Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: bob on March 07, 2011, 11:52:PM
-
This forum used to be a decent place for considered evaluation of the evidence and reasoned debate.
Recently there seems to have been an influx of posters who aren't interested in analysing specific pieces of evidence - instead they simply post from a point of view of "knowing" that JB is innocent.
I don't see what value that adds - surely the point of a forum is to analyse and debate the evidence in a non-partisan way? Otherwise we may as well ditch it and just all click "like" on the Facebook group.
We have lost at least 4 respected posters in the past 2 weeks, who've each "resigned" with comments suggesting that they don't think there is any point in them continuing because the level of considered debate has deteriorated.
I, for one, am missing those posters :(
-
Can only comment as a newbie. The JB guilty poll shows that there are varying standpoints and approaches of posters. At times, it seems to me that much of the 'neutral' debating is actually coming from the perspective of people who believe in his guilt (and some state so). On a site like this, is it not always going to be swings and roundabouts / to and fro in the balance etc?
Appreciate your response RDP.
I think my comment comes from my perception that there are now a few posters with a very clear agenda, and that they have saturated the forum such that it is now difficult to participate in a reasoned debate on specific points of evidence without each topic being hijacked into a more general "JB is innocent" theme.
I could be wrong, but I feel it's a shame that a few old-time (and interesting) regular posters have recently decided they've had enough :(
-
I'm usually hovering at the 70-90% JB guilty area. It really does change.
The logical part of me says the majority of evidence points to him, but there's another part that says sometimes, you CAN toss 'heads' 10 times in a row, however unlikely.
There are a few inconsistencies in police testimonies that worry me, BUT I also accept people make all manner of incorrect 'witness' statements (e.g. wrong times, wrong names etc etc). You'd be amazed at how inaccurate observation and memory can be, even in those trained to be observant.
There are also enough questions about 'what the heck really happened, even if JB DID do it' that make me want to learn more.
For me personally, I don't tend to see stuff the way Mike Tesko does. But, one in five times I'm inclined to go along with his thinking (which isn't much, but it's still one in five).
I do not think I am biased (but I accept that I could well be) against JB. And I like to think I'm open minded enough to believe Sheila could have done it (which I do believe she could).
I don't have all the facts the jury did but, if I was on the jury, I think I'd be saying this:
"Right, you've convinced me that Jeremy was the more likely culprit, but you need to take me a little further down that path before I'm going to find him guilty. My head tells me it's him, and you have some strong evidence, but you're just falling short of the finish line.... "
That's my honest opinion (so far) and it's been that for 25 years, swaying in that 70-90% region
-
Can only comment as a newbie. The JB guilty poll shows that there are varying standpoints and approaches of posters. At times, it seems to me that much of the 'neutral' debating is actually coming from the perspective of people who believe in his guilt (and some state so). On a site like this, is it not always going to be swings and roundabouts / to and fro in the balance etc?
Appreciate your response RDP.
I think my comment comes from my perception that there are now a few posters with a very clear agenda, and that they have saturated the forum such that it is now difficult to participate in a reasoned debate on specific points of evidence without each topic being hijacked into a more general "JB is innocent" theme.
I could be wrong, but I feel it's a shame that a few old-time (and interesting) regular posters have recently decided they've had enough :(
A few posters with a very clear agenda? And what might that be? To suggest that they have saturated the forum, to the point where it is now difficult to participate in a reasoned debate, i think is very unfair. Not to mention wholly exaggerated. Also i don't see anybody "hijacking" each topic into a JB is innocent theme at all. I assume those that believe in Jeremy's innocence, do so with good reason, and they are perfectly entitled to their opinion/and or belief.
-
With the facts and evidence available I find it incredible that anyone can be 100% certain of his guilt or innocence.
When I question a theory which is incorrectly stated as fact then it's viewed as anti Bamber, so there's little point in getting into a conflict over it.
I see three distinct groups, those who have made their mind up and refuse to accept anything in opposition to their point of view no matter what; those who have a fairly clear opinion but are willing to listen to other peoples views; and those who are on the fence.
-
Can only comment as a newbie. The JB guilty poll shows that there are varying standpoints and approaches of posters. At times, it seems to me that much of the 'neutral' debating is actually coming from the perspective of people who believe in his guilt (and some state so). On a site like this, is it not always going to be swings and roundabouts / to and fro in the balance etc?
Appreciate your response RDP.
I think my comment comes from my perception that there are now a few posters with a very clear agenda, and that they have saturated the forum such that it is now difficult to participate in a reasoned debate on specific points of evidence without each topic being hijacked into a more general "JB is innocent" theme.
I could be wrong, but I feel it's a shame that a few old-time (and interesting) regular posters have recently decided they've had enough :(
A few posters with a very clear agenda? And what might that be? To suggest that they have saturated the forum, to the point where it is now difficult to participate in a reasoned debate, i think is very unfair. Not to mention wholly exaggerated. Also i don't see anybody "hijacking" each topic into a JB is innocent theme at all. I assume those that believe in Jeremy's innocence, do so with good reason, and they are perfectly entitled to their opinion/and or belief.
The problem here is:
IF you believe JB's innocent and that for whatever reason, a handful of folks conspired to stitch him up (or at least 'add' to evidence in order to secure a conviction which they believed was right), then by that very reasoning, getting evidence to show that is going to be hard, and often it will look like clutching at straws (because you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back).
IF you think JB's guilty, then there's a fair bit of supporting evidence for that (as there WOULD be if a) he WAS guilty, or b) he WAS framed). AND there's always the argument that a jury heard more than we have and they found him guilty too. So basically, you have a big mallet to hit the other side with.
Effectively, the JB innocent team are going to be the underdogs, regardless of fairness.
I 'think' a lot of people on here are still not 100% sure either way, and the reasonable ones of us *blush* DO appreciate that that 'team innocent' are underdogs.
But, we aren't going to just give points to them just because they are underdogs. They just have to score twice as many points as team guilty... it's not our fault that team guilty have been given a 3 goal lead to start with!
-
There is also a big difference between those who are questioning and discussing the case, and those who are simply trying to force persuade people to seeing things their way.
-
As I have posted on this forum previously, there are also people on here who don’t enter into the He’s Guilty / Not Guilty argument. Irrespective of one’s own opinion of his guilt, and given the absence of any solid evidence either way, it will remain only an opinion.
The wider issue, for me at least, is that the whole handling of the case and evidence on which JB was found guilty is unsound and would certainly not convict him in a courtroom today, and that is a FACT.
-
On the basis of the evidence presented to this forum I find it impossible to reach a conclusion one way or the other about who killed the Bamber family 25 years ago.
Travel back down the years and put in front of the original trial judge and jury all of the evidence that has been so painfully extracted from the puzzlingly defensive and un-cooperative Essex Police during the past 25 years and I believe it likely that they also would be unable to reach a firm conclusion - without a shadow of doubt - about who committed these murders. There are far too many grounds for doubt, far too many shadows. I therefore believe that a judge and jury, with all of the evidence we have here, in front of them would not find sufficient evidence to convict JB or anyone else of these murders.
For me, there is one indisputable fact: too much evidence was withheld from the original trial judge and jury or distorted in its presentation for any court to reach a just and safe decision in this case. It is therefore indisputable that Jeremy Bamber did not have a fair trial and justice consequently demands a retrial or an Appeal on the basis of ALL of the evidence, not merely the evidence that Essex Police are willing to divulge.
One of the foundation stones of the British criminal justice system is that those accused are innocent until proven guilty. I have not a shadow of doubt that the prosecution failed to prove Jeremy Bamber's guilt on the basis of a fair trial and in the light of all of the evidence in this case. It is therefore my view that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
-
With the facts and evidence available I find it incredible that anyone can be 100% certain of his guilt or innocence.
When I question a theory which is incorrectly stated as fact then it's viewed as anti Bamber, so there's little point in getting into a conflict over it.
I see three distinct groups, those who have made their mind up and refuse to accept anything in opposition to their point of view no matter what; those who have a fairly clear opinion but are willing to listen to other peoples views; and those who are on the fence.
Didn't you leave and then come back? I remember you were deleted at one point - or am I confused about that?
Re the forum in general, I have seen a few people say that Jeremy is innocent but most people here don't seem to be blindly accepting all the weird theories without question. I'm still in the same place as when I started posting here - 50/50. ;D
-
As I have posted on this forum previously, there are also people on here who don’t enter into the He’s Guilty / Not Guilty argument. Irrespective of one’s own opinion of his guilt, and given the absence of any solid evidence either way, it will remain only an opinion.
The wider issue, for me at least, is that the whole handling of the case and evidence on which JB was found guilty is unsound and would certainly not convict him in a courtroom today, and that is a FACT.
I wonder if he would have been acquitted today. With DNA testing the outcome might have been very different, but even so, the experts at the 2002 appeal couldn't seem to agree about the DNA, and the appeal judges didn't consider that the DNA evidence made the verdict unsafe.
There was the issue of the silencer being in the cupboard too. I think that those who believe Jeremy did it are a bit blinkered about that. I think Sheila could have shot them all and put the silencer away, but the prosecution seemed to think that was out of the question.
There's also the issue of Sheila being relatively unmarked and showing no signs of having rampaged through the house shooting people. That could be enough to swing a jury.
-
Some very interesting views on here. It's very easy for a newbie on a forum to to go in hammer and tongs, which might annoy regular posters. If I've been guilty of that (I prob have been a bit sarky on a couple of posts!) then I apologise for any annoyance this has caused. Bob may be right and the forum may have lost something with the disappearance of previous regulars. From my part i think this is an excellent forum. It's engrossing to watch other posters go hammer and tongs arguing the case. This makes for excellent reading at times. I will take on board the opinions of some posters on here that you should attempt to study / argue potential 'evidence' from opposing angles.
my current posistion is that I have one foot in 'probably not guilty' and one foot in 'undecided'! 8)
It is a good forum. I get slightly irritated at some of the posts, but I expect some people get irritated with mine too. ;D
I'm amazed that it's as polite as it is actually - no spammers, trolls, or trouble makers so far - apart from some rather dodgy posts from a previous member that is. :P
-
regarding the question of "would he be acquitted today?"
It is my belief he would not - and here is why:
1) The evidence presented in court originally, has, to the best of my knowledge remained intact (in terms of fact/findings, rather than physical state!)
2) Subsequent DNA testing on the moderator has shed some new light on the likely source of DNA found, but does has not been able to discount it being a murder weapon. It has only served to suggest the origin of DNA found was likely to be June Bamber.
3) Arguably THE most crucial piece of evidence was the testimony of Julie Mugford, and, rightly or wrongly, the original jury found her to be a credible witness, since they accepted her testimony as being true.
Given the gravity of the evidence provided by Miss Mugford (as was then), there has since been no reason to raise doubt, or form a new opinion on the credibility of her, or the validity of her testimony.
