Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on December 18, 2013, 12:56:AM
-
Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?
Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?
Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole.
Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ?
The jury should ignore the media.
Every witness in the trial is equal.
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ?
Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ?
Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ?
The judge said Bamber should know whether he phoned Witham police station or not.
The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence.
Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ?
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ?
There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction.
Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ?
The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ?
Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place.
Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ?
If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.
If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes.
Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.
Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons.
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.
The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night.
The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ?
The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard.
The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party.
-
The defence were very upset at the summing up. Even the prosecution were quite surprised.
A judge can only sum up on the evidence presented. Weak evidence either way will result in the summing up favouring the defence or prosecution.
Jeremy felt the summing up was bad enough to make a quick appeal on the off chance it would result in an early realease. It failed but no harm in trying.
-
Paint samples were originally taken from the aga surround because a gun had been found downstairs with red paint on its barrel. (See Neil Davidsons COLP statement). Obviously this was covered up when the nature of the investigation changed,so that the paint evidence could be introduced on to the silencer that DB allegedly 'found' in the gun cupboard. Initially,a silencer SBJ/1 was found at the scene (see video clip of press conference with EP) which was forensically tested and NOTHING was found either on or in it! Silencer evidence is bogus and even the 'guilters' know it!
-
Morning Adam
please refresh me on this evidence presented in Court by the prosecution against Jeremy Bamber. I recall the "silencer" bogus evidence and the testimony given by Julie!!!!!!!! and.............
-
Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?
Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?
Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole.
Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ?
The jury should ignore the media.
Every witness in the trial is equal.
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ?
Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ?
Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ?
The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence.
Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ?
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ?
There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction.
Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ?
The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ?
Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place.
Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ?
If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.
If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes.
Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.
Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons.
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.
The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night.
The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ?
The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard.
The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party.
Well done Adam. That seems to be a fairly comprehensive outline of the trial. Looking at all that I think I would have voted for a guilty verdict as well? ;D
-
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.
Did you mean to say this?
-
The defence were very upset at the summing up. Even the prosecution were quite surprised.
A judge can only sum up on the evidence presented. Weak evidence either way will result in the summing up favouring the defence or prosecution.
Jeremy felt the summing up was bad enough to make a quick appeal on the off chance it would result in an early realease. It failed but no harm in trying.
Time to examine the life of Ducky Drake methinks? ;) I have read the stories of Madam Whiplash and a certain "Ducky Drake" who she used to service to put it euphemistically. Could such a secret life of a judge be used to blackmail him? Madam Whiplash once boasted that if we knew the truth she could have brought down the government of the time. Are me permitted to inquire after the private life of this man? If this post is illegal no doubt the admin will edit it?
-
Some very interesting points made by the judge.
Does anyone know what about the summing up from the judge Jeremy was appealing about ? Or whether Jeremy felt the judge did not mention anything ?
It all seems to be in order to me.
-
Adam it does surprise me you have had Legal training ;D
-
I have had no legal training.
-
Jeremy broke into the caravan site & stole nearly £1,000. Then spent most of it.
He staged it to look like a break in. However Barbara Wilson says Neville knew about what Jeremy had done & decided not to prosecute. Did Neville suspect Jeremy & got a confession from Jeremy. Probably.
Anyway, Jeremy trusted Julie enough to have her help him. He also trusted that she would keep quiet.
Did he trust her enough after the murders, especially if he said he had hired a hit man.
-
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville to Jeremy happen ?
Well I posted 19 reasons why Neville would not make the call. Neville would just have to think of one of those.
-
YOU can't give ONE reason why Nevill wouldn't have made that call. Nevill was the only one to know what he would do.....................and only then when he was faced with it.
-
I posted that Mugford would not accuse an innocent man of planning & arranging a murder because he had apparently dumped her.
The judge tends to agree. Saying she kept to her version over nearly 2 days under expert cross examination. She cried but was not the first young woman to cry in court.
-
Adam I must have missed your 19 reasons for Nevill not making the call must read back through your posts then again maybe not ;D
-
The prosecution claimed to the jury that they had an overwhelming case, even without the silencer evidence.
They are right. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence & a lot things Jeremy says he cannot prove. There were also only two possible culprits.
-
Adam I must have missed your 19 reasons for Nevill not making the call must read back through your posts then again maybe not ;D
You did read it & responded to it.
-
I posted that Mugford would not accuse an innocent man of planning & arranging a murder because he had apparently dumped her.
