Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bill Robertson on July 07, 2014, 07:13:PM
-
When Police Sergeant Christopher Bews arrived at Pages Lane around 03:48 on 7th August 1985 he already knew that shots had been fired inside White House Farm (WHF). Instead of approaching the farmhouse, which was around 200 yards away, he instead set about establishing a perimeter and stationed one police officer, PC Saxby, at the police vehicle CA7.
Unless PS Bews had information about the siege taking place inside WHF this action made no sense. His first priority should have been to find out what was going on inside the Farmhouse and rescue the inhabitants.
An additional factor is that the crew of CA5, which left Chelmsford police station at 03:30, took around 50 minutes to make a 15 minute journey. Something caused them to stop speeding to WHF; the most likely reason being the receipt of information confirming that shots had been fired inside the farmhouse. That information did not come from Jeremy Bamber. So where did it come from?
The withdrawal of 3 Force Support Unit (FSU) vehicles from an assignment in Colchester at 04:04, before the Essex Police HQ Information Room had received any situation report from officers attending WHF – indicates that information regarding a “shooting incident”(as it was described by A/Insp Targrass) was known to the police before 04:04.
For the police to know of a shooting incident prior to 04:04am, someone from within WHF must have made contact with the police, or vice versa. That person could not have been murdered by Jeremy Bamber; it follows that the same person was later murdered by someone other than Jeremy Bamber and at least two people were alive inside WHF at 4am.
Neither were killed by Jeremy Bamber.
In addition, there are numerous firm indications that the police knew that a siege situation existed at WHF and that police officers, from 03:45 onwards, prepared for a siege and made no attempt to rescue the inhabitants of WHF.
It is unknown as to what specific information caused Essex Police to deploy armed police officers to White House Farm (WHF) at 04:04 on the morning of 7th August 1985. Neither police officer involved in discussions with Chief Superintendent Harris, who gave the order to go-ahead with the issue of firearms, made a witness statement in relation to the decision. Neither A/Insp Brian Targrass at Chelmsford Town police station or Inspector Maureen Scollan made a witness statement about the decision to request armed officers to attend the Farm. Chief Superintendent Harris has also given virtually no indication as to the content of his discussions with any police officer prior to him seeking the approval of the Assistant Chief Constable, Mr Simpson to deploy armed officers.
What is obvious, from the necessity to seek approval from an Assistant Chief Constable, is that the issuing of firearms was an extraordinary event and would only be requested in extreme circumstances.
Around 4 am an incident that was reported initially as an innocuous domestic disturbance became an armed siege. Nothing that Jeremy Bamber told the police at 03:36, and nothing that the police saw between 03:36 and 04:09 supported the request for armed police to attend WHF. So why did Inspector Maureen Scollan decide that an armed response was appropriate at 04:04?
The information upon which Harris and Simpson acted is of crucial importance to establishing the truth about the WHF murders/suicide. Unfortunately it has never been divulged; however, we can speculate with some degree of certainty.
It has been assumed for nearly thirty years that the decision to deploy armed police officers to WHF stemmed from a report made by PS 36 Christopher Bews, around 04:10, who was one of three police officers who first attended the Farm. It is convenient for Essex Police to promulgate this myth, a practice that Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson continued in his error-riddled report into Essex Police blunders in investigating the WHF murders and the suicide of Sheila Caffell. This assumption is incorrect.
By continuing to obfuscate over this issue, Essex Police and the prosecution authorities are engaged in a cover-up designed to keep an innocent man in prison. The cover-up is calculated to hide the fact that the Police knew that there was a siege situation at WHF prior to 4 am; this knowledge came from information that could only have arisen via a telephone call either from the police to WHF or to the police from within WHF from someone who Jeremy Bamber clearly could not have killed.