Essentially, the decision of the jury then was sound, and remains so. One cannot simply 'change their minds' about Miss Mugford at a whim.
Now, with regard to new evidence coming to light, much of it has been of a nature that to put it mildly, is tenuous at best, and at worst, bordering on being vexatious.
There are numerous cases of where "one witness said this, and another said that". This does not amount to a conspiracy to conceal or falsify evidence. It is a typical of a case of this nature to have contradiction in witness testimony, or occasional mistakes in logs and suchlike, regrettable as that may be, this too does not amount to, or even indicate conspiracy.
All in all, no new evidence has come forward that substantially deviates from the evidence provided at trial. Whilst we might have a little more clarity here and there, the same material circumstances and likely scenarios presented at the original trial remain the same.
Therefore. The same verdict would must likely be reached.
What the 'JB innocent team' would prefer though, is to omit much of the agreed testimony, and focus on the testimonies that differ, this giving rise to the impression that nobody agreed, and the whole investigation was chaos, or family, girlfriend, police et al conspired, or acted apart to 'frame' Jeremy Bamber. That the remaining members of the family planted evidence or garnished it, his girlfriend allowed her anger to go so far as to see a man imprisoned for life and deny family members the truth, and that the police themselves manipulated a crime scene in such a was as to not only hide their already accepted mistakes, but to lend weight to a murder theory, which was counter to their own belief of suicide).
If we are to believe the Police wanted to make certain it looked like suicide then this ONLY helps to suggest it would have looked even more like murder without their actions.
If we are to believe the Police wanted to make it look like murder, then this would be contrary to all other actions they undertook (or didn't undertake) in their woeful gathering of evidence - which was born out of belief it was a suicide.
Not enough new evidence to change much, just a lot of minor evidence which when dished out in sufficient volume tries to amount to being 'significant'.
-
It seems to me to have been perfectly plausible that sheila could have been responsible.After-all, highly experienced police officers certainly seemed to accept this based on what they saw and what information they had at the time.Until that is,that the relatives made a big song and dance about it!The relatives (despite not knowing sheila all that well) were absolutely adamant that shela did not carry out the murders.Why was this I wonder?Could they have known something that we dont? JB has been portrayed as money hungry and as having a dislike for his family.But similarly,the relatives were also money hungry and had a dislike for the Bambers.Lets not forget that JB would have inherited a large amount of money eventually anyway.Lets face it,his parents were no "spring chickens".both being the age of 61.Is it not true that Ralph was beginning to pass on more responsibility to JB, and (just an observation) Ralph may have been beginning to make preparations for retirement.Just reading RBs notes alone tell their own story as to what RB felt about JBs handling of the farm and of the Bamber money.If the murders had not took place,Id been interested to know what the relatives would have been due to receive from the Bambers will upon their natural deaths.
-
Oh and please do not think that I am making accusations towards anyone.The "third person",could be responsible scenario is just something that I am considering right now.So if I ask questions that have already been covered by you all,please accept my apologies.Its just that there is so much information on this site that it gives me a headache trying to wade through it all!
Whilst Im here.......does anyone have an explanation as to why (if RB and AE were pointing the finger toward JB from day one),why AE would be inside the farmhouse "having a good old clean up)almost from day one? On the one hand they were hunting around for evidence,but on the other hand they were cleaning it all away!The police search did not uncover the silencer,the relatives did.It is wholly possible that the silencer was "planted". It is possible that the phonecall to JB (if it did actually happen)was made under duress to in order to lure JB to the farm and a second phonecall to the police from the farm in order for the police to find JB at the scene and maybe suspect him.
-
Oh and please do not think that I am making accusations towards anyone.The "third person",could be responsible scenario is just something that I am considering right now.So if I ask questions that have already been covered by you all,please accept my apologies.Its just that there is so much information on this site that it gives me a headache trying to wade through it all!
Whilst Im here.......does anyone have an explanation as to why (if RB and AE were pointing the finger toward JB from day one),why AE would be inside the farmhouse "having a good old clean up)almost from day one? On the one hand they were hunting around for evidence,but on the other hand they were cleaning it all away!The police search did not uncover the silencer,the relatives did.It is wholly possible that the silencer was "planted". It is possible that the phonecall to JB (if it did actually happen)was made under duress to in order to lure JB to the farm and a second phonecall to the police from the farm in order for the police to find JB at the scene and maybe suspect him.
Good question about the cleaning. It seems to me that Ann and Robert suspected Jeremy right from the start but Ann started cleaning the house as soon as she got access.
I still don't get why she was given the keys and not Jeremy, or why he let his relatives virtually take over the house. At that time it was none of their business what happened to the house.
I do have some admiration for them though - they thought he did it, and they didn't let up. That shows some gumption.
-
It seems to me to have been perfectly plausible that sheila could have been responsible.After-all, highly experienced police officers certainly seemed to accept this based on what they saw and what information they had at the time.Until that is,that the relatives made a big song and dance about it!The relatives (despite not knowing sheila all that well) were absolutely adamant that shela did not carry out the murders.Why was this I wonder?Could they have known something that we dont? JB has been portrayed as money hungry and as having a dislike for his family.But similarly,the relatives were also money hungry and had a dislike for the Bambers.Lets not forget that JB would have inherited a large amount of money eventually anyway.Lets face it,his parents were no "spring chickens".both being the age of 61.Is it not true that Ralph was beginning to pass on more responsibility to JB, and (just an observation) Ralph may have been beginning to make preparations for retirement.Just reading RBs notes alone tell their own story as to what RB felt about JBs handling of the farm and of the Bamber money.If the murders had not took place,Id been interested to know what the relatives would have been due to receive from the Bambers will upon their natural deaths.
I don't know what they would have got if Jeremy had not been convicted. There seemed to be all kinds of things involved - shares in the caravan park, and all that.
Perhaps they wouldn't have got anything directly from the Bambers. After all, the Bambers had their own children and grandchildren to leave their money to so I don't see why they would leave it to other relatives.
I think some of them resented Jeremy having anything because the money originally came from June's family - the Speakmans. Family politics eh? ;D
Robert Boutflour seemed to take it upon himself to make sure that his family got the dosh - what business it was of his I have no idea.
-
Was Peter Eaton involved in the farm business, ie a share holder or anything.
Just thinking out loud but as the house was part of the farm holding then it could have gone to him in that capacity. Just guessing, it doesn't make much sense otherwise.
-
Was Peter Eaton involved in the farm business, ie a share holder or anything.
Just thinking out loud but as the house was part of the farm holding then it could have gone to him in that capacity. Just guessing, it doesn't make much sense otherwise.
I'm not sure -they all seemed to have fingers in pies all over the place, and they seemed very much tied to each other familywise. It all sounds a bit weird to me. I wonder why Jeremy wanted to be part of all that - sounds a bit claustrophobic to me, especially as his relatives didn't like him much.
The Bambers don't sound that rich to me anyway. I know it was 1985 but even so they weren't millionnaires or anything. I always thought the motive was dodgy.
-
I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!
-
I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!
I know! I think that too.
That's why I can't understand why he didn't object to his relatives having the keys and being all over the house. It wasn't their house, it was nothing to do with them what happened to it. You'd think he'd be paranoid they might find something against him, and also if he killed his family for money you'd think he'd kick the relatives out. They were there with Mr Cock, the executor, only a few days after the murders, and I don't understand why.
Robert Boutflour seemed to spend his time spying on Jeremy and his friends, and watching him removing "treasures" from the house, and at the same time running to the police every five minutes. I wonder if Jeremy knew he was being watched so closely and that his relatives were always talking to the police about him.
-
I'm not sure -they all seemed to have fingers in pies all over the place, and they seemed very much tied to each other familywise. It all sounds a bit weird to me. I wonder why Jeremy wanted to be part of all that - sounds a bit claustrophobic to me, especially as his relatives didn't like him much.
This is the thing!I dont think JB wanted to be part of it at all!It has been said that not long after the murders,that JB was beginning to talk about selling off parcels of land.Farming wasnt JBs thing.It wouldnt have surprised me if hed have got rid of the lot.apart from maybe the caravan park.I get the impression he was more interested in the bright lights of London and partying etc than settling down to a farmers life.Its obvious the relatives were aware of this and did not take too kindly too it.
-
I'm not sure -they all seemed to have fingers in pies all over the place, and they seemed very much tied to each other familywise. It all sounds a bit weird to me. I wonder why Jeremy wanted to be part of all that - sounds a bit claustrophobic to me, especially as his relatives didn't like him much.
This is the thing!I dont think JB wanted to be part of it at all!It has been said that not long after the murders,that JB was beginning to talk about selling off parcels of land.Farming wasnt JBs thing.It wouldnt have surprised me if hed have got rid of the lot.apart from maybe the caravan park.I get the impression he was more interested in the bright lights of London and partying etc than settling down to a farmers life.Its obvious the relatives were aware of this and did not take too kindly too it.
Yes. I'm surprised he worked at the farm at all and lived in a village in the sticks of Essex. He had friends in London and he could have done anything apart from farming.
It sounds as if the relatives thought of the dosh as theirs because some of it came from the Speakmans originally. There certainly seemed to be some indecent haste to find out if they could get hold of the money and any property going. It sounds like Mrs Speakman was pursuaded to change her will even before he'd been arrested and before there was any evidence that he did it.
-
sorry - my last post was in answer to somebody elses quote.If JB was so interested in the farm,then why did he put Peter Eaton in to manage it?I bet he cold kick himself now for that seeings as he now knows what they were all up to behind his back!I have read somewhere that RB was a freemason.If this is true then that would explain a hell of alot of things to me regarding the turnaround of the investigation,JBs subsequent conviction and non-winning of any appeals !!!
-
sorry - my last post was in answer to somebody elses quote.If JB was so interested in the farm,then why did he put Peter Eaton in to manage it?I bet he cold kick himself now for that seeings as he now knows what they were all up to behind his back!I have read somewhere that RB was a freemason.If this is true then that would explain a hell of alot of things to me regarding the turnaround of the investigation,JBs subsequent conviction and non-winning of any appeals !!!
Did Jeremy ask Peter Eaton to manage the farm?
-
Robert Boutflour also tried to implicate Brett Collins in the murders. Did he speak to Brett Collins' brother?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=460.0;attach=1415;image
-
I'm not sure this is entirely representative.
Yes Police had been told Jeremy had called through the call, and that his sister had gone mad etc etc.
So it's perfectly rational, at the scene of the crime, finding the bodies and sheila holding the gun etc etc to still buy into this story.
It's been noted that SOME officers thought something wasn't quite right, but this has to be put down to hearsay really (until officially proven).
So, the real problems didn't start then - they started when the 'gathering of evidence' didn't wipe the slate clean of all assumption, but continued to assume 'it must be true'.
For whatever reason (trying to minimise the impact on the family / good taste, or trying to cover something up) the Police did the basics, but no more than that.