The judge tends to agree. Saying she kept to her version over nearly 2 days under expert cross examination. She cried but was not the first young woman to cry in court.
Judges are not infallible. It wouldn't be the first time one of their number has been wrong.
-
The judge said the red paint on the silencer shows it was on the weapon during the fight.
Would Sheila in a psychotic episode take the time to put the silencer on ? If yes, why ? Did she know how to do it ? It is not easy.
Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle that night. Although another relative said he had seen the weapon with the silencer on.
-
Hello april exactly Judges get it wrong all the time. Julie only cried when the Defence were trying to question her the tears dried up for the prosecution ;D
-
Adam that just shows what a profound effect your posts have on me I am not aware I have read them ;D ;D ;D
-
Why would Sheila in the middle of a psychotic episode take the silencer off, put it in a box & then in the gun cupboard. Why ?
How did Sheila's blood get on the silencer ?
-
The judge said the red paint on the silencer shows it was on the weapon during the fight.
Would Sheila in a psychotic episode take the time to put the silencer on ? If yes, why ? Did she know how to do it ? It is not easy.
Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle that night. Although another relative said he had seen the weapon with the silencer on.
And who is to say that a silencer, SANS gun, wasn't independently used to scratch that surface and which particular relative was there during that evening to know one way or the other if the gun had a silencer on it?
-
Why would Sheila in the middle of a psychotic episode take the silencer off, put it in a box & then in the gun cupboard. Why ?
How did Sheila's blood get on the silencer ?
She didn't ,the silencer evidence is accepted by all as being dodgy and not all it seems which pretty much sums up you also
-
And who is to say that a silencer, SANS gun, wasn't independently used to scratch that surface and which particular relative was there during that evening to know one way or the other if the gun had a silencer on it?
Anthony Pargeter testified that he saw the rifle with the silencer attached 9 days before the murder. Cannot see any reason to take it off. It is better for shooting vermin & is time consuming taking it off.
-
She didn't ,the silencer evidence is accepted by all as being dodgy and not all it seems which pretty much sums up you also
The judge said there was overwhelming evidence the blood on the silencer was Sheila's.
Jeremy will of course try to discredit this as it forensic evidence against him.
-
The police mistakes are neither here or there according to the judge.
Some policemen testified they made mistakes.
The judge instructed the jury to make a decision based on the evidence presented at court. Early mistakes were made partly because the police were lead in a certain direction.
-
The judge said the total amount Jeremy could inherit could be a lot higher than £436,000.
The judge said the jury did not have to consider whether there was a motive. However in this case, the inheritance can be considered a motive.
-
The judge said there was overwhelming evidence the blood on the silencer was Sheila's.
Jeremy will of course try to discredit this as it forensic evidence against him.
The silencer was SAID to have been found, complete with a blob which looked like jam, and kept for a further few day with the rellies. ALL of whom handled it, meaning that said "blob" was getting on for 1 week old by the time it was taken for examination. One of our members bravely reconstructed the event and allowed a blob of her own blood to drip onto a similar surface. Just to refresh your memory, blood oxidizes!!!!! After a matter of just a FEW HOURS, having oxidized, it turned to powder and crumbled.
-
what date is this judges summing up supposed to be from?
-
what date is this judges summing up supposed to be from?
It is from the 1986 trial.
-
Now then. The hack saw.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw. But after the murders ? !
Did he not have a key to his own house ? If the police or relatives had the keys. Ask !
Perhaps Jeremy used the hack saw before the murders ? He did not have a key to WHF then.
-
Now then. The hack saw.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw. But after the murders ? !
Did he not have a key to his own house ? If the police or relatives had the keys. Ask !
Perhaps Jeremy used the hack saw before the murders ? He did not have a key to WHF then.
-
It is from the 1986 trial.
oh its just that you or steve Uk said that Jeremy never mentioned the supposed call from his father until 2002 or 2004 when the log was "discovered" but it is mentioned in the judges summing up. Just a bit strange.
-
Adam in one sentence you are asking did Jeremy not have a key to WHF next sentence you are saying he did not have a key to WHF. We discussed this with you earlier try and remember what was posted only two keys to the new door one held by the parents the other by Barbara Wilson. The reason the rellies had a key to the farm is because after the murders Jeremy gave them his key and this was how they managed to get in looking for evidence :'( in and out of the farm via a window Jeremy told the police he often accessed the farm this way if his parents were not there. Do you not read our posts.