If the decision to deploy armed police to the Farm was made after receipt of alternative information to that provided by PS Bews then we need to identify the likely sources of that information. There are a number of possibilities:-
1. Monitoring of an open telephone line at WHF by British Telecom
2. A telephone call to police at Witham from within the Farm
3. A 999 telephone call to police at Chelmsford HQ from within the Farm
4. A telephone call from the police to WHF resulting in information being given to the police indicating that a firearm had been discharged – a “shooting incident”
5. Telephone or radio communications between police officers not reported or otherwise known
What is suggested by the evidence below (see list below) is that the actions and behaviour of the ‘first responders’ is highly indicative of the police being aware that a siege scenario existed at WHF by 03:45. Of course, for a siege to be in progress one or more people had to be alive inside WHF at 03:45 which means that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, as he has said all along.
All of the following indicate that a siege was known to be taking place; there was no rescue attempt.
CA7 parked 200 yards from Farm
No blue lights/siren at Farmhouse
JB drawing detailed floor plan
JB compiling a list of weapons
Failure to approach Farmhouse
Failure to try to gain entry
Failure to shine a torch
Failure to call out or challenge
PC Saxby remaining in CA7
CA5 50 minutes to arrive at WHF on a 15 minute journey
FSU recalled from ED before firearms were authorised by Chief Superintendent Harris
Deployment of a dog-handler - QZ5
FSU went to CD rather than WHF which was nearer - they knew they had to collect firearms before PS Bews had made any survey of the scene
?
As often happens in a case of this nature, the police officers who could provide Jeremy Bamber with an alibi have remained mute. Police officers who received information that would have been crucial to Jeremy’s defence have been ‘shielded’ by the Prosecution and not called upon to make witness statements.
These officers, Inspector Maureen Scollan and Sergeant Brian Targrass, plus one other officer based at Witham police station, have said nothing about events between 03:30 and 04:00 on 7th August 1985. If these police officers told the truth Jeremy Bamber would be a free man. Additionally, a civilian employed in the Essex Police HQ Information Room has also kept vital information to himself. Mr Malcolm Bonnett, if he told the full story, could also provide evidence to ensure Jeremy Bamber’s release and pardon.
Considering that the police were responding to what was described as a “distress call” the crew of CA7 behaved in a strange manner on the morning of 7th August 1985. They left Witham police station at 03:30 and drove at an average 50 mph to Pages Lane near White House Farm (WHF), a journey of 12 miles. During the journey their speed must at times have been between 65-70 mph. They hurried to the scene of the murders with their blue light flashing; but upon arrival they did absolutely nothing.
If their witness statements are accurate they parked their car 200 yards from the Farmhouse and simply sat and waited for other police officers to arrive. It would be another 35 minutes before two more unarmed officers joined them (CA5). It was an hour and 15 minutes before the first armed officers came along. The crew of CA7 showed no interest in approaching the Farmhouse and it is debatable whether they would have approached the Farmhouse at all had Jeremy Bamber not arrived on the scene.
Even after Jeremy met the crew of CA7 they did not even consider approaching the Farmhouse for another 10-12 minutes after arriving in Pages Lane. Clearly, something happened while they were on route to change their mission from one of rescue to one of containment. They ostensibly arrived in anticipation of a siege.
The only thing that could have happened was a radio message telling them that events inside WHF indicated that there was a siege taking place. Perhaps the radio message even told them about events occurring inside the Farmhouse being monitored over an open telephone line, or that Nevill Bamber had been in contact with Witham police station, or police had called WHF.
A strong indication that PS Bews knew he was dealing with a siege came from his own mouth when he spoke to a newspaper in 2010. Bews said ““When we arrived he was very keen for us to go in but there was no way we were entering if there was any chance someone with a gun was inside”. Well, PS Bews can’t have it both ways. If he was so convinced (as he claims) that Jeremy had killed everyone in the house he had nothing to fear by entering – he would only have discovered five dead bodies and a yapping dog. Instead he cowered behind a hedge and ran away from the scene – obviously because he knew Sheila was inside with a gun.
