricky area and it's hard enough when someone's at the scene!... it wouldn't stand a realistic chance of persuaded the CPS, let alone a jury.
Now, IF she was an instigator, she might be charged with incitement to murder - but that's purely speculative and it's never been suggested by anyone (to my knowledge) (even by JB).
I do appreciate what you are saying though - I have similar troubles with her - but it's wrong to say she is guilty - there's no proof of it.
I just happen to think her behaviour was highly questionable, AND that she must have contemplated going along with the lie with Bamber for the rest of her life. i.e. there was no mad panic to tell the police was there?
But - she wasn't an angel, far from it. This was known to the jury. I believe for all their doubt about motives and questionable character, the circumstantial, and forensic evidence (as presented) would have swayed them more than Mugford (no proof of that, just a gut feeling)
-
Re Julie Mugford, what did she do between 3rd September when she and Jeremy had the row and 7th September when she went to the police? Did she try to contact Jeremy? Did he try to contact her?
-
I have just read today that spark films has been looking into the phone call questions and he says after a month the tapes are wiped so if jm had told the police in the first weekabout jb being involved would there have been definitive proof of jb s innocence or guilt and how does the appointment with the police tie in with the month tapes were not available. Jb did say in an news article that he did try to talk to jm but she had been taken into protective custody. I don't know much about police procedure but if they wanted definitive proof could they have got together jb and jm to listen in to conversations.
I remember something the police did with Colin stagg but I don't know what is legally allowed.
Jm seemed more than happy to cooperate with the police and they had her over a barrel because they could have charged her with something
Just wondered?
-
1.As to Sue Battersby's insistance that she remembered the time of the phone call as 3.12am, I did an experiment; when I woke up during the night I deliberately checked the time on my clock with the aim of remembering what it said next morning, I was consistantly unsure. I wonder if she had been consuming any alcohol or drugs that evening. And why after being unsure did she suddenly remember so definately?
Sorry but this is totally anecdotal an unscientific. You do a disservice to your other comments by even suggesting this as useful evidence.
-
I have just read today that spark films has been looking into the phone call questions and he says after a month the tapes are wiped so if jm had told the police in the first weekabout jb being involved would there have been definitive proof of jb s innocence or guilt and how does the appointment with the police tie in with the month tapes were not available. Jb did say in an news article that he did try to talk to jm but she had been taken into protective custody. I don't know much about police procedure but if they wanted definitive proof could they have got together jb and jm to listen in to conversations.
I remember something the police did with Colin stagg but I don't know what is legally allowed.
Jm seemed more than happy to cooperate with the police and they had her over a barrel because they could have charged her with something
Just wondered?
----------------------
Audio tapes were reused, if the originals did not contain any information of an evidential value, correct...
-
Sorry Bob, I should have noted that none of my points were intended as useful evidence but purely my personal thoughts.
Again, brilliantmistake you are correct about the difficulties of DNA. I was refering DNA evidence offered at appeal 2002. Julie Mugford may not be guilty under the law but from a moral standpoint she is. If Jeremy had indeed said ''Tonight's the night.''
Some more observations, not necessarily intended as evidence but just to stimulate discussion, yes I know it's pure supposition;
1.Since in Neville Bamber's call he supposedly says Shiela has gone berserk and got hold of one of my guns. One can asume he didn't mean gone berserk with one of my guns. Maybe she was smashing up the kitchen which disturbed Neville from sleep. I have a feeling Shiela may have asked Neville to bring Jeremy to the farm intending to kill him as well.
2.I don't accept that it would be impossible for someone to shoot themselves with the scilencer attached. Couldn't it have been triggered with a toe or some kitchen implement. Thus Shiela's blood could have entered the scilencer in the kitchen but the shot wasn't fatal, realising it would be easier without the scilencer, it was removed.
3.Was there any sugar [or blood] on Neville Bamber's feet? That would help to establish when the sugar was spilt.
4. The bible had been bled onto and then closed, because the bloodstain shape matched on two pages.
It was found open therefore either shots were not in quick succession or the murderer went to extrordinary lengths to get the blood to drip onto the bible which would have left clues from the direction of the blood flow from the wounds.
-
Sorry Bob, I should have noted that none of my points were intended as useful evidence but purely my personal thoughts.
Again, brilliantmistake you are correct about the difficulties of DNA. I was refering DNA evidence offered at appeal 2002. Julie Mugford may not be guilty under the law but from a moral standpoint she is. If Jeremy had indeed said ''Tonight's the night.''