-
Now then. The bike.
Jeremy had said that by August his relationship with Julie was coming to a close. Suddenly binging the bike to the cottage a few days before the murder is strange.
The judge said it is one of a number of 'curious coincidences' in this case.
-
HaHaHa jansus everything Adam says is strange ;D
-
oh its just that you or steve Uk said that Jeremy never mentioned the supposed call from his father until 2002 or 2004 when the log was "discovered" but it is mentioned in the judges summing up. Just a bit strange.
Of course Jeremy mentioned the alledged call from Neville. What was he supposed to say to the police on the night ?
-
Adam we have discussed the bike earlier it was tested forensically and we all know how much you take forensic testing as gospel. Move on.
-
Of course Jeremy mentioned the alledged call from Neville. What was he supposed to say to the police on the night ?
No = the call from Neville to the police!
It was either you or steve uk who posted that JB did not mention it until the log was "discovered"
-
Adam in one sentence you are asking did Jeremy not have a key to WHF next sentence you are saying he did not have a key to WHF. We discussed this with you earlier try and remember what was posted only two keys to the new door one held by the parents the other by Barbara Wilson. The reason the rellies had a key to the farm is because after the murders Jeremy gave them his key and this was how they managed to get in looking for evidence :'( in and out of the farm via a window Jeremy told the police he often accessed the farm this way if his parents were not there. Do you not read our posts.
Neville & June did not give Jeremy a front door key.
After the deaths WHF was Jeremys. He used it to enter & exit as he pleased & let in valuers for the items inside. If he needed to gain access after the murders, either use his own keys or get them back from the relatives. Did he not have a spare set ? If the police had the keys, ask. Why use a hacksaw after the murders ?
Perhaps he used the hacksaw before the murders & was making sure he could get a quiet entry prior to the murders ?
-
No = the call from Neville to the police!
It was either you or steve uk who posted that JB did not mention it until the log was "discovered"
Yes, Jeremy claimed Neville phoned the police several years later seeing a phone log. No one from EP have ever said they heard from Neville.
-
Adam we have discussed the bike earlier it was tested forensically and we all know how much you take forensic testing as gospel. Move on.
It is circumstantial evidence the judge spoke about in his summing up.
-
Yes, Jeremy claimed Neville phoned the police several years later seeing a phone log. No one from EP have ever said they heard from Neville.
so why is it mentioned in the judges summing up in 1986?
-
Now then. The 3.12am call to Mugford.
Jeremy in the interview transcripts initially said he phoned Mugford first. Then said he was not sure before eventually saying he phoned her after phoning the police.
However other witnesses testified it was around 3.12am. Did Jeremy fancy a chat at 3.12 ? Bit of a coincidence Neville rang a few minutes later when Jeremy said he was sleeping 'like a log'.
-
Adam in one sentence you are asking did Jeremy not have a key to WHF next sentence you are saying he did not have a key to WHF. We discussed this with you earlier try and remember what was posted only two keys to the new door one held by the parents the other by Barbara Wilson. The reason the rellies had a key to the farm is because after the murders Jeremy gave them his key and this was how they managed to get in looking for evidence :'( in and out of the farm via a window Jeremy told the police he often accessed the farm this way if his parents were not there. Do you not read our posts.
It appears to me judging by your words here that Jeremy was the only honest one there? First he innocently gave the key to his relatives, who immediately proceeded to look for "evidence" against him. I must admit that allegedly finding a silencer with blood on it was a stroke of genius on their part.
Then he "admits" (the murderer would never have done so) to using a hacksaw to get into WHF. And who was it who said he was reluctant to speak to the police? Who afterwards immediately used this peace of knowledge against him to pin the murders on him. It appears to me that Jeremy was being totally open and honest from the start?
-
The timings are interesting.
Sheila fought & brutally beat Neville. Took the silencer off, put it away. Washed & changed, went upstairs & shot herself between 3.26am - 3.48am.
-
Adam you are obsessed with this hacksaw, rusty old thing been lying there for ages suspect Jeremy could access the farm through a window without the aid of an hacksaw. Which part of only two keys to the door were given when the new door was fitted.don't you understand After the murders Jeremy told the police who had one key to give it to the rellies so they could search for clues ;D obviously if Jeremy had people visiting the farm valuing items he would not expect them to climb in through the windows in their posh suits. ;D ;D ;D ;D TWO KEYS ADAM TWO KEYS. No spare keys Adam. Barbara Wilson would be present to let people in. Guess what Adam just had a new door fitted guess how many keys we got TWO.