In the meantime, SOME family members started raising questions. Not all of them. And it's probably unfair to say they didn't know the family well. They were Aunts and Uncles (largely) of Jeremy and Sheila and arguably would know Jeremy better than Colin Caffell.
It could be argued that Colin most likely knew Sheila best (other than Jeremy, June or Nevill) and it could be argued that Julie knew Jeremy best other than Sheila, June or Nevill) - it's a very subjective topic about who knew who best, but I don't think it's reasonable to think Jeremy wasn't particularly well known to them - they'd have seen him growing up, but as a young man, Julie would have become closer to him, obviously.
Anyway, regardless of that, the relatives didn't stand to gain much at all - at least not directly, BUT there were complications where yes, some of them would benefit. There's certainly a motive there, but not quite as 'we get all the money if we frame him' style.
There's a motive for Mugford too.
A motive for Sheila
and a motive for Jeremy.
Now if the family set out to frame him, OR add to the evidence, because they thought he was guilty anyway, then they would still have to get Mugford on their side too and invent a lie. OR they got very lucky and Mugford lied as a result of her grudge too.
So it took two distinct parties to either collude, or BOTH independently want to frame him.
Given the family's suspicions, and yes, prodding the police to take it more seriously AND finding the silencer, the police where then forced to start looking at Bamber.
They COULD (and some say DID) try not to investigate too hard, because they had already assumed suicide and didn't want to look bad, or didn't want to stir up trouble in an already broken family. However, in the end, their hand was forced and they started investigating / watching Bamber.
Bamber may very well have been grieving 'in his own way'. And if that way meant weekends abroad with Julie, or being fairly lavish with money, so be it.... BUT, it did little to give the impression of being grief stricken. Nor did his auctioning of items from the farm and from his sister's Maida Vale flat.
There's nothing wrong with what he did. It doesn't make anybody guilty for clearing out a flat of valuables and selling some, BUT as stated earlier, it certainly doesn't look great (and yes, I can hear the argument that says if he was guilty why would he draw attention to himself like that?).
Now, as all this was starting to unfold, the police where doing forensics on the gun and the bodies.
It's here where the suicide theory started to look a little less strong (but NOT disproven) - the absence of residue on her hands that would normally be associated with firing 25 rounds and loaded a gun at least twice). A seeming cleanliness to her feet that didn't seem as though she'd wandered around a house and massacred 4 others. Two wounds to her head/neck which whilst possible to survive one, still seemed 'unusual'.
Then there was the silencer and the blood on and within it, found put away downstairs.... perfectly possible to do with Sheila's injuries (IF she was still able after her first shot)... and the seeming "unusual thing to do, put away the silencer before killing yourself".
There was Jeremy's calls which he couldn't prove, and calls to Julie that could be proved, but the contents of which only known by Jeremy and Julie...
If you take any one point, it can be explained away - Sheila washed, that's why she was clean. Sheila shot herself, moved around a bit, then shot herself again. Sheila was seen on the kitchen floor, woke up, moved upstairs when the police were in the house and then shot herself etc etc...
But when you try to add them all up, the chances of them all happening get slimmer and slimmer each time.
I have to say, it's perfectly possible that numerous 'unlikely' events can all happen on the same night and afterwards - just because it's a million to one, doesn't mean it can't happen.
The vast majority of the evidence against Jeremy isn't forensic. There's actually nothing to put him at the scene. The forensic evidence is more geared towards suggesting Sheila didn't do it (than it is towards Jeremy having done it).
Jeremy therefore becomes the prime suspect by default - since there are only two ways he could know about the trouble at the farm - a) Because sheila did it and all that Jeremy said was true..... or b) He did it, or knew who had (hitman).
The evidence probably gave (say) a 60% jeremy did it, and 40% sheila.
What ultimately finished Jeremy off his actions after the deaths (which in themselves don't make him guilty) AND Mugford's testimony that he'd told her he hired a hitman.
The actions of Bamber after the deaths probably tipped the balance of guilt to 75% Jeremy 25% Sheila.
The 'confession' as told by Mugford shifted it again to 95% Jeremy 5% Sheila.
seeing the photos at the trial, and the anecdotal witness statements AND manner of Bamber in general (self assured, cocky) probably put the odds at 99% Jeremy, 1% Sheila.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of 10:2, so all in all he did quite well - just not well enough.
-
regarding the question of "would he be acquitted today?"
It is my belief he would not - and here is why:
1) The evidence presented in court originally, has, to the best of my knowledge remained intact (in terms of fact/findings, rather than physical state!)
2) Subsequent DNA testing on the moderator has shed some new light on the likely source of DNA found, but does has not been able to discount it being a murder weapon. It has only served to suggest the origin of DNA found was likely to be June Bamber.
3) Arguably THE most crucial piece of evidence was the testimony of Julie Mugford, and, rightly or wrongly, the original jury found her to be a credible witness, since they accepted her testimony as being true.
Given the gravity of the evidence provided by Miss Mugford (as was then), there has since been no reason to raise doubt, or form a new opinion on the credibility of her, or the validity of her testimony.
Essentially, the decision of the jury then was sound, and remains so. One cannot simply 'change their minds' about Miss Mugford at a whim.
Now, with regard to new evidence coming to light, much of it has been of a nature that to put it mildly, is tenuous at best, and at worst, bordering on being vexatious.
There are numerous cases of where "one witness said this, and another said that". This does not amount to a conspiracy to conceal or falsify evidence. It is a typical of a case of this nature to have contradiction in witness testimony, or occasional mistakes in logs and suchlike, regrettable as that may be, this too does not amount to, or even indicate conspiracy.
All in all, no new evidence has come forward that substantially deviates from the evidence provided at trial. Whilst we might have a little more clarity here and there, the same material circumstances and likely scenarios presented at the original trial remain the same.
Therefore. The same verdict would must likely be reached.
A nice piece of rewriting of the evidence and history, TBM: unfortunately it does not reflect the facts of the case. Your account attempts to gloss over thousands of pieces of withheld evidence as mere incidentals. However, the essence of the injustice in this case is:
that the evidence presented at court was never intact,
that it was minus a substantial body of important data,
that key evidence was withheld by EP for up to 25 years
that this body of data makes JB's conviction unsafe
that justice therefore demands that JB has a fair retrial or fair Appeal.
-
Was Peter Eaton involved in the farm business, ie a share holder or anything.
Just thinking out loud but as the house was part of the farm holding then it could have gone to him in that capacity. Just guessing, it doesn't make much sense otherwise.
As far as I know he wasnt involved in any of the Bamber buisness.Whf and its farmland was not and is not owned by the Bambers.It is leased from a charity.
-
I wasn't suggesting that the relatives didn't know Jeremy, merely that they may not have known Sheila that well. She went to London when she was pretty young, married when she was young too, and stayed in London even when the marriage broke up. She didn't sound like a farming sort of person really.
I'm really just musing about the background to these murders more than anything, and wondering why Jeremy let his relatives take over the house if he killed his family for the dosh. Did he really have no idea that they suspected him?
-
Was Peter Eaton involved in the farm business, ie a share holder or anything.
Just thinking out loud but as the house was part of the farm holding then it could have gone to him in that capacity. Just guessing, it doesn't make much sense otherwise.
As far as I know he wasnt involved in any of the Bamber buisness.Whf and its farmland was not and is not owned by the Bambers.It is leased from a charity.
Where did the money come from then? There was the caravan park of course. I think I read about other ventures but I can't remember them now.
-
I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!
That's the fatal flaw - this 'notion' of being a cool and calm murderer.
This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.
He was mid 20s, had spent a couple of years abroad 'fooling around' (in the nicest sense of the word). Nice girlfriend, a bit of money to show off (although it's not clear how much he really had or didn't have). Own home paid for by parents, and an altogether quite privileged existence, by most people's standards.
People gave testimony that he could be arrogant. He was no angel, he'd already committed burglary and knew his gf had been involved in fraud too...
What you might call a typical 'bit of a lad' with money.
If we are to believe Mugford, the night of the killing was quite spontaneous after a row of some sort... "tonight's the night" etc etc
I was never a criminal mastermind behind it (if it was sheila OR jeremy). It was just a mess. That's all.
The POLICE were the ones that turned it into a dramatic mystery, as a result of them not gathering the evidence they ought to have. Had they done so, it's highly likely this would never be such an intriguing mystery. But they didn't do their jobs properly and it widened the void between Jeremy or Sheila.
Call it a small black hole where vital evidence disappeared forever.
And we can never really say "if he was so smart, then why would he do something so stupid as to leave the silencer at the house?"
If he was so smart - then why would he do the murder in the first place? (and fail)
AND
If it was Sheila - was she SO outraged and 'mentally ill' that she killed everybody in the house, but liked to play a little 'game' and put the silencer away in a box and leave a scene that looked ritualistic?
whichever of them did it - there might be hints as to what seems to be genious, but a LOT more hint at sheer tragedy and madness
-
I wasn't suggesting that the relatives didn't know Jeremy, merely that they may not have known Sheila that well. She went to London when she was pretty young, married when she was young too, and stayed in London even when the marriage broke up. She didn't sound like a farming sort of person really.
I'm really just musing about the background to these murders more than anything, and wondering why Jeremy let his relatives take over the house if he killed his family for the dosh. Did he really have no idea that they suspected him?
I think from my own experience of deaths in the family, that's it's not really 'chaos', it's just people say "yes" to anything, and there are "things that need doing".
Someone has to deal with the flowers, the funeral directors, what hymns to have, invitations, PAYING for the damn stuff etc etc... and that's just for a normal expected death.
5 dead in one go? it's probably 50 times worse.
Someone had to book the funeral, sort out the church etc so it wouldn't happen magically.
By my reckoning (and Jeremy no longer lived there remember), some members of the family said "leave it with us, we'll get it tidied".
I think that's normal really.
And, what would a young lad of 25 know about death and funerals and stuff that needs doing? zilch (usually).
I just think the family would have taken care of stuff between them, and that would include the keys to the house.
ALL of that said, two days is damn quick by anybody's reckoning! I personally would have thought most people wouldn't want to go near the place for some time, and maybe some of the farm hands, or such might have been asked to 'do what they could' to secure the place and maybe clean it up.
I really don't know. I can see it both ways:
Don't want to go near the place - get someone in to clean it up
OR
Can't expect others to do it, and we don't want trophy hunters, so let's get it over with, then it's done.
I've seen this happen when grandparents die etc... the house CAN get ripped apart very rapidly afterwards (almost a way of getting over it).... 'it's done and dusted, don't let it linger on'
What do you reckon?
-
@ TBM
Regarding Mugford's evidence, other factors are omitted by your account. JM changed her account, I believe, and she identified a hitman as the killer who had an alibi, so wasn't the murderer.
Most tellingly, you omit that Mugford was paid a substantial sum for her story by the News of The World.