Let us consider first the fact that CA7 stopped, by their own account, just 10 yards into Pages Lane, about 200 yards from White House Farm. They were supposed to be responding to a ‘distress’ call. Why stop so short of the Farmhouse? They could not possibly have seen what was happening at WHF from where they halted. According to PS Bews they stopped so that they could wait for back-up police vehicles. How did they know whether there were any coming? Presumably by radio transmission if indeed they knew that any other police vehicles had been sent.
It is evident that PS Bews and his colleagues had developed a strategy while on route to WHF. Ordinarily, for the kind of incident that they were attending, this would have involved driving their car into the Farm courtyard and all three officers walking up to the front door to try to gain access. PC Saxby had been to the Farm on a previous occasion so he knew where to go. While they needed to be cautious, there was no overwhelming threat to the police officers based on what Jeremy Bamber had reported to PC West. Thus, the strategy to stop 200 yards distant from the Farm had to have been formulated while CA7 was on route. It had to be based on information received by CA7 between 03:30 and 03:45. Where did the new information come from?
Based simply upon what Jeremy Bamber had told PC West it would have been more logical for CA7, lacking any information about the safety or wellbeing of the occupants of the Farm, to have driven directly to the entrance of the Farmhouse. What could they hope to ascertain from 200 yards distance?
When CA7 arrived at Pages Lane around 03:45 PS Bews appears to have done precisely nothing to assist the occupants of White House Farm (WHF). He behaved exactly as if he had given up on saving any of the occupants and was already in ‘siege mode’. In his witness statement of 16th August he states that:-
Due to the nature of the reported incident we were also awaiting the arrival of other police units.
In the context of the original telephoned report from Jeremy Bamber of a reported incident that was perhaps nothing more than a domestic dispute at WHF, this statement is simply incorrect. According to police records there were no other police units despatched except CA5, which took a leisurely 55 minutes to drive to WHF and did not arrive there until 04:23. In fact, Bews commented himself that he did not know what kind of situation he was going to find and for all he knew the incident could be a hoax. Given that the whole thing could have been a hoax, he needed to prioritise establishing the true circumstances – but he didn’t do this.
Is Bews suggesting that during his journey to WHF he had been told that other police units were also speeding to the Farm? If so, he was misinformed. CA7 were at that time on their own and there is no recorded information available to suggest that Bews was not aware of this. Taken at face value Bews simply had to know that no other vehicle, other than CA5, was responding immediately to the domestic dispute at WHF. On the other hand, the leisurely pace of CA5 ,containing PCs Cracknell and Norcup, as they dawdled along to the scene suggests that they were fully aware that a siege was occurring and, as they were unarmed, they perhaps thought that they could not really offer much assistance. How else can their tardiness and lack of urgency be explained?
What Bews appears to be suggesting is that while on route to WHF he was informed that further police vehicles would be sent to WHF; these additional police units could only be from two possible sources (a) Maldon police station and (b) Colchester, where the FSU was loitering. The fact that Bews was expecting other police vehicles to attend means that some undisclosed information had been received at HQ or Witham and was being acted upon.
Perhaps, as seems very likely, Bews was expecting other police officers to attend WHF – as a result of information that has never been disclosed by the police.
Bews statement can be interpreted in a different manner. He said:-
Due to the nature of the reported incident we were also awaiting the arrival of other police units.
It could well be that he is referring to an entirely different ‘reported incident’ that was relayed to him by radio message while CA7 was on route to the Farm. It is entirely feasible that the reported incident was that of Sheila Bamber shooting at someone, either June or Nevill. In fact, this statement explains why PS Bews did nothing after he arrived at Pages Lane. He was indeed just awaiting the arrival of other armed police units, plus a police dog.
PS Bews could have acted to save the Essex Police a considerable sum of money by enquiring of Nevill or June if everything was all right. At the very least one would expect him to ring the doorbell or knock on the door. But he didn’t do anything, which is highly suggestive that he already knew what was happening inside the Farmhouse.
One of the reasons why emergency vehicles have two-tone horns and blue lights is to reassure distressed people that help is imminent – to encourage them in a desperate situation to hold out for a little while longer. How reassuring would it have been for Nevill or June to have heard in the distance a police car siren as s/he tried to protect themselves? Two-tone horns and blue lights would also have distracted Sheila Caffell, or even perhaps brought her to her senses. CA7 remained silent.