-
The timings are interesting.
Sheila fought & brutally beat Neville. Took the silencer off, put it away. Washed & changed, went upstairs & shot herself between 3.26am - 3.48am.
Is that so, Adam?
-
The judge said the red paint on the silencer shows it was on the weapon during the fight.
Would Sheila in a psychotic episode take the time to put the silencer on ? If yes, why ? Did she know how to do it ? It is not easy.
Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle that night. Although another relative said he had seen the weapon with the silencer on.
How can he say that - was he there that night?
He cannot know that in any way - it might have gotten on the silencer at any other time, before or after the murders. Were there any chips of paint on the body of Nevill? Were there any chips of paint on the floor when the crime scene was forensically tested? Were there any chips of paint on the AGA when it was forensically tested?
I don´t call this proof.
-
It appears to me judging by your words here that Jeremy was the only honest one there? First he innocently gave the key to his relatives, who immediately proceeded to look for "evidence" against him. I must admit that allegedly finding a silencer with blood on it was a stroke of genius on their part.
Then he "admits" (the murderer would never have done so) to using a hacksaw to get into WHF. And who was it who said he was reluctant to speak to the police? Who afterwards immediately used this peace of knowledge against him to pin the murders on him. It appears to me that Jeremy was being totally open and honest from the start?
Well the hacksaw was found & the marks matched the bathroom windows. Jeremy had already admitted he knew how to get into WHF, so I suppose there is not too much harm in saying the hacksaw is his. How long had it been lying there ?
Did the relatives have the keys, or was it the lawyer Basil who was present when the silencer was found ?
-
The timings are interesting.
Sheila fought & brutally beat Neville. Took the silencer off, put it away. Washed & changed, went upstairs & shot herself between 3.26am - 3.48am.
Because RM was not set in this would suggest that she shot herself not long before the police broke in?
-
Initially they gave the time at around 3:30 - cherry picking again!!
Susan Battersby's WS (Available online) & testimony at court says it was 3.12.
The judge could not beleive he phoned her at all.
-
Adam are you for real nobody was presented when the rellies found the silencer and they removed evidence from the scene and kept it at home for 3 days before handing to EP and at some stage one Officer used it as a paper weight on his desk. Read up on this Adam.
-
Adam you are obsessed with this hacksaw, rusty old thing been lying there for ages suspect Jeremy could access the farm through a window without the aid of an hacksaw. Which part of only two keys to the door were given when the new door was fitted.don't you understand After the murders Jeremy told the police who had one key to give it to the rellies so they could search for clues ;D obviously if Jeremy had people visiting the farm valuing items he would not expect them to climb in through the windows in their posh suits. ;D ;D ;D ;D TWO KEYS ADAM TWO KEYS. No spare keys Adam. Barbara Wilson would be present to let people in. Guess what Adam just had a new door fitted guess how many keys we got TWO.
Five people died. Perhaps five murders.
Jeremy could get in through the bathroom window.
One of the judges 'strange coincidences'.
-
Well the hacksaw was found & the marks matched the bathroom windows. Jeremy had already admitted he knew how to get into WHF, so I suppose there is not too much harm in saying the hacksaw is his. How long had it been lying there ?
Did the relatives have the keys, or was it the lawyer Basil who was present when the silencer was found ?
The relatives had the keys before they "searched" it for "evidence". Also why didn't he get rid of the hacksaw blade? He was very open to police about this and admitted it all to them. So where is this where he was unco-operative with them? It just seems two strange things for a guilty person to do to me at least?
He is supposed to have confessed everything to JM. Then he went and gave the keys to WHF to those relatives who were looking for an opportunity to get him convicted. And he confesses to have used a hacksaw blade to get into a window. (this also begs the question why no hacksaw blade marks were found on the window the day of the murders?) Some very weird things for a guilty man to do aren't they? Come on use your common sense. You must be able to see how ridiculous all that sounds?
-
Adam Jeremy told the police he entered the farm through windows long before the murders hardly the action of somebody guilty of murder he would have kept that to himself.