That cash for sensational story scenario could not happen if the Bamber trial was held today, as our far stricter code of conduct would outlaw payments to Mugford. Might that factor dramatically impact on the evidence Mugford gave if such a code had been in force in 1986?
The code of ethics was tightened up after several trials were prejudiced by the press buying witnesses. The defence in the Rosemary West trial challenged the evidence of some witnesses in court, warning the jury that the more sensational accounts they gave, the more the media would pay for their stories. Several witnesses in the West trial admitted having contracts with the media.
Ten years previously, Julie Mugford was paid sufficient to buy a reasonable house for her story, far in excess of the amount paid to most of the West case witnesses. She was also (oddly?) given immunity against prosecution
"You may think that, consciously or unconsciously, that they [witnesses] know that what they will be paid is contingent upon there being convictions in this case.", the West defence stated
The Taylor sisters' convictions for murder were squashed due to biased reporting and payment of witnesses, having prejudiced the outcome of the case. Payment of witnesses was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case too. "People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html
-
I wasn't suggesting that the relatives didn't know Jeremy, merely that they may not have known Sheila that well. She went to London when she was pretty young, married when she was young too, and stayed in London even when the marriage broke up. She didn't sound like a farming sort of person really.
I'm really just musing about the background to these murders more than anything, and wondering why Jeremy let his relatives take over the house if he killed his family for the dosh. Did he really have no idea that they suspected him?
I think from my own experience of deaths in the family, that's it's not really 'chaos', it's just people say "yes" to anything, and there are "things that need doing".
Someone has to deal with the flowers, the funeral directors, what hymns to have, invitations, PAYING for the damn stuff etc etc... and that's just for a normal expected death.
5 dead in one go? it's probably 50 times worse.
Someone had to book the funeral, sort out the church etc so it wouldn't happen magically.
By my reckoning (and Jeremy no longer lived there remember), some members of the family said "leave it with us, we'll get it tidied".
I think that's normal really.
And, what would a young lad of 25 know about death and funerals and stuff that needs doing? zilch (usually).
I just think the family would have taken care of stuff between them, and that would include the keys to the house.
ALL of that said, two days is damn quick by anybody's reckoning! I personally would have thought most people wouldn't want to go near the place for some time, and maybe some of the farm hands, or such might have been asked to 'do what they could' to secure the place and maybe clean it up.
I really don't know. I can see it both ways:
Don't want to go near the place - get someone in to clean it up
OR
Can't expect others to do it, and we don't want trophy hunters, so let's get it over with, then it's done.
I've seen this happen when grandparents die etc... the house CAN get ripped apart very rapidly afterwards (almost a way of getting over it).... 'it's done and dusted, don't let it linger on'
What do you reckon?
Ordinarily, I'd agree that a young man might leave it all to his relatives, but apparently Jeremy had a lot to hide didn't he? If he did it, he got away with it at first but anyone with any sense would start to worry about people poking around.
-
I am not wholly convinced of anyones innocence or guilt.I just cant get my head around the fact that the supposedly cool,calm and collected JB would carry out the murder,covering his tracks everywhere and then be stupid enough to just "pop" the silencer back into a cupboard and toddle off home.when it would have been so much easier and less time consuming to have taken it away and disposed of it.Surely he must have realised this error afterwards and lets face it,he had plenty of oppurtunity in the days after the murders to go back and retrieve it.!
That's the fatal flaw - this 'notion' of being a cool and calm murderer.
This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.
He was mid 20s, had spent a couple of years abroad 'fooling around' (in the nicest sense of the word). Nice girlfriend, a bit of money to show off (although it's not clear how much he really had or didn't have). Own home paid for by parents, and an altogether quite privileged existence, by most people's standards.
People gave testimony that he could be arrogant. He was no angel, he'd already committed burglary and knew his gf had been involved in fraud too...
What you might call a typical 'bit of a lad' with money.
If we are to believe Mugford, the night of the killing was quite spontaneous after a row of some sort... "tonight's the night" etc etc
I was never a criminal mastermind behind it (if it was sheila OR jeremy). It was just a mess. That's all.
The POLICE were the ones that turned it into a dramatic mystery, as a result of them not gathering the evidence they ought to have. Had they done so, it's highly likely this would never be such an intriguing mystery. But they didn't do their jobs properly and it widened the void between Jeremy or Sheila.
Call it a small black hole where vital evidence disappeared forever.
And we can never really say "if he was so smart, then why would he do something so stupid as to leave the silencer at the house?"
If he was so smart - then why would he do the murder in the first place? (and fail)
AND
If it was Sheila - was she SO outraged and 'mentally ill' that she killed everybody in the house, but liked to play a little 'game' and put the silencer away in a box and leave a scene that looked ritualistic?
whichever of them did it - there might be hints as to what seems to be genious, but a LOT more hint at sheer tragedy and madness
If Jeremy did it, I think it did go wrong. I don't suppose his parents were supposed to get up again after they'd been shot, let alone one of them go down to the kitchen. That's why I think he would be more worried about evidence - he would have had to move around the house a lot more than he planned to do. The silencer bit went wrong and he had to pretend it hadn't been used. I just think that even a daft person would realise it might have blood on it.
Re Sheila, I think it's possible that she didn't intend to kill herself at first and she might have put the gun away and the silencer, then got the gun out later minus the silencer.
It's all so far fetched whichever way you look at it really. Either the son kills family in a bloodbath in the middle of the night for money, or the daughter kills the family in bloodbath because she's ill.
-
This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.
Maybe. I still find it odd that not a single bullet missed it's target in the entire shooting spree, so that doesn't give the impression of an ill executed wild shooting party either.
-
@ TBM
Regarding Mugford's evidence, other factors are omitted by your account. JM changed her account, I believe, and she identified a hitman as the killer who had an alibi, so wasn't the murderer.
Most tellingly, you omit that Mugford was paid a substantial sum for her story by the News of The World.
That cash for sensational story scenario could not happen if the Bamber trial was held today, as our far stricter code of conduct would outlaw payments to Mugford. Might that factor dramatically impact on the evidence Mugford gave if such a code had been in force in 1986?
The code of ethics was tightened up after several trials were prejudiced by the press buying witnesses. The defence in the Rosemary West trial challenged the evidence of some witnesses in court, warning the jury that the more sensational accounts they gave, the more the media would pay for their stories. Several witnesses in the West trial admitted having contracts with the media.
Ten years previously, Julie Mugford was paid sufficient to buy a reasonable house for her story, far in excess of the amount paid to most of the West case witnesses. She was also (oddly?) given immunity against prosecution
"You may think that, consciously or unconsciously, that they [witnesses] know that what they will be paid is contingent upon there being convictions in this case.", the West defence stated
The Taylor sisters' convictions for murder were squashed due to biased reporting and payment of witnesses, having prejudiced the outcome of the case. Payment of witnesses was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case too. "People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html
I read a letter on SFJ from the Prosecutors office to the Chief Constable in which the possibility of prosecuting Julie came up, so it must have been considered at some point.
I think that everyone associated with this crime behaved badly - there was blood money flying around all over the place.
-
That's all quite true, but I thought I had said Mugford confessed to a hitman (which she claimed was Jeremy's story).
It was the police who disproved this, but believed that Mugford had been told that - which then pointed to JB using it as tale to hide himself as the murderer.
Yes, she was paid, and in fact, that was denied in court, but later proven to have been true.
However, are we to believe a newspaper said "we will pay you 25K if you said he did it?"It's possible but unlikely. Far more likely they said "wow, give us the story!!!, we'll pay for you to tell us"
There's LOT omitted... like Jeremy breaking and entering AFTER the deaths to get back into the house, and the trying to sell photos allegation.
The fact that Christine (Ann) Eaton now lives in the house... all adding to the 'intrigue'
I am not suggesting for one moment that Mugford told the truth or indeed lied, I simply don't know - but I am trying to summarise the chain of events 'as was' then and the probable 'swing' of opinion.
What IS fact though, is that he was convicted. So 12 good men heard a tale from both sides, and went with guilty.
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.
-
This wasn't an assassination by any stretch - it was a blood bath and not well 'executed' (pardon the expression). Assuming JB did it, it was all a ruse to look like Sheila did it. A pretty wild shooting scenario with JB playing horrified onlooker.
Maybe. I still find it odd that not a single bullet missed it's target in the entire shooting spree, so that doesn't give the impression of an ill executed wild shooting party either.
It does to me... it took 25 bullets
At least two people moved around
Missing with a shotgun from 10 feet max? and most likely 1-5 feet? (two of which where asleep in bed and shot from close range)?
I do know what you're saying, but I think the evidence really does suggest it was a bit messy, esp at least one getting downstairs, and Sheila needing two shots.
-
I'm just not convinced about this motive really. Jeremy worked on the farm so he must have had some time for his parents - he can't have completely hated them. He went to a party with his sister the weekend before and smoked dope with her, so it doesn't sound as if he hated her or was indifferent to her.
I can imagine him trying to get more out of them, but murder? It wasn't even a huge fortune - the house wasn't theirs and the stuff in it doesn't look that posh. Did he actually know how much dosh they had?
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.
I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all
Or a siege in Rothbury....
When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...
I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.
I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all
Or a siege in Rothbury....
When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...
I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.
Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. ;D
-
I'm just not convinced about this motive really. Jeremy worked on the farm so he must have had some time for his parents - he can't have completely hated them. He went to a party with his sister the weekend before and smoked dope with her, so it doesn't sound as if he hated her or was indifferent to her.
I can imagine him trying to get more out of them, but murder? It wasn't even a huge fortune - the house wasn't theirs and the stuff in it doesn't look that posh. Did he actually know how much dosh they had?
300K they say which back then was probably a couple of million now. Certainly at least 1 million in today's money.
But, if HE was the 'nutter' then does the amount really mean that much? 1 million's not worth it, but 10 million might be?
It might not even have been for the money - just pure hatred, or some sick notion of impressing Julie? (after all we're led to believe he took steps to tell her, as though he wanted her to know).
There are those that say Jeremy IS mentally ill. A psychopath perhaps.
Whichever way you look at it, there are too many confounding variables, many of which are a direct result of the initial Police actions, and some of which are purely a result of disjointed family, money, infighting etc. It's almost as bad as Princess Diana. probably 3 or 4 people / institutions with reason to see her dead, and quite plausible theories for them all.
"Driving too fast" just seems so simple, we struggle to believe it.
"Arrogant brat Jeremy did it for the money" just seems too simple
"Mad Sheila in ritual self washing murder" just seems far fetched too
-
Interesting article:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/18/better-off-dead.html
(about murder then suicide families)
Within 5 minutes on the all seeing Google - it turns out that it's not so rare at all!
There's even a few women who've killed the family.