There were plenty of options for gaining a close look at the Farmhouse safely, for example, placing the police car between the Farmhouse and themselves, they could have crouched behind the car for protection.
If the police had not seen anyone in the grounds of the farm or in the Farmhouse itself the obvious thing to do would be to proceed cautiously towards the ground-floor windows, shining a torch so that anyone inside would know that s/he was approaching. PS Bews could also presumably try calling out ‘Police!’ or ‘Come out with your hands up!” something of that nature to see if there was any reply.
PS Bews said that they saw the light on in the kitchen. How did he know that the family were not sat around the kitchen table having a cup of tea and chatting about how Sheila had given them a nasty fright? Is that not quite a likely scenario after a domestic dispute?
It is worth considering what PS Bews training had told him to do. The oath of office makes the priorities very clear, “It is the duty of police officers to protect life and property, preserve order, and prevent the commission of offences and where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice”.
In that order. It is emphasised firmly at police training school that the preservation of life was the most important aspect of the oath and detection of crime was the least important aspect.
What was it PS Bews duty to do? If he had been mindful of his duties he should have been taking measures to protect/preserve life irrespective of his own personal safety. In 1985 a police constable was expected to take considerable personal risk to protect the public and some Officers died doing that.
So PS Bews should have been trying to see what had happened and trying to find a way in to the building. Finding the doors locked s/he should have smashed a window and gained entry.
PS Bews had a number of options open to him even if he and his colleagues were unarmed. They could easily have turned on the blue flashing light of the patrol car and tried to distract Sheila Caffell. There was a situation inside the Farmhouse which, in theory, consisted of a number of persons who could be rescued from their ordeal. Bews and his colleagues could have diverted Sheila Caffell sufficiently that one or more hostages might have escaped. Perhaps, had they driven their police car into the Farmhouse front yard with a blue light flashing they could have panicked Sheila Caffell into running away from the house, or give rise to some other means for the police to enter the house and affect a rescue. Bews was supposedly not to know who was still alive inside the Farmhouse.
Instead, eventually Bews and PC Myall let Jeremy Bamber take the lead in approaching the Farmhouse. They left PC Saxby in the police car; this was their pre-determined strategy. This in itself is highly significant. It seems clear that for one police officer, waiting and receiving radio messages was considered a more important task (for PC Saxby) than rescuing anyone left alive in the Farmhouse. This can only be because PS Bews knew that a siege situation existed.
Before considering what PS Bews did, or rather failed to do, let us pause to consider how illogical it seems to leave PC Saxby in the police car. In theory, there was nothing for him to do. The only person who could possibly have provided the crew of CA7 with any information was Jeremy Bamber and he was with PS Bews and PC Myall. If we are to believe the police, they had no other information and they had no other possible source of information. So why did Saxby remain in the car?
One highly probable reason is that the police at Witham or HQ had been in communication with the occupants of WHF while CA7 made their way there. PC Saxby was waiting for further information. Consider that PC 1990 West recorded that at 04:42 BT made a check of the WHF telephone line and found it to be engaged. Thus, quite possibly, someone from outside, i.e. a police officer, was speaking to somebody at WHF. While PC 1990 West recorded that the phone was ‘off-the-hook’ there was no way that he could actually have known that. ‘Engaged’ would sound just the same to a BT Operator, perhaps the choice of terminology is not accidental.
Given that CA5 abandoned their attempts to hurry to WHF and CA7 left PC Saxby at their car and PS Bews made no attempt to approach WHF, the most likely explanation is that the police spoke to someone within WHF around 03:42, just in time to alert the occupants of CA7 before they arrived at Pages Lane at 03:45. This appears to be the only logical reason why PC Saxby stayed in the vehicle; he was waiting for any further developments, otherwise he would have been sat there twiddling his thumbs with nothing to do except admire the scenery.