-
Adam are you for real nobody was presented when the rellies found the silencer and they removed evidence from the scene and kept it at home for 3 days before handing to EP and at some stage one Officer used it as a paper weight on his desk. Read up on this Adam.
I read that Basil Cock was present.
-
The relatives had the keys before they "searched" it for "evidence". Also why didn't he get rid of the hacksaw blade? He was very open to police about this and admitted it all to them. So where is this where he was unco-operative with them? It just seems two strange things for a guilty person to do to me at least?
He is supposed to have confessed everything to JM. Then he went and gave the keys to WHF to those relatives who were looking for an opportunity to get him convicted. And he confesses to have used a hacksaw blade to get into a window. (this also begs the question why no hacksaw blade marks were found on the window the day of the murders?) Some very weird things for a guilty man to do aren't they? Come on use your common sense. You must be able to see how ridiculous all that sounds?
Just mentioning what the judge said.
Jeremy said he used the found hacksaw to gain entry after the murders. The judge suggested he may have used it before the murders.
-
Yes, Susan - another one who was let off from the cheque book fraud by Stan Jones, the same Stan Jones who was unhappy with the initial times given by Julie's flatmates. He was eventually happy with 3:12 and Susan was happy about not being prosecuted. Deal!! :)
Another lie against Jeremy, the unluckiest person....ever.
-
Now then. The supper.
Jeremy claims they spoke about fostering.
Whether true or not, the judge said Sheila's passive response means it cannot be a reason why she would go such a murderous rampage.
-
How can he say that - was he there that night?
He cannot know that in any way - it might have gotten on the silencer at any other time, before or after the murders. Were there any chips of paint on the body of Nevill? Were there any chips of paint on the floor when the crime scene was forensically tested? Were there any chips of paint on the AGA when it was forensically tested?
I don´t call this proof.
The judge was not there.
However both prosecution & defence said it was paint from the aga on the silencer. Common sense suggests that it got there during the fight.
-
We have come up with some unlikely ways in which Sheila gave Neville his brutal beating.
The most likely being that Sheila shot him 3 times in kitchen. Then beat him for several minutes while he was dead ( I have heard about kicking a man when he's down, but...)
The judge did not consider this a possibility. However he did say it was 'very very' unlikely that Sheila could overpower Neville.
-
Adam where did you read Basil Cock was present when the rellies found the silencer whilst snooping around a house that did not belong to them and actually removing it and taking it home. Did you read that on the forum or in one of your books ;D Not true anyway where ever you read it or dreamt it.
-
Adam where did you read Basil Cock was present when the rellies found the silencer whilst snooping around a house that did not belong to them and actually removing it and taking it home. Did you read that on the forum or in one of your books ;D Not true anyway where ever you read it or dreamt it.
Where did you read he was not there ?
-
Jeremy broke into the caravan site & stole nearly £1,000. Then spent most of it.
He staged it to look like a break in. However Barbara Wilson says Neville knew about what Jeremy had done & decided not to prosecute. Did Neville suspect Jeremy & got a confession from Jeremy. Probably.
Anyway, Jeremy trusted Julie enough to have her help him. He also trusted that she would keep quiet.
Did he trust her enough after the murders, especially if he said he had hired a hit man.
-
Seems like Jeremy got a taste for committing family orientated crimes & staging the crime scene.
He has since said he did it to highlight security problems there. Pity he spent most of the money.
Why didn't he just tell Neville about the alledged security problems ?
-
We have come up with some unlikely ways in which Sheila gave Neville his brutal beating.
The most likely being that Sheila shot him 3 times in kitchen. Then beat him for several minutes while he was dead ( I have heard about kicking a man when he's down, but...)
The judge did not consider this a possibility. However he did say it was 'very very' unlikely that Sheila could overpower Neville.
She wouldn't have needed to if he'd been incapacitated first.....................and please DON'T say "we. To my certain knowledge, the only unlikelihoods have come from you.
-
Both the prosecution & defence said it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Could Sheila really shoot herself with it on ? If so the pathologist said it was impossible for her to walk downstairs & then upstairs after the first shot ?
-
She wouldn't have needed to if he'd been incapacitated first.....................and please DON'T say "we. To my certain knowledge, the only unlikelihoods have come from you.
An injured Neville could still overpower Sheila. Or at least leave some marks on her.
An injured Neville could not overpower Jeremy.