Some more observations, not necessarily intended as evidence but just to stimulate discussion, yes I know it's pure supposition;
1.Since in Neville Bamber's call he supposedly says Shiela has gone berserk and got hold of one of my guns. One can asume he didn't mean gone berserk with one of my guns. Maybe she was smashing up the kitchen which disturbed Neville from sleep. I have a feeling Shiela may have asked Neville to bring Jeremy to the farm intending to kill him as well.
2.I don't accept that it would be impossible for someone to shoot themselves with the scilencer attached. Couldn't it have been triggered with a toe or some kitchen implement. Thus Shiela's blood could have entered the scilencer in the kitchen but the shot wasn't fatal, realising it would be easier without the scilencer, it was removed.
3.Was there any sugar [or blood] on Neville Bamber's feet? That would help to establish when the sugar was spilt.
4. The bible had been bled onto and then closed, because the bloodstain shape matched on two pages.
It was found open therefore either shots were not in quick succession or the murderer went to extrordinary lengths to get the blood to drip onto the bible which would have left clues from the direction of the blood flow from the wounds.
1. I agree that Sheila may not have shot anyone at the time when Nevill allegedly phoned Jeremy. In fact, if he did ring him I think it's most unlikely that she had used the gun at that point, otherwise Nevill would not have stood there dialling Jeremy's number. Also, if he had been shot at that point I think there would have been blood on the phone.
2. I also am not convinced that Sheila couldn't reach with the silencer on. I said before - it depends on the length of her arms, and experiments with a model of similar height mean nothing to me.
However, if she had used her toe I would expect that to be clear from the position her body was found in, and it doesn't look that way. If she had used an implement, that implement would be near the body and there was nothing. If she had removed the silencer after the first shot, I doubt she would have put it away in the cupboard. If she did put it away I think she did so before she shot herself.
3. Good point - I don't know if anyone checked that. I think the sugar is a bit of a red herring anyway as it could have been kicked around by the police.
4. The Bible issue is a complete mystery to me. Sheila didn't put it in that position - of that much I'm fairly sure. The blood on it is in the wrong place and it's pretty much resting on her arm. I agree it was closed at some point when the blood had not yet dried and then opened again. It's not clear who did that and why.
-
Regarding the statement made by JM, in which she reffered to JM allegedly telling her that Ralph had put up a fight and as a result had had to be shot around 7 times.Could anyone please tell me if this was knowledge that JM could have gained elsewhere,ie police,media,relatives etc?
-
Regarding the statement made by JM, in which she reffered to JM allegedly telling her that Ralph had put up a fight and as a result had had to be shot around 7 times.Could anyone please tell me if this was knowledge that JM could have gained elsewhere,ie police,media,relatives etc?
------------------------------------
Defense alleged that most of what Mugford had to say during her testimony could have been obtained from other sources, rather than directly from Jeremy......
-
Hmm very interesting! Thankyou for that. Also,the relatives testified in court that sheila had no experience whatsoever with handling firearms.Although I read somewhere that one of the relatives had once actually taken her on a shooting holiday.Is this true and if so,do you happen to know with which relative she went on this shooting holiday with?
-
Hmm very interesting! Thankyou for that. Also,the relatives testified in court that sheila had no experience whatsoever with handling firearms.Although I read somewhere that one of the relatives had once actually taken her on a shooting holiday.Is this true and if so,do you happen to know with which relative she went on this shooting holiday with?
------------------------------
Shooting holiday in Scotland, a photograph was taken of Sheila holding a shotgun, on that occasion, but relatives say she only posed for the shot (pardon the pun)...
Sheila's fingerprints, were found on the .22 semi-automatic rifle, and a 12 bore shotgun, found at the scene...
-
so we are expected to believe that she was taken on a shooting holiday but didnt shoot any guns? are you not allowed to say with whom she accompanied on this holiday or do you just not know?
-
Regarding the statement made by JM, in which she reffered to JM allegedly telling her that Ralph had put up a fight and as a result had had to be shot around 7 times.Could anyone please tell me if this was knowledge that JM could have gained elsewhere,ie police,media,relatives etc?
I couldn't say for sure but by the time she said that it was a month after the murders, so I would think that most of it was known to loads of people.
-
so we are expected to believe that she was taken on a shooting holiday but didnt shoot any guns? are you not allowed to say with whom she accompanied on this holiday or do you just not know?
--------------------------------
with other members of the family, including Jeremy, and I think Anthony Pargeter...
-
However, if she had used her toe I would expect that to be clear from the position her body was found in, and it doesn't look that way. If she had used an implement, that implement would be near the body and there was nothing. If she had removed the silencer after the first shot, I doubt she would have put it away in the cupboard. If she did put it away I think she did so before she shot herself.
I was suggesting that a toe or an implement had been used to trigger the gun in a non fatal attempt in the kitchen.
Sorry, I don't know how to get those neat quote boxes.