Clearly not 'common', but the Bamber case isn't really so off the wall after all
-
Sometimes I get really angry with things I read here like today JB would be found guilty. He was found guilty on a 10-2 majority and the jury asked who would inherit the family money they were not given a truthful answer. They asked that question it was important for them to make a decision about a young persons life. If they had known the family would inherit I truly believe JB would not be in prison today and yes no one really knows what happened but Sheila could have killed the family although the police have gone out of their way to try to prove she didn't. As for JB and this myth of a young boy with all this money i think him and Sheila had a horrible life from what I have read there was never any real love in that family. I get fed up reading about JB being arrogant=mass murderer. JB s family sound like one of the most dysfunctional families I have read about and the home looked a pig sty. I have tried to read everything about this case I can but JB had no history of violence to anyone and I don't think the prisons that he has been kept in treat him like a mass murderer that tells me something too. He was downgraded from an A to a B within 4 years until the relatives got him put up to an A. My gut feeling is innocent and I think the whole history of this case is so sad when people really believe Jeremy and Sheila had this blessed life. If you remember on the way down to wHF Sheila said she wanted Colin back but he told her he was happy with his new girlfriend. Sheilas doctor said this would have had a catastrophic affect on her. Maybe that set off a chain of events
-
The logical part of me says the majority of evidence points to him . . .
That's the illogical part of you. It's irrational to say that as eight pieces of evidence point to his guilt and two pieces point to his innocence, your opinion is therefore 80% guilty. I realize you didn't say precisely that, but you seem to be estimating along those lines. It's necessary to consider what the evidence shows. You also need to estimate various likelihoods, such as how likely it is that a scheming, but arrogant murderer can pass all the psychological tests he takes, including a lie detector test.
There are those that say Jeremy IS mentally ill. A psychopath perhaps.
Did they know Jeremy or say anything remotely like that before the killings occurred? Do they also assess what Sheila's mental health was?
-
As I have posted on this forum previously, there are also people on here who don’t enter into the He’s Guilty / Not Guilty argument. Irrespective of one’s own opinion of his guilt, and given the absence of any solid evidence either way, it will remain only an opinion.
The wider issue, for me at least, is that the whole handling of the case and evidence on which JB was found guilty is unsound and would certainly not convict him in a courtroom today, and that is a FACT.
I wonder if he would have been acquitted today. With DNA testing the outcome might have been very different, but even so, the experts at the 2002 appeal couldn't seem to agree about the DNA, and the appeal judges didn't consider that the DNA evidence made the verdict unsafe.
There was the issue of the silencer being in the cupboard too. I think that those who believe Jeremy did it are a bit blinkered about that. I think Sheila could have shot them all and put the silencer away, but the prosecution seemed to think that was out of the question.
There's also the issue of Sheila being relatively unmarked and showing no signs of having rampaged through the house shooting people. That could be enough to swing a jury.
When I say JB would not have been convicted in a court today, I refer to evidence that exists from the original case, not additional DNA evidence for instance which may have been available but lost, we must deal with the facts and hard evidence in the case that are available. A distinction needs to be made between real evidence and opinion. The due judicial process was abused, disregarded and manipulated. I can only speak for myself, I have not seen any evidence to take away a mans liberty for the remainder of his life.
-
Such a good post Robholt
In this country we are forced to be jury members and with that huge weight of responsibility we deserve to be given the full facts of the case. On that evidence a jury makes a decision and sometimes it will be wrong but more often it is the right decision. There have been too many miscarriages of justice in this country because certain evidence is witheld and in this case I believe there was information available but witheld
-
Such a good post Robholt
In this country we are forced to be jury members and with that huge weight of responsibility we deserve to be given the full facts of the case. On that evidence a jury makes a decision and sometimes it will be wrong but more often it is the right decision. There have been too many miscarriages of justice in this country because certain evidence is witheld and in this case I believe there was information available but witheld
-------------------------
An "abuse of process" by the agencies of the state, in my opinion...
-
Every case has information withheld on both sides.
There's usually too much evidence to ever get through.
The defence has to cherry pick what best illustrates their argument, and the prosecution the same.
If can feel like the prosecution is the one with all the evidence and chooses what to reveal to the defence, but that simply is not the case, it's a mutual situation.
Can I believe a few bent coppers 'helped' the case? yes (not saying they did)
Can I believe Mugford lied? yes
Can I believe the family colluded? at a push, yes but the more involved, the less likely
Can I believe the Judge was fooled by all this (knowing full well the police had cocked up in the first place)? Yes, but unlikely
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees? Not really, I still accept it's possible, but so very unlikely.
IF JB's innocent, I personally think it's likely to be as a result of no more than two of these things (which is already horrendous)
In my opinion, these very same factors exist today just as much as they did 25 years ago, and that's why his appeal was unsuccessful, and he still looks up against the odds.
I don;t even want to go into the political and media influence which also negatively impact him.
-
Every case has information withheld on both sides.
There's usually too much evidence to ever get through.
The defence has to cherry pick what best illustrates their argument, and the prosecution the same.
If can feel like the prosecution is the one with all the evidence and chooses what to reveal to the defence, but that simply is not the case, it's a mutual situation.
Can I believe a few bent coppers 'helped' the case? yes (not saying they did)
Can I believe Mugford lied? yes
Can I believe the family colluded? at a push, yes but the more involved, the less likely
Can I believe the Judge was fooled by all this (knowing full well the police had cocked up in the first place)? Yes, but unlikely
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees? Not really, I still accept it's possible, but so very unlikely.
IF JB's innocent, I personally think it's likely to be as a result of no more than two of these things (which is already horrendous)
In my opinion, these very same factors exist today just as much as they did 25 years ago, and that's why his appeal was unsuccessful, and he still looks up against the odds.
I don;t even want to go into the political and media influence which also negatively impact him.
Forget all that complication....it is a cast iron fact that the moderator should not have been admissible as evidence and without that everyone knows the ramifications to the original trial. We all need to rewind and deal with facts. I repeat, fact needs to be separated from opinion. The moderator issue is just one FACT that bolsters the case for appeal / review.
-
IF JB's innocent, I personally think it's likely to be as a result of no more than two of these things (which is already horrendous)
You have no basis for saying "it's likely" without estimating just how likely, and no basis for saying "no more than two" without explaining how you arrived at that count, and what pairs you had in mind. You don't even make it clear what judge you are referring to.
-
Would you agree that had the jury been given an open an honest answer about the relatives inheriting all the money if Jeremy was convicted the outcome of the case would have been different. Also in asking about the relatives inheriting the money was probably connected to whether they believed the story about the silence.
It's just not good enough if Jeremy did this if he did that no one really knows what happened but when the police decided it was a suicide I would have thought between all of them they came to the conclusion that it was possible for Sheila to have carried out these murders. What conclusions and proof did they come to that it was suicide. Then a relative gets involved most of the evidence has already been damaged and it's all change Sheila couldn't have done it. I didn't see any evidence of the real family grieving they were too busy rummaging through the house. Why is Jeremys behaviour after the murders questioned not the real family.
-
IF JB's innocent, I personally think it's likely to be as a result of no more than two of these things (which is already horrendous)
You have no basis for saying "it's likely" without estimating just how likely, and no basis for saying "no more than two" without explaining how you arrived at that count, and what pairs you had in mind. You don't even make it clear what judge you are referring to.
The precursor was 'I personally think it's likely".
Every individual, you included as a scale of what they think is believable and what isn't. In my particular case, can buy into ANY of them individually, and buy into a couple of them occurring at the same time coincidentally, or even with confusion.
Do I think Jeremy could run 2 miles in 15 minutes across fields? yes. 12 minutes? possibly, 10 minutes? unlikely... it's a sliding scale.
Do you have a problem with me doing what any juror would do and deciding their own level of what's credible or not, or would you rather set out the facts as they happened?
I do not KNOW what the facts were, I know some of them, and some speculation and some I simply have to base on my own life experience ... it's like erm, how a jury works.
So, I arrive at my no more that two together 'number' simply from a belief that collusion by it's very nature needs two parties, but when you introduce three, the potential for disagreement between those parties increases exponentially.
The 'Judge' with a capital J would be the presiding Judge at the trial. Who the Judge (Drake) was isn't relevant, only his role.
-
Would you agree that had the jury been given an open an honest answer about the relatives inheriting all the money if Jeremy was convicted the outcome of the case would have been different. Also in asking about the relatives inheriting the money was probably connected to whether they believed the story about the silence.
It's just not good enough if Jeremy did this if he did that no one really knows what happened but when the police decided it was a suicide I would have thought between all of them they came to the conclusion that it was possible for Sheila to have carried out these murders. What conclusions and proof did they come to that it was suicide. Then a relative gets involved most of the evidence has already been damaged and it's all change Sheila couldn't have done it. I didn't see any evidence of the real family grieving they were too busy rummaging through the house. Why is Jeremys behaviour after the murders questioned not the real family.
Because Jeremy was the accused unfortunately that's why his behaviour was investigated to a higher degree than others. Even so, the family and the Mugford were also investigated.
The jury were told of the inheritance details.
-
You cannot have it both ways that the Police thought it was suicide (which they did, and could have been right) and use that as an indicator of it being a valid view that suicide was convincing (which is was), THEN not accept that the silencer evidence which the police also bought into wasn't credible.
You're using the police judgment to back up the suicide credibility, but not use the same judgment with the silencer.
It wasn't really the police's initial judgment (based in Jeremy's account to them, and of their own view of the scene on entry) that caused the problems. It was the fact that they allowed this initial judgment to influence all that they did thereafter and 'skimp' out on the collection of evidence, cutting corners etc. However well intentioned it might have been (or ulterior) it was the gathering of evidence that made a mess of this case.
The repercussions of these mistakes became (and were also going to become) political, and it's THIS upon which I believe JB's strongest case lies. The Judge was aware of much of this mess at the trial, although, not aware of it all.
I don't think a court will change it's decision on new interpretations of the evidence that was presented at the time (unless it's of a magnitude way WAY beyond anything that's surfaced so far), but it MAY do if the scope of all the evidence that was LOST was quantifiable in an understandable way.
This is a crass illustration but:
If said there were 10 pieces of evidence supporting JB being guilty, and 5 supporting Sheila being guilty (just an example!!!!) then this can look quite bad for Jeremy.
If you know that 300 pieces of evidence were 'lost' as a result of the fiasco, then the the 10:5 balance no longer looks like he's twice as likely to be the killer - it look MUCH more like pure luck he got 10 and she got 5, but had the 300 been available, she might easily have overtaken Jeremy.
Like I said, not the best analogy but that's the reality of how much could have been lost in releasing the building back to the family after 2 days, and of not doing their jobs in those two days anyway!
The current strategy for JB's defence team isn't working (imo) and countless times 'new unearthed evidence' has proven to be discounted with aplomb.
-
To TBM
As you seem really knowledgable about most things and I enjoy reading your posts in a case like the Guildford Four where a certain piece of information was witheld and people were kept in prison for a number of years when they shouldn't be if a person or people knew that information was available and would keep it hidden are those people always prosecuted
-
To TBM
I think you must be a barrister?