-
What exactly was Jeremy basing his first appeal on ?
Accusing a judge of summing up incorrectly is heavy.
-
Some very interesting points made by the judge.
Does anyone know what about the summing up from the judge Jeremy was appealing about ? Or whether Jeremy felt the judge did not mention anything ?
It all seems to be in order to me.
-
Sorry have already asked this.
Anyone. Or was Jeremy just wasting everyone's time ?
-
Adam I have got to the stage that I don't know what you have asked as you do ask the same thing time and time again. What I would suggest you and steve get a forum of you own and have a blast. ;D Go on Bednod with steve or whatever it is called.
-
Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ? After the case was finished it was shown JM had a financial ( large) incentive and possible immunity from prosecution for other crimes
Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ? Why would he when he had an alibi
Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole. - she lied about this as the police were proved later to go to the bank with her.
Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ? ????? totally different kettle of fish - murder and burglary
The jury should ignore the media. - obvious
Every witness in the trial is equal. - Not if they are being bribed or offered immunity
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ? wait and see
Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ? read what was said at the time about how she fell to bits and that her testimony in isolation should not be enough evidence ( and see points above)
Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ? If it did she was as guilty as him.
The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence. in light of recent evidence that was at least accurate
Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ? Think the silencer may be a red herring (IMO!) lets see what comes out in the future.
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ? See above
There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer. Not true read up on this - at that point it was only protein AK1 ( present in animal protein) and anyway it could have ben contaminated!
Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction. ?????? THIS IS BEFORE cps I THINK SO of course they are relevant ( could be deliberate)
Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime. so do half the population - but they don't all murder their families.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? he could have been telling the truth
The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ? read up 0n this bit - again
Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place. really - read the ballistic reports again
Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ? she did not cry when doing id of bodies - so not that weak
If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events. - the timings are disputed.
If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes. Not if jeremys call was earlier - and she could have been alive when the police were outside
Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.???
Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons. Rubbish - see statements kept from court
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent. ??? that's the most stupid statement I have ever heard- that would mean Jeremy could not have done it either
The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes. - vacant is not the same as unresponsive,
The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night. - not if he was injured after he was shot.
The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ? witnesses said he could
The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard. - see later evidence about the mantle and gun
The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes. still not proved - no DNA
The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party. - about the only thing that is right,IMO
-
Both the prosecution & defence said it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Could Sheila really shoot herself with it on ? If so the pathologist said it was impossible for her to walk downstairs & then upstairs after the first shot ?
Perhaps it was. The only question is how did it get there?
-
just did that because I was bored - hate feeding trolls as well >:(
waste of time -it wont even go in one ear and out of the other - I don't think he even has ears - just a big reflective screen round his brain and a huge ego.
-
Adam I have got to the stage that I don't know what you have asked as you do ask the same thing time and time again. What I would suggest you and steve get a forum of you own and have a blast. ;D Go on Bednod with steve or whatever it is called.
My question was.
What specific points was Jeremy referring to in his first appeal ?
Jeremy's first appeal was on the grounds that the judges summing up was unfair.
-
just did that because I was bored - hate feeding trolls as well >:(
waste of time -it wont even go in one ear and out of the other - I don't think he even has ears - just a big reflective screen round his brain and a huge ego.
Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.
-
Sorry.
The judge was openly biased ? That is a serious accusation. Which the appeal court dismissed.
-
Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.
And maybe at certain times. I think response 93 was asked at the same time yesterday and worded in the same way.
-
Sorry.
The judge was openly biased ? That is a serious accusation. Which the appeal court dismissed.
Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?
-
Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.
;D ;D ;D
-
Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?
Both Julies (& Susan's) cheque book fraud & Jeremy's caravan break in were mentioned in court.
The caravan break in looked worse. It was a crime Jeremy committed 'against' his family. He also stage managed the crime scene. Something the prosecution claim Jeremy did at WHF.
Julie told the police about the caravan break in. Jeremy was quite content for Neville not to report him.
As the judge said, he trusted Julie enough to help him commit a crime against his family....
-
Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?
What did the judge miss out. Or say that was incorrect in you're opinion ?
It was 1986, he was summing up on the evidence given at the trial.
-
so my replies are no good so you move on to someone else. what a suprise >:(
-
so my replies are no good so you move on to someone else. what a suprise >:(
I did read you're replies.
The judge may have considered some of you're counter arguments but did not consider them strong enough to mention.