Further support for the contention that the police spoke to someone inside WHF around 03:42 is evidenced by the fact that, again in theory, we are led to believe that neither PC West or Malcolm Bonnett made any attempt to telephone WHF between 03:26 and 03:56. This is unbelievable. For half-an-hour, when nothing else seemed to be happening, they want us to believe that they did nothing. In reality, given that both men had the telephone number for WHF at 03:26, they would surely both have tried to telephone the Farm several times. Yet neither man mentioned this in his witness statement. Surely, if Bonnett and PC West made repeated attempts to call WHF and received no response they would have said this in their witness statements? Somebody made contact by telephone with the occupants of WHF around 03:42, when Jeremy Bamber was on his way there to meet up with CA7.
So, Jeremy Bamber did not murder that person or persons.
-
I have done it myself from Chelmsford in 15 or so minutes. Deserted roads, 60-70 mph blue lights. Not a 55 minute journey.
-
I can only assume that Bill is/or was an ex-officer of the law.Yes,I was right. ;D
-
Hello Bill
must admit an excellent post all the points you have made make so much sense. Now I am confused again as to what happened on the night of the murders at WHF and it is evident that EP could answer all my questions but I know they would refuse to do so.The Jeremy Bamber case is very complex to say the least with so many different theories that makes my mind swing from one thing to another.
-
I have done it myself from Chelmsford in 15 or so minutes. Deserted roads, 60-70 mph blue lights. Not a 55 minute journey.
A good post Bill,and " professionally " executed.
-
lookout I agree with your comments about Bill's post a true professional.
-
The thread post seems to be criticising the police actions on the night.
There was little or no crime in the area. Source available upon request.
So the police were in a new situation. I do not recall Jeremy complaining when the police called the raid team.
He only complained about the police on the night when seeing a log decades later saying 'conversations in the house' & 'one female & one male in the kitchen'.
These can both be explained away.
-
Hello Adam could I have the source please that you mention.
-
Don't know if you have read previous threads.
If Jeremy was framed, it was the police. Who told the lab technicians to expertly put the blood into the silencer.
The relatives did not have the courage, time, blood knowledge, expertise, financial need or equipment to frame with the silencer.
-
I have done it myself from Chelmsford in 15 or so minutes. Deserted roads, 60-70 mph blue lights. Not a 55 minute journey.
Can I assume that you've got knowledge of the tragedy,Bill ? If you get my drift.
-
Adam are you addressing Bill or myself ;D
-
Hello Adam could I have the source please that you mention.
You always ask for sources I have already supplied.
-
Adam that shows how interested I am in your posts now could I please please have the source as I have forgotten it. :'(
-
Bill, welcome and thank-you for your outstanding and thought provoking maiden post. Under the circumstances it seems rather churlish to ask if you've introduced yourself in the Foyer. If you haven't please would you. If you have, please forgive me for asking :D Looking forward to reading more from you.
-
http://youtu.be/BDpM7W4OVck
-
Hello Bill. Beautifully written post. Why do you think that police opted to frame Jeremy, rather than continue with the Shelia suicide theory?
-
There is already a thread on this. I will find it for Bill.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5513.0.html
It does seem very far fetched that the police would suddenly change direction and frame an innocent man.
But the relatives have been ruled out.
-
Nothing far-fetched about it at all when you think of how some police operate !
-
Hello Bill. Beautifully written post. Why do you think that police opted to frame Jeremy, rather than continue with the Shelia suicide theory?
Quite complicated, but in a nutshell Stan Jones took an instant dislike to Jeremy Bamber and needed little encouragement to start seeing the case through a different perspective. It happens a lot, a police officer just doesn't like someone and the relationship becomes antagonistic. From that small beginning the rest followed.
-
Grahame that is the thanks I get for taking an interest in Adams posts and asking for the source I feel really hurt and cannot understand why he is being like this with me :'(
-
Quite complicated, but in a nutshell Stan Jones took an instant dislike to Jeremy Bamber and needed little encouragement to start seeing the case through a different perspective. It happens a lot, a police officer just doesn't like someone and the relationship becomes antagonistic. From that small beginning the rest followed.