-
I must think up some more questions for you!
But I'm not sure the jury did have the correct information about the inheritance i hope Mike can help me out
-
I must think up some more questions for you!
But I'm not sure the jury did have the correct information about the inheritance i hope Mike can help me out
The Jury were aware of the correct information about inheritance.
In fact the jury specifically asked the question: "If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family?
As proof of this have a look at Ground No. 10 in the 2002 appeal Judgement.
-
Such a good post Robholt
In this country we are forced to be jury members and with that huge weight of responsibility we deserve to be given the full facts of the case. On that evidence a jury makes a decision and sometimes it will be wrong but more often it is the right decision. There have been too many miscarriages of justice in this country because certain evidence is witheld and in this case I believe there was information available but witheld
Good points and well made, jackiepreece.
-
No they aren't always prosecuted. Which is a real travesty.
They are usually out of a job, hushed out if you will, and the CPS don't have the will or money to go chasing it all. It ends up being 'not in the public interest to pursue it' etc etc.
Now this is going to be VERY controversial, but:
you're all aware of Mr Ian Brady yes? or Mr Peter Sutcliffe? (I'm sure you are).
Now what if Mr Sutcliffe said, actually it wasn't me and I'd like to prove it. Could you please forward me all the photos of the women please, and any details of the cases? EVERYTHING please?
It's expensive to do that, AND there's a danger he's hmmm how can I put this, getting gratitude from it?
This was one of the problems with Brady and Hindley when Peter Topping requested special dispensation for them to revisit Saddleworth Moor to help the police identify possible body locations. It was a concern that they may actually get a thrill from it. Many of the public strongly objected.
In the end, they did recover one body, never found the other - but you see the problem? When you think someone's innocent letting them have access to everything seems a good thing, but when you think they are guilty it can feel like they are 'taking the system for a ride' (at best) or worse (seeking publicity, seeking to be vexatious, or even getting a kick from it).
Just to get one court case transcript can costs 20 thousand pounds or more (someone has to type it, and verify it, and all the damn overhead costs etc), and there aren't limitless resources to pander to Bamber, or Huntley, or anybody for that matter.
I am NOT saying it's right, just saying that sometimes, full access to all the info isn't as simple as it sounds.
The Guildford Four? it's always gone on, and still does today. Plenty of 'stitch ups' happen.
With regard to the Bamber case, it's entirely possible he was stitched up (imo) but unlikely (imo).
The reasons I think this?
If the evidence presented came only from the Police, it might look like questionable for the Police, esp given their mistakes on the case from the start.
If the evidence came only from the family? the same - the question on motive is impossible to ignore, and it's impossible to ignore that they HAD a motive.
If the evidence came only from Mugford? the same as per the family.
All three colluding together start to become a little less believable (to me personally).
Then we have to look at Jeremy's own actions. Which, in their own right do NOT make a man guilty - so what if he liked to spend reasonably lavishly after the deaths? or chose to 'get away from it all' ?
But he broke and entered into the home after release from the Police under bail with regard to being a suspect for murder. Foolish young man? quite possibly, but nobody colluded to make him do that - THAT was of his own volition.
To 'eagerly' sell artifacts from the house and from Sheila's flat? again, not wrong on their own, but when combined with other evidence, it corroborates rather than goes against what others were claiming.
It's for that reason Jeremy ended up being convicted. Just too many parties involved to make a 'stitch up' sound feasible.
This is a huge problem I'm having here... this notion of 'likelihood' vs 'possibility'.
Here's an example:
I get caught for speeding at 40mph in a 30 zone. I claim I had no idea it was 30 and ask to be let off
The officer shows me a sign saying 30 and I say I must have missed it.
He then points out that there are 4 signs I've gone past, so I explain I must have missed them all
He then says "I've booked you before on this road" ... and I claim oh yes, I remember now, I just forgot.
He then asks where I live and I explain "around the corner"
if you take any one thing, it's believable
if you take ALL of them, it's possible
but
It really is very unlikely.
And just because my defence team pulls out ALL those 'possibles' you can't NOT convict just because there is a theoretical possibility.
For some cases, the jury must work on 'the balance of probability' meaning "quite likely"
For murder, the jury must believe 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. That does NOT mean NO doubt, but beyond all REASONABLE doubt.
The slight doubts that I might have been telling the truth in my speeding incident are not 'reasonable' doubt when summed together.
-
Can I believe a few bent coppers 'helped' the case? yes (not saying they did)
Can I believe Mugford lied? yes
Can I believe the family colluded? at a push, yes but the more involved, the less likely
Can I believe the Judge was fooled by all this (knowing full well the police had cocked up in the first place)? Yes, but unlikely
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees? Not really, I still accept it's possible, but so very unlikely.
How about:
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
-
The precursor was 'I personally think it's likely".
So? Everybody's thinking is personal - what else could it be?
Every individual, you included as a scale of what they think is believable and what isn't.
I don't understand that - is the word "you" referring to me or to other people in general, and how could you (or anyone) possibly know what every individual thinks?
In my particular case, can buy into ANY of them individually, and buy into a couple of them occurring at the same time coincidentally, or even with confusion.
Which couple? Any couple? Why include the trial judge? It was the jury that decided the case, not the judge. Look back at your post - you gave four "I can believe..." statements, and then a fifth statement that began "Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?" Surely "these things" is referring to the preceding four statements, but you refer to "all 5". What have I missed or are you simply counting incorrectly?
Do I think Jeremy could run 2 miles in 15 minutes across fields? yes. 12 minutes? possibly, 10 minutes? unlikely... it's a sliding scale.
That's fine. Estimating in relation to such physical achievements is quite easy. Estimating the likelihood of the relatives having colluded with Julie is much harder, as there is so little information available about that.
Do you have a problem with me doing what any juror would do and deciding their own level of what's credible or not, . . . ?
Yes, because that's not what jurors should do. They should consider the evidence and each should choose "guilty" if, and only if, they are sure, on the basis of the evidence, that the accused is guilty.
or would you rather set out the facts as they happened?
I don't understand - that doesn't seem to have any bearing on what I wrote.
I do not KNOW what the facts were, I know some of them, and some speculation and some I simply have to base on my own life experience ... it's like erm, how a jury works.
Some what? Facts? Your life experiences can help you form an opinion as to whether Julie lied in court, but your conclusion wouldn't reasonably be called fact. Also, your thinking needs to be explained, as otherwise what you're saying would reduce to "based on my life experiences, and what I've read about the case, I am currently 80% - 90% convinced that Jeremy is guilty". That's saying very little if you don't give a detailed explanation of how you arrived at those figures. Note that if that's the best you could do as a juror in a hypothetical retrial of Jeremy, your vote ought to be "not guilty".
-
Can I believe a few bent coppers 'helped' the case? yes (not saying they did)
Can I believe Mugford lied? yes
Can I believe the family colluded? at a push, yes but the more involved, the less likely
Can I believe the Judge was fooled by all this (knowing full well the police had cocked up in the first place)? Yes, but unlikely
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees? Not really, I still accept it's possible, but so very unlikely.
How about:
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
-
so one man killing his family for 300K doesn't work for you
but 4-5 independent parties committing a guy to life does?
As much a rag as the NOTW is (and always was), and of course they paid Mugford, I can't quite think they'd send a guy down for life for a story. They'd gladly pay 25K for an exclusive from Mugford though.
Of course judges make mistakes
By your reckoning, the coppers were bent before they arrived then?
all of them?
even the guy at the control room ? he's in on it too?
nah, sorry.
Missing a body they should have seen I can believe
Covering it up too
agreeing that (in their eyes) it didn't matter - yep
it getting out of hand and too late to own up? yep
The family wanting their hands on the money? yep
having an non family independent witness when they find the silence? hmmm tricky.... guess they 'planted' it before hand eh?
I'm sorry I thought I was a real cynic, but even I can't buy into all 6 events!
I've always said a couple (maybe even three) but not them all!!!
in a way though, you're an optimist too (depends on your point of view) I suppose!
Even if you were right and all 6 happened, and I was JB with you defending me, I'd still have to say "don't argue for all 6, cos even if you're right, I don't think a jury will go for all 6".
Would you? if you were JB? (serious question, not being funny), would you bet the jury would believe all 6 happened rather than your chances of persuading them 2 or 3 did?
-
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
My count was based on your original list, and posted before I'd seen your revised list.
-
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
It is, isn't it? :O)
-
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
It is, isn't it? :O)
Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.
Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.
I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.
She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.
If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.
-
Okay then, six "I believe..." statements. Unfortunately, they are related statements, so they needn't stack to the degree implied. The second is strongly suggestive of the first, and the third is suggestive of the fourth. Also, the fifth is quite plausible anyway, and the sixth is irrelevant, as the trial outcome was determined by the jury, not the judge. Or is it the 2002 appeal judges that are now being referred to?
-
Okay then, six "I believe..." statements. Unfortunately, they are related statements, so they needn't stack to the degree implied. The second is strongly suggestive of the first, and the third is suggestive of the fourth. Also, the fifth is quite plausible anyway, and the sixth is irrelevant, as the trial outcome was determined by the jury, not the judge. Or is it the 2002 appeal judges that are now being referred to?
I do believe as crazy as it sounds, the Judge still has the final say even with a Jury (hardly ever acted upon of course).
My '5 things' are different than choco's but of a similar vein, but yes some are almost a consequence of others (a couple of mistakes by a few coppers leads to hiding the mistakes by a few more coppers).
But mistakes by coppers causing Mugford's lies are harder to argue.
Now, you make a decent case that these things influenced each other....
So let's say the family pester the police about JB being guilty, so mugford sees her chance and decides to invent her story (not in collusion with the family, but is smart enough to know that adding to it will really put the cat amongst the pigeons).
I wonder if Mugford would really realise the consequences of him being convicted? Probably not that it would be TRUE whole of life. But she might have though 15 years, out in 10, and that was 'ok' for him betraying her, and a nice 25K in her pocket (which was a fair amount of money then).
As for Ann and David and silencer - how did they get the witness (the accountant) to collude with them? OR did they plant the silencer the night before? or even whip it out of his pocket and say "oh look what I've found?"
I find the whole business of taking it home very odd! - I think I would be taking it to the police station... whatever time of day or night it was.
-
so one man killing his family for 300K doesn't work for you.
Precisely where do you claim I either stated or implied that? Of course someone might kill for 300K, people have been killed for far less than that. Criticise my views by all means, TBM, be my guest, but on the basis of the views I've actually expressed, not with a straw man account of your own making.
but 4-5 independent parties committing a guy to life does?
Didn't say that either, I said jealousy and self interest - and I accept that this is a crass over-simplification of a complex of factors.