Some of the counter arguments have been brought up years later by Jeremy. Such as it not being Sheila's blood or the aga paint on the silencer.
What witnesses said Sheila could load a gun ?
-
Adam excuse me the arguments that it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer or the Aga paint on the silencer were not Jeremy's ideas. You really need to do more reading before making rash statements like you do. I think Mason Doyle's book will eliminate your so called biased theories. I will be here to remind you ;D
-
Both Julies (& Susan's) cheque book fraud & Jeremy's caravan break in were mentioned in court.
The caravan break in looked worse. It was a crime Jeremy committed 'against' his family. He also stage managed the crime scene. Something the prosecution claim Jeremy did at WHF.
Julie told the police about the caravan break in. Jeremy was quite content for Neville not to report him.
As the judge said, he trusted Julie enough to help him commit a crime against his family....
If that was the case then if he is guilty he obviously didn't learn the lesson that she was not to be trusted? It was only mentioned in court because if the jury found out some other way then her testimony would have looked like a lie....Which it was of course.
-
Will the REAL Adam please stand up?
#77 - Alledge, or ALLEGE ?
Susan Hi there, Re Post #84, Steve's spread betting forum is Bet/nod. Duhh Wood the REAL Steve UK please stand up?
"THE TRUTH NEVER SLEEPS, EVER". - Mandy Rice Davies.
-
Hi Camps thank you for keeping me right ;D I knew the site had the word nod in it could be nodnod anyhow steve posts on that site and I suggested that Adam joined him there they would make a good double act ;D ;D ;D :-*
-
What did the judge miss out. Or say that was incorrect in you're opinion ?
It was 1986, he was summing up on the evidence given at the trial.
He summed up in a certain way that appeared to be biased. The appeal court upheld that bias.
(1) He missed out the fact that the silencer was found by the relatives but there was no independent witnesses to corroborate that fact.
(2) Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. How could he have known that?
(3) Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ? He assumed that the silencer was on the gun.
(4) Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ? Again he is assuming that the silencer was on the gun and also he was accepting as fact that the silencer was found by the relatives. At no point did he throw doubt upon that.
(5) There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer. What does that prove? The fact that Sheila's blood was on the silencer does not mean that the silencer was on the gun. He should have mentioned the possibility that the silencer could have been tampered with. This by the way is a legal point.
(6) Police mistakes not relevant. How did he know what "mistakes" the police made, as he was not in full possession of the facts at that time? Several recent discoveries about the police show this.
(7) Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime. So did several other people. Anyway that point was only an assumption.
(8 ) Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? This point was volunteered by Jeremy himself. He was being honest as he could easily have denied it. The judge unwisely used this against Jeremy.
(9) The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ? So what? Again the judge used this "assumption" to imply that Jeremy had used a bicycle to cycle to WHF and back. Again being biased in supporting RWB's own theory. There is absolutely no evidence that Jeremy every used that bike.
(10) Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place. Although not particularly biased in itself. It may not necessarily be true? We have recent evidence that suggests that the silencer was not used. This accepting the finding of the silencer makes his summing up biased in favour of the relatives, who had a financial motive to see Jeremy locked up. Which RWB denied at the trial.
I could go on and on. But what I have definitely indicated is that the judge was distinctly biased in favour of the prosecution that day. He also had a reason to be biased. The fact that he had put himself in the unhappy position of being blackmailed. This I have mentioned before.
-
Grahame excellent post much more credible than some of the other posts I have read recently ;) ;) ;)
-
Brilliant Susie, How's about a 'Double Act Act' called - Adam & Steve, on the lines of Chas & Dave!, or even for Ggrahame' delectation and delight, putting it on Olde Thyme Music Hall, bum- bum( or BoomBoom to quote "Roland Rat"
"THE TRUTH NEVER SLEEPS, EVER". -mrd
-
Hi Camps I think a double act Adam & Eve would be appropriate ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Susie, Wood it not also be appropriate to put it on the Apple label as the latest product from "The Jam" factory!
-
Hi Camps Adam & Eve and Roland Rat would sound better on the label ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Camps Adam & Eve and Roland Rat would sound better on the label ;D ;D ;D
Adam and St(eve ) ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello lookout me and camps would be in the bad books if they read our posts ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Good post Grahame.