I'll hazard a guess that jealousy, resentment, and an inferiority complex may have played a part. Human emotions, eh?
-
Adam
you don't have to Link to threads. The poster obviously already has an in depth knowledge of the case and I am sure he is capable of using the search button.
Thank you Bill for such a thought provoking thread. It is one aspect of the case I could never get my head round especially when for all they knew the children could be alive and terrified. because even if sheila had the gun who ever would have imagined she would have shot the twins.
-
Bill, welcome and thank-you for your outstanding and thought provoking maiden post. Under the circumstances it seems rather churlish to ask if you've introduced yourself in the Foyer. If you haven't please would you. If you have, please forgive me for asking :D Looking forward to reading more from you.
Apologies, I didn't know about the Foyer. I have logged in. Hope to post more soon.
-
He could be right about Stan Jones.
One or several of the police were suspicious of Jeremy from the start at WHF. One officer said he seemed very relaxed.
-
Apologies, I didn't know about the Foyer. I have logged in. Hope to post more soon.
I will look forward to that, Bill.
-
I'll hazard a guess that jealousy, resentment, and an inferiority complex may have played a part. Human emotions, eh?
Spot on, a young guy with money. It doesn't take much to get the jealousy going.
-
Adam
you don't have to Link to threads. The poster obviously already has an in depth knowledge of the case and I am sure he is capable of using the search button.
Thank you Bill for such a thought provoking thread. It is one aspect of the case I could never get my head round especially when for all they knew the children could be alive and terrified. because even if sheila had the gun who ever would have imagined she would have shot the twins.
It is good to assist.
People may have missed a thread which relates to their post.
-
Quite complicated, but in a nutshell Stan Jones took an instant dislike to Jeremy Bamber and needed little encouragement to start seeing the case through a different perspective. It happens a lot, a police officer just doesn't like someone and the relationship becomes antagonistic. From that small beginning the rest followed.
You seem to be suggesting that it was known by most (if not all) of the early responders that shots had been fired. This being the case, it would have been well known among all concerned that Jeremy was innocent - so why was this not communicated to the relatives? Why did no one mention anything about KNOWING Sheila was responsible during the whole time she was 'suspected' and the relatives were suspicious about Jeremy's involvement?
-
I would also Comment I have never even seen the names of some the officers mentioned in the first post.
-
Adam you will not help me with sources when I have missed them.
-
Quite complicated, but in a nutshell Stan Jones took an instant dislike to Jeremy Bamber and needed little encouragement to start seeing the case through a different perspective. It happens a lot, a police officer just doesn't like someone and the relationship becomes antagonistic. From that small beginning the rest followed.
That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty. However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.
However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.
-
The police work in mysterious ways at times,Neil. :)
-
That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty. However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.
However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.
I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.
-
I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.
Including Jeremy. Yet he has never claimed shots were fired whilst they were all standing outside.
-
Perhaps it was not just one reason, perhaps there were a combination of circumstances that led to the final outcome.
-
Including Jeremy. Yet he has never claimed shots were fired whilst they were all standing outside.
I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.
-
I agree Neil, but it wouldn't have been just Jones who knew he wasn't guilty, if what Bill suggests was correct. Everyone who was there would have known it was a siege situation and that shots had been fired - as such, Jeremy couldn't have been guilty and they would have known it for a fact.
How could shots have been fired after the police arrived ? Jeremy had massacred then around two hours beforehand.
-
I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.
It has to be the police. The relatives have been ruled out.
If it wasn't the police, Jeremy must be guilty.
-
I could never buy an argument which suggests they all KNEW he was innocent (and had proof), but framed him anyway.
That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty. However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.
However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.
What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
-
Why did the police decide to frame Jeremy a month later ?
Jeremy says it was because Sheila woke up in the kitchen, went upstairs and was shot by the raid team with the 22 rifle, or shot herself.
The raid team for some reason do not want to admit to this as they are embarrassed.