As much a rag as the NOTW is (and always was), and of course they paid Mugford, I can't quite think they'd send a guy down for life for a story. They'd gladly pay 25K for an exclusive from Mugford though.
I don't believe they'd knowingly send someone down for a story either. But the fact remains that some elements of the press were paying huge sums for sensationalised accounts which were judged to have tipped the balance in some cases. Here's a piece from the Independent regarding this:
"Lord Wakeham's concern reflects mounting worry in legal and political circles about the press's conduct in criminal trials. Mark Stephens, solicitor for the Taylor sisters, whose convictions for murder were quashed last year after prejudicial reporting of their trial, said paying witnesses could jeopardise criminal cases.
"It was an issue in the OJ [Simpson] case. People who think they may be able to sell their story ... may enhance or add to their accounts. So the risk is outright lies or embellishment," Mr Stephens said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/newspapers-paid-west-witnesses-1581685.html
Which part of Lord Wakeham's concerns do you believe are groundless - and why?
By your reckoning, the coppers were bent before they arrived then? all of them? even the guy at the control room ? he's in on it too?
Nope, just human: most of us cover up our failings. But sometimes it can get out of hand.
would you bet the jury would believe all 6 happened rather than your chances of persuading them 2 or 3 did?
In the days when I represented clients at tribunals I would have focussed on the strongest aspects of the case.
-
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
It is, isn't it? :O)
Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.
Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.
I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.
She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.
If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.
Good post! + 1
-
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
It is, isn't it? :O)
Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.
Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.
I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.
She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.
If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.
Good post! + 1
"there was a real sense that he was revelling in being the centre of attention"
My cousin who was raised in a children's home then fostered as an older child, is, like Jeremy Bamber, extraordinarily attractive. She tells me how she and others used to hide under the stairs in the children's home when the 'new mummies and daddies' used to visit to choose a child: a fear of rejection that's haunted her throughout her life. She says that has always felt rootless and invisible and that she tends to be an attention seeker to compensate for that.
-
She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) . . .
The story is subtitled "David Connett revisits the story he first covered...", yet the name Serrena Pang is given at the end.
As for Ann and David and silencer - how did they get the witness (the accountant) to collude with them?
Your point about the accountant is interesting, but was evidence from him used in the trial and is he still alive? It was later noticed that he was referred to (by Ann Eaton, I think) as having grumbled about the omnipresence of fingerprinting powder, but I doubt that there was enough time prior to the alleged date of finding of the sound moderator for extensive dusting for fingerprints to have been done, and there's no documentation to confirm WHF was dusted for fingerprint searches before September 1985.
-
Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?
Oh, yes.
That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!
It is, isn't it? :O)
Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.
Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.
I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.
She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.
If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.
Thank you for the article from the Independent, I agree that it's excellent. I wonder what conclusions the reporter would reached regarding guilt or innocence if the trial had had access to the key parts of all of that withheld evidence?
As you describe so well, we are all indeed tossed to and fro on the tide of conflicting evidence and emotions emerging on this forum. What is it about Jeremy Bamber that makes him such a perfect catalyst or conduit for that emotional ebb and flo? His self assurance, so devoid of emotion?
-
It amazes me how there was so much importance regarding Julie Mugfords testimony in court. From what I can tell,she never had anything actually concrete to tell the courts,if you know what I mean? It was all a kind of he said - she said kind of thing.JB told me this and JB told me that! Its a lot different to saying - well I actually saw him purchase the bullets that were needed or I was actually with him when he was doing trial trial runs to and from whf to see which was the quickest route.The best she could come up with was - I saw him strangle rats so he could ascertain whether he could actually kill somebody!Its common knowledge that farm people often have to,in fact,kill animals.Recently in court,a friend of mine was told by her solicitor that there was no point in going with the he said,she said thing as it would just be regarded as "hearsay".
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.
I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all
Or a siege in Rothbury....
When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...
I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.
Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. ;D
Hi Kaldin - have you seen my post on Lowell Lee on "Other High Profile Cases?
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.
I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all
Or a siege in Rothbury....
When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...
I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.
Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. ;D
Hi Kaldin - have you seen my post on Lowell Lee on "Other High Profile Cases?
Hello Newbury.
No I haven't - will have a look, ta.
-
It amazes me how there was so much importance regarding Julie Mugfords testimony in court. From what I can tell,she never had anything actually concrete to tell the courts,if you know what I mean? It was all a kind of he said - she said kind of thing.JB told me this and JB told me that! Its a lot different to saying - well I actually saw him purchase the bullets that were needed or I was actually with him when he was doing trial trial runs to and from whf to see which was the quickest route.The best she could come up with was - I saw him strangle rats so he could ascertain whether he could actually kill somebody!Its common knowledge that farm people often have to,in fact,kill animals.Recently in court,a friend of mine was told by her solicitor that there was no point in going with the he said,she said thing as it would just be regarded as "hearsay".
I think it was the nail in his coffin for want of a better expression.
I do agree that her motives were questionable (but that's true of the family too, and the police) - but, when all added up, I 'think' (but don't know) that the jury believed it unlikely that they all ganged up on him, and unlikely that they all independently chose to 'stitch him up'.
They were very explicitly told (as it was agreed by both sides) that it's essentially Sheila or Jeremy, and that was that.
If if had been Jeremy, or a robbery etc etc things MIGHT have looked different, but that was it... Sheila or Jeremy.
If you can't quite believe Sheila could do it, then by default, Jeremy did (and vice versa). I can genuinely think some jurors thought "I'm 99% of the feeling it wasn't Sheila" and paradoxically thinking "but I'm not 99% he did it, I'm only 60% sure he did it" (mathematically, this cannot be, but in their hearts and minds it's possible".
IF their belief in Sheila's innocence happened to win the day, then by default, Jeremy did it - and so Mugford just helped them confirm that... along the lines of
"I'm struggling to believe Sheila did it, so it must have been Jeremy (even though I'm not 100% convinced) - but Mugford says it was him too, and the family seem to think so, so that makes it easier for me to go along with it too"
It's this 'him or her' scenario that's quite rare. If Sheila had been found to be the killer, I think we'd still be here today with people saying "do you really think the brother had nothing to do with it?... when he made the call, and inherited it all etc etc".
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. He was pitched against 'Bambi' for heaven's sake. Beautiful young lady, with beautiful little twins - how could SHE have done this?
And her arrogant, suave, cocky young brother with a taste for the 'good life' living it up in the wake of their deaths?
Oh and in court, Mugford 'appeared' human - she cried, clearly upset etc. She was 21, still a 'girl' in some people's eyes - too young to be so calculating.
Bamber appeared cold and aloof (by all accounts). Possibly this was confidence in his innocence, but even innocent people up for murder get worried it might all go wrong.
And his remarks: "well, that's for you to prove isn't it?". Nothing wrong with that - but it's not the way to win people over when your liberty depends on it.
Mugford saying it was him just made the decision easier.
p.s. It is not MY opinion about 'arrogant / cocky etc', just how it was presented then, and still is today, but his demeanour and appearance almost certainly did him no favours, and matched many people's impression of the stereotypical spoilt brat.
-
Re Julie Mugford - that's a tough one and I agree that she had a motive to lie. She had been dumped, she didn't want anyone else to have Jeremy, and what better way to ensure nobody else did have him than by getting him sent to prison?
I watched an old You Tube of the funeral yesterday, and it showed Jeremy getting out of the car followed by Julie who immediately grabbed his hand. She had no problem with sticking by him at that time and yet just over two weeks later that had all changed. I do find it hard to believe that she suddenly turned on him because she'd been dumped and that she didn't try to get him back before going to the police. That suggests to me that she perhaps didn't really want him back.
If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.
-
If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.
That's what I keep thinking back to, could she have lied so convincingly to persuade the police, the judge and the jury and withstand hostile cross-examination by the defence?
I don't know, I don't think so, but I wasn't there and for a balanced view I suppose I'd concede that it is possible.
I don't really subscribe to the theory that she broke down when the defence cross-examined her and therefore they couldn't crack her. That's what these people do, the are experts at cross-examining witnesses, if a few tears thwarted them so easily then I wouldn't want them representing me any time soon (not that they would need to of course :P ).
-
Once the relatives had got the police to believe that the suicides could be in fact murders by JB the probably knew they were in trouble because they had already investigating the suicide theory and agreed this had happened. Once it turned into a murder enquiry they must have been desperate to solve the case and there was only one person in the frame JB because of the phone call. It is well known on a number of cases that police under pressure have wrongly charged someone to get that important result solving the case. A very extreme case Colin Stagg when the police had no real evidence to charge him. When the relatives came forward with the silencer the police might probably have still thought they still had a weak case. Then hey presto Julie Mugford tells her story and I think the amount of pressure they put on her giving statements could be changeable with regard to how important it was to get her to give evidence in court and help solve this high profile case that Essex police had already messed up. In MY OPINION that is what happened because there was absolutely no reason why she was not charged with something regarding this case. Why give her immunity when she had already told her story. She was probably laughing her head off having Essex Police run around after her as the star witness.
You only have to remember that she volunteered to identify the bodies to realise Julie mugford was no ordinary girl
-
Re Julie Mugford - that's a tough one and I agree that she had a motive to lie. She had been dumped, she didn't want anyone else to have Jeremy, and what better way to ensure nobody else did have him than by getting him sent to prison?
I watched an old You Tube of the funeral yesterday, and it showed Jeremy getting out of the car followed by Julie who immediately grabbed his hand. She had no problem with sticking by him at that time and yet just over two weeks later that had all changed. I do find it hard to believe that she suddenly turned on him because she'd been dumped and that she didn't try to get him back before going to the police. That suggests to me that she perhaps didn't really want him back.
If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.
The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.
Also, Mugford went to the police with the hitman story. Either very cunning on her part (knowing they'd figure that was wrong but get wise to Jeremy, and make paradoxically sound more plausible) OR Bamber did tell her it was a hitman and it was his way of telling her but not being THE actual killer.
And, for all we know, there still could have been a hitman! (But so far, all parties seem happy to discount that notion)
-
The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.
Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.
-
Once the relatives had got the police to believe that the suicides could be in fact murders by JB the probably knew they were in trouble because they had already investigating the suicide theory and agreed this had happened. Once it turned into a murder enquiry they must have been desperate to solve the case and there was only one person in the frame JB because of the phone call. It is well known on a number of cases that police under pressure have wrongly charged someone to get that important result solving the case. A very extreme case Colin Stagg when the police had no real evidence to charge him. When the relatives came forward with the silencer the police might probably have still thought they still had a weak case. Then hey presto Julie Mugford tells her story and I think the amount of pressure they put on her giving statements could be changeable with regard to how important it was to get her to give evidence in court and help solve this high profile case that Essex police had already messed up. In MY OPINION that is what happened because there was absolutely no reason why she was not charged with something regarding this case. Why give her immunity when she had already told her story. She was probably laughing her head off having Essex Police run around after her as the star witness.