That is why I created the thread. To discuss an important part of the trial. Not to get people have digs at me & Steve, just because we suspect the police, relatives, judge, jury, appeal courts & CCRC may be right.
-
Adam excuse me the arguments that it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer or the Aga paint on the silencer were not Jeremy's ideas. You really need to do more reading before making rash statements like you do. I think Mason Doyle's book will eliminate your so called biased theories. I will be here to remind you ;D
I do not just read from one forum. Unlike you because you may get upset if you read something not nice about Jeremy.
Jeremy has been going on about the aga & silencer for years. Last year he claimed the relatives framed him.
-
Hello Adam
I have noticed you seem to have a tremendous interest in the Trial and the Judges summing up and as Jeremy was found Guilty are you perhaps now thinking he had an unfair Trial and you are looking for flaws in the actual proceedings.
-
Adam you are obviously reading the wrong forum then ;D ;D ;D and if you think I am afraid of reading anything bad about Jeremy Bamber you are wrong as I read daily on this forum dreadful things said about Jeremy but hey ho I'm still here ;D ;D ;D
-
I have read & seen documentaties that say the relatives went to WHF with the family lawyer.
Evidence is evidence. It comes from different sources. The police & courts accepted the silencer evidence. The appeal courts have as well.
The relatives searched the house because they did not believe Sheila was capable of such a murderous rampage.
-
From 2012:
Speaking to The Sunday Times yesterday, Bamber claimed that his cousins planted the silencer and scratched the paint in the weeks after the shootings, in a plan to frame him and secure ownership of the £400,000 family estate.
Talk about kicking a man when he's down. Three days after all his immediate family were gunned down. His relatives start trying to frame him.
-
Similar to Mugford, Ann Eaton has kept a dignified silence since the conviction. Although Jeremy has written pages about her on the 'Official Site'.
I have seen David Boutflour interviewed twice on TV. Once briefly after the verdict & recently this year.
-
Similar to Mugford, Ann Eaton has kept a dignified silence since the conviction. Although Jeremy has written pages about her on the 'Official Site'.
I have seen David Boutflour interviewed twice on TV. Once briefly after the verdict & recently this year.
Dignified silence = bricking it. The lass had plenty to say when the case was being portrayed as a marpelesque victory.
-
Similar to Mugford, Ann Eaton has kept a dignified silence since the conviction. Although Jeremy has written pages about her on the 'Official Site'.
I have seen David Boutflour interviewed twice on TV. Once briefly after the verdict & recently this year.
Probablt because she is not the one suffering a miscarriage of justice for 28 years in gaol?
-
People have criticised the judge's summing up this week. See post below.
Here is a thread I posted a few months ago on the issue.
Some of the judges transcript is available online.
It is obviously ridiculous and desperate to blame the judge. There is a mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence showing Jeremy is guilty.
-
Post from a hardcore Jeremy supporter.
Maggie, moreover absolutely NONE of this was proven at the trial. It was ALL based upon what others had said about it. Others who ALL had a vested interest in getting Bamber convicted. That and a very bad gullible judge who had a hand in deceiving the jury, that is all but two of them. So he was a judge? Big deal. He was just a man with the weaknesses and gullibilty of of all other human beings. His summing up was atrocious and biased. It is obvious to all byt the equally blinkered appeal judges. Judges by the way usually back up their fellow judges. So no surprises there then.
-
Judge Drake made a number of misleading comments in his summing up:
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
"Then another point is that when she was found, there was no blood marks on her feet – on the soles of her feet. Well, you may think that is a matter of considerable importance because she had been involved in the fighting with her father as well as killing her mother, surely it is inconceivable that her feet would have been clean in the way that they were found to be, and in the way you see them to be clean from the photograph. What is suggested on behalf of the Defence is that after killing, at any rate, the father and the mother, she went and washed; and tied up with that piece of evidence is the fact that there were no marks of lead on her hands."
"As to the suggestion that she may have washed, well it is a matter to which I am sure you will give thought because it may be an important part of the evidence in this case that her hands and feet did not bear upon them either blood on her feet, or marks from the bullets on the hands, that one might have been expecting."
"there were no blood marks on the soles of her feet. Well, you may think that is a matter of considerable importance, because if she had been involved in the fighting with her father as well as killing her mother, surely it is inconceivable that her feet would have been clean"
"In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
-
She should have been prosecuted------------end of !!
-
Here is the judges summing up thread.