But during the first month, no one was suggesting the raid team shot Sheila or she shot herself after going upstairs. So why not keep to the murder/suicide stance ?
-
What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
I'm not talking about the Cardiff three or any other case. Why frame Jeremy when they could have just blamed Shelia? If your answer is, "because they didn't like Jeremy" then I would find that most extraordinary.
-
I'm not talking about the Cardiff three or any other case. Why frame Jeremy when they could have just blamed Shelia? If your answer is, "because they didn't like Jeremy" then I would find that most extraordinary.
Hi Neil, think the answer to your question is that we don't know but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, even if it's hard to believe. Don't think anything which has not been proven one way or another should be dismissed because all things are possible.
-
Morning Neil/Maggie
Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.
-
Morning Neil/Maggie
Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.
Susan/Maggie/Neil, Good Morning.
Whilst I CAN see a situation arising in which one person is so popular/powerful that others are willing to collude with them, I think, in this case, there may have been those involved who didn't have the same knowledge of this person, in which case their influence wouldn't extent that far. However, it does rather sound as if the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing.
-
You seem to be suggesting that it was known by most (if not all) of the early responders that shots had been fired. This being the case, it would have been well known among all concerned that Jeremy was innocent - so why was this not communicated to the relatives? Why did no one mention anything about KNOWING Sheila was responsible during the whole time she was 'suspected' and the relatives were suspicious about Jeremy's involvement?
I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.
In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.
The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.
-
That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty. However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.
However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.
If one would kill 5 for a motive of money then it is even easier for another to frame someone for that money. Jones was very friendly with the relatives. Jeremy was a known drug dealer.
-
Morning april
think that applies to me my right hand does not know what the left one is doing :'(
-
I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.
In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.
The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.
Bill I'm still reading through your first post which I have to say is well written and refreshing. Do you know anything about the reaction of ACC Simpson, at the point when 'Jim' Kenneally's review concludes that the evidence indicates Sheila was culpable (as per line taken by Taff Jones)?
-
What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
Yes they have, but NOT when they have known who the real culprit was. I have asked Martin for an example where the police have framed an innocent person in the full knowledge that he/she is innocent but where they also knew who the real offender was, he was unable to supply an example.
-
I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.
In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.
The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.
If they didn't know exactly who fired the shots, they would certainly know it wasn't Jeremy! As for 'just' Taff Jones trying to convince the relatives - there would be more than him who knew Jeremy was innocent, Stan Jones would also have known and anyone who was involved. However, Taff seems to be the only officer who hand any real faith in his innocence which goes against everything you said in your initial post.
-
Does anybody have the feeling that we may be lead up the garden path here? Isn't it a bit odd that as soon as Hartley and scipio are banned that not long after an "expert" from the innocent side turns up and starts posting? Although I can see that he joined in January.
Well, it crossed my mind too.
-
Morning Neil/Maggie
Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.
I completely agree Susan! But not only did they have a suspect, according to Bill they had solid evidence to prove it 'wasn't' Jeremy.
-
I don't believe that he was framed.
-
I don't believe that he was framed.
If it was known that shots had been fired - presumably because they had proof of a call from Neville at the time, then why was this call not used to back up the notion that Sheila had indeed been responsible? If they had this evidence, there would be no need to frame Jeremy for anything, they would have proof that Sheila was guilty and that Jeremy was telling the truth about the phone call. To not mention a call from Neville would be odd to say the least and as such - I don't buy that he was framed in the way Bill claims.
On a separate issue, if you don't think he was framed and you don't believe it was Jeremy - who put the silencer back in the cupboard?
-
Either the silencer was already there and the police didn't look far enough into the cupboard,,or DB had " put " it there,,to get it out of the way if it had been found that it was in possession of someone else. The fact that DB took it home instead of phoning the police straight away to come and collect it,,doesn't sit right with me. Your own common sense tells you NOT to touch anything before it's forensically tested,and above all taken from a crime scene.