You only have to remember that she volunteered to identify the bodies to realise Julie mugford was no ordinary girl
Oh that's a very tricky argument. It's valid absolutely, but it's just as valid to say it was in the Police's interests that they were RIGHT and it was a suicide.
I think the solutions in order of preference (for the police) would have been:
1) Jeremy quickly proven to be innocent (family wrong) and their years of policing insight proved to be right yet again.... Suicide it was.
They'd take a bit of flak for the evidence gathering, but the right outcome was reached and they aren't 'intuitive' coppers for nothing ;-)
2) Jeremy found guilty
Ok they made a mess of things, but quickly recovered and managed to get their man in the end.
And it just goes to show they aren't too big to change their minds - what a great policing outfit they are.
3) Jeremy found innocent (at trial)
THIS is a nightmare for them... they made mistakes gathering evidence, then chased their man and it turns out HE was innocent too. What a hapless police force (or farce).
Not only that, but there will be others saying a killer got off Scot Free thanks to the police's incompetence.
Just my view of things. Maybe the liked option 2 best of all not because it was easier for them, but option 1 was 'too' good for them, and so would look suspect!
Perhaps the family knew Jeremy better than the Police did. They might not have known he was a killer, but they thought he was a 'bit of a lad' who never had much time for his parents.
They had their suspicions and Ann pressed the police to take it more seriously.
Over time, Jeremy started exhibiting his 'true' self, and started getting too cocky, too soon, and only confirmed all that the family had suggested. By now, even the police and wider community could see the side of him that was usually only seen by the family.
... and the rest is history.
-
The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.
Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.
Absolutely correct - I've laughed being told someone's died (in shock)
and who knows if I'd go out and get drunk after my family was killed, or want to overcompensate by spending lots of money, or getting away from it all.
So what if he WAS arrogant and cocky? a murderer this does not make!
But I do believe they played a part in his downfall.
It's when you sum up all the 'odd' things - the selling the treasures rapidly, the breaking back into the house, the spending afterwards.... AND you combine that with "we aren't just here today to judge if Jeremy might be the killer from many other possibilities.... we are agreed it was either HIM or HER" then that becomes a very different matter.
it's that if it wasn't her - it must have been him scenario that the jury were faced with, and add on all those other factors, AND the family and mugford wading in too.... he was done for
-
The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.
Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.
Absolutely correct - I've laughed being told someone's died (in shock)
and who knows if I'd go out and get drunk after my family was killed, or want to overcompensate by spending lots of money, or getting away from it all.
So what if he WAS arrogant and cocky? a murderer this does not make!
But I do believe they played a part in his downfall.
It's when you sum up all the 'odd' things - the selling the treasures rapidly, the breaking back into the house, the spending afterwards.... AND you combine that with "we aren't just here today to judge if Jeremy might be the killer from many other possibilities.... we are agreed it was either HIM or HER" then that becomes a very different matter.
I agree, his attitude hasn't done him any favours, either in these criminal trials and appeals, or indeed in the various civil court hearings.
-
Re Julie Mugford - that's a tough one and I agree that she had a motive to lie. She had been dumped, she didn't want anyone else to have Jeremy, and what better way to ensure nobody else did have him than by getting him sent to prison?
I watched an old You Tube of the funeral yesterday, and it showed Jeremy getting out of the car followed by Julie who immediately grabbed his hand. She had no problem with sticking by him at that time and yet just over two weeks later that had all changed. I do find it hard to believe that she suddenly turned on him because she'd been dumped and that she didn't try to get him back before going to the police. That suggests to me that she perhaps didn't really want him back.
If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.
The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.
Also, Mugford went to the police with the hitman story. Either very cunning on her part (knowing they'd figure that was wrong but get wise to Jeremy, and make paradoxically sound more plausible) OR Bamber did tell her it was a hitman and it was his way of telling her but not being THE actual killer.
And, for all we know, there still could have been a hitman! (But so far, all parties seem happy to discount that notion)
When I watched the video I thought how fake his demeanour was, but that doesn't really indicate anything. He knew everyone would be looking at him, including the press, so perhaps he was self-conscious, and as you say, people do smirk when they know they shouldn't.
-
A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?
-
Well here is is - see for yourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbviIWnw3S8&feature=player_embedded
-
A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?
JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.
Little wonder he smiled.
-
A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?
JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.
Little wonder he smiled.
They are referring to a smirk at the funeral though, not coming out of court.
-
Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.
Why would she offer considering all she knew!
I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!
Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness
-
Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.
Why would she offer considering all she knew!
I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!
Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness
Just out of curiosity where does it say that she offered to identify the bodies? I don't get why she would either, unless she was at the police station and they had asked her to.
I don't know the protocol for official identification of bodies but isn't it normally a family member who is required to do so?
-
Well here is is - see for yourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbviIWnw3S8&feature=player_embedded
It looks to me like he just gave a quick, polite smile to the people waiting to greet him, not a smirk. There are other people in the video amongst the mourners, though, who are definitely laughing and joking.
-
Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.
Why would she offer considering all she knew!
I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!
Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness
Just out of curiosity where does it say that she offered to identify the bodies? I don't get why she would either, unless she was at the police station and they had asked her to.
I don't know the protocol for official identification of bodies but isn't it normally a family member who is required to do so?
If Julie did offer she may have been prompted by Jeremy who was either "too upset" to go or did not want to see his handy work again!
If JB had prompted her it may have been to tie her further into the plot - just an opinion.
Mike T is there a comment you have from JB on this?
-
A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?
JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.
Little wonder he smiled.
Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?
Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?
Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?
Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?
Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?
Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?
-
WHOA WHOA!!!!!
It's a passing comment 'looked like a smirk'
at this stage she'd committed suicide. He wasn't a suspect (certainly not to the outside world)
And yes, there's other smiling / joking etc (as people do trying to keep emotions in check).
There's no suggestion at all that he's done a thing wrong from the videos, or anything in his manner was wrong.
Once you think he MAY have been the killer, you can look back and see something very differently.
-
Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?
Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?
Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?
Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?
Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?
Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?
Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).
That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.
I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".
-
Going back to Julie Mugford and the possibility of someone holding a made up story
I remember a case of Tracey Andrews who stabbed her boyfriend to death and made out it was road rage. She even sat in a press conference with the victims family appealing for witnesses. She stuck to that story all through the trial.
Incidentally I read a story that she is due out of prison soon after 12 years and the victims family have protested to try to keep her in prison longer to no avail.
It's fully how the relatives if JB seem to influence what happens to him as a prisoner.
-
Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?
Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?
Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?
Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?
Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?
Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?
Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).
That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.
I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".
Does anyone have any info on who JB's supporters were? I've just read on another thread that even the WHF Housekeeper thought in her heart of hearts that he'd done it. There seems to be consistant theme that jeremy was a 'wrong'un'. Think he definately has become damned in the minds of the wider general public for those caddish looks on the smiling photos. Was his support vocal and did they muster any kind of defence of his character?
-
Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?
Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?
Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?
Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?
Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?
Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?
Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).
That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.
I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".
Does anyone have any info on who JB's supporters were? I've just read on another thread that even the WHF Housekeeper thought in her heart of hearts that he'd done it. There seems to be consistant theme that jeremy was a 'wrong'un'. Think he definately has become damned in the minds of the wider general public for those caddish looks on the smiling photos. Was his support vocal and did they muster any kind of defence of his character?
Just be careful of all that - 25 years on it's very easy for folks to start slipping in little unsubstantiated facts. Very few were actually privy to any of this information really.
If you go in a pub tonight and mention Bamber (for those that can recall the case) most will say "oh yes, he's the bloke that did this, or that" and all their info will have come from newspapers, hearsay and memory. Very few will have actually done much research into it. Some might, but generally most won't have.
Some might even say "oh he's the bloke that's just found proof he's innocent" - another headline from the press.
I expect he had some on his side, some not.
The rumours COULD be right, but it's just so easy to say stuff and it be wrong.
You get a lot of "I lived in the next village" They all KNEW he'd done it etc. (yeah, after the fact) funny how none of them went to the police though eh?
-
I remember a case of Tracey Andrews . . . I read a story that she is due out of prison soon after 12 years . . .
It was Tracie, and she could be out in July 2011, after 15 years.
-
I've just watched that funeral video again, he looks pale and nervous to me as he steps out of the car.
-
I've just watched that funeral video again, he looks pale and nervous to me as he steps out of the car.
I don't think much can be read in to the funeral footage either way.
One half say they are crocodile tears, the other half sheer grief.
I see a slight snigger, others see a nervous smile.
I think this was always one of his problems - his demeanour, his looks and his attitude. One man's self assurance is another's arrogant cocky brat.
-
I've just watched that funeral video again, he looks pale and nervous to me as he steps out of the car.
I don't think much can be read in to the funeral footage either way.
One half say they are crocodile tears, the other half sheer grief.
I see a slight snigger, others see a nervous smile.
I think this was always one of his problems - his demeanour, his looks and his attitude. One man's self assurance is another's arrogant cocky brat.
[/quote
Pretty much agree with that. Think too much has been made of his demeanour. Getting back to my query about his friends / supporters at the time, have they been silent all this time or have they attempted to be vocal / stuck by him at all? Dont know if anyone can answer that on here.
-
Going back to Julie Mugford and the possibility of someone holding a made up story
I remember a case of Tracey Andrews who stabbed her boyfriend to death and made out it was road rage. She even sat in a press conference with the victims family appealing for witnesses. She stuck to that story all through the trial.
Incidentally I read a story that she is due out of prison soon after 12 years and the victims family have protested to try to keep her in prison longer to no avail.
It is interesting to see you raise this case Jackie - how are you sure that she's guilty? You have a very clear view that JB is innocent but you seem to be very convinced of TA's guilt.
It's fully how the relatives if JB seem to influence what happens to him as a prisoner.
Don't get this bit :(
-
WHOA WHOA!!!!!
It's a passing comment 'looked like a smirk'
at this stage she'd committed suicide. He wasn't a suspect (certainly not to the outside world)
And yes, there's other smiling / joking etc (as people do trying to keep emotions in check).
There's no suggestion at all that he's done a thing wrong from the videos, or anything in his manner was wrong.
Once you think he MAY have been the killer, you can look back and see something very differently.
TBM and Hartley,
Very true. I wrote this PM's post during a lull at my office: a daft thing to do as I couldn't view the video and the office invariably becomes busier when I'm midway through a blog post, so I end up rushing and writing gibberish. I thought the video was one of JB outside the court and was speaking in general terms, of the response of the press to JB throughout the case, that's why I refer to the court case too. That'll teach me to post while supposedly working.
-
I find it interesting that Pamela Boutflour was not involved very much with the "relatives own investigation".Does anybody know very much about her? I would be very interested to know if she was very religious like her sister June.I believe that Pamela was aware as to how ill Sheila was and this was the reason for her 10pm phonecall to whf,to enquire after Sheila?