-
Either the silencer was already there and the police didn't look far enough into the cupboard,,or DB had " put " it there,,to get it out of the way if it had been found that it was in possession of someone else. The fact that DB took it home instead of phoning the police straight away to come and collect it,,doesn't sit right with me. Your own common sense tells you NOT to touch anything before it's forensically tested,and above all taken from a crime scene.
That's not what I mean - if Sheila was responsible and you don't believe Jeremy was framed, you must believe the silencer was used. So, if Sheila used it, how did it get back in the cupboard?
-
Yes they have, but NOT when they have known who the real culprit was. I have asked Martin for an example where the police have framed an innocent person in the full knowledge that he/she is innocent but where they also knew who the real offender was, he was unable to supply an example.
The police knew who the real culprits were at Hillsborough but conspired to place the blame elsewhere.
Eddie Gilfoyle was framed despite police having the information which proved he was innocent and that his wife had committed suicide.
It is a strange distinction to make anyway in my opinion . If you are happy to acknowledge that the police have knowingly framed innocent people then why is it a stretch to believe that they wouldn't do so if they knew the real perpetrator.
-
That's not what I mean - if Sheila was responsible and you don't believe Jeremy was framed, you must believe the silencer was used. So, if Sheila used it, how did it get back in the cupboard?
Sheila would have initially tried the silencer but found it too cumbersome ( this would have been in the kitchen ) then she'd have put it back. Because Sheila knew how to use a gun/rifle,,she wouldn't have been conversant with either sights or silencer attachments.
I don't believe that the silencer was used ( as in shooting anyone ) but contamination of it had already happened with the physical handling of it.
-
I don't believe that he was framed.
What I do believe is the doubt among the officers that a slightly-built frightened girl could carry out a massacre. This is why I say that Jeremy wasn't framed.
It's human nature and a lack of education with the force,that put Jeremy where he is.
MOST people wouldn't/didn't believe that a young female would have been capable.
-
30 years on and they're still delving into PND among women,as it's come into the spotlight AGAIN !
A young,beautiful and capable young woman took her life after the birth of her baby,,and prior to her sad ending,she DIDN'T get the support that she desperately needed,,even though she had a loving husband and family,it wasn't enough.
This illness,and it is an illness,is an issue in itself,but remember that Sheila had other issues and a COLD family,who she finally took out her issues on.
-
I'm not talking about the Cardiff three or any other case. Why frame Jeremy when they could have just blamed Shelia? If your answer is, "because they didn't like Jeremy" then I would find that most extraordinary.
I have always believed that something during the raid needed to be covered up and events snowballed into framing Jeremy but this is just my belief.
My answer isn't "because they didn't like Jeremy" and there is nothing extraordinary at all in the police framing people they know to be innocent . It is in fact all too ordinary that the police lie and cover up for many reasons.
Why do you think police framed Eddie Gilfoyle ? Using your reasoning they could have just admitted that they had evidence to prove that Paula committed suicide but they didn't and framed Eddie anyway.
The notion that the police will frame people but only if they don't know the real perpetrators is nonsensical and doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway.
-
The police knew who the real culprits were at Hillsborough but conspired to place the blame elsewhere.
Eddie Gilfoyle was framed despite police having the information which proved he was innocent and that his wife had committed suicide.
It is a strange distinction to make anyway in my opinion . If you are happy to acknowledge that the police have knowingly framed innocent people then why is it a stretch to believe that they wouldn't do so if they knew the real perpetrator.
Hillsborough is completely different, police more or less caused the incident to happen so tried to cover it up. There are still people that argue that Eddie Gilfoyle is guilty (although I don't know much about him) and didn't he ask his wife to write a suicide note (for whatever reason). I don't accept that they 'knew' Gilfoyle was/is innocent. Nor do I think it's a strange distinction - framing someone for a crime when you KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is, makes no sense whatsoever.
-
The notion that the police will frame people but only if they don't know the real perpetrators is nonsensical and doesn't stand up to scrutiny anyway.
I kind of agree with this. I'm sure there are noble minded police officers but I think the point Bill is making about the heavy politicking within this case is valid. How many police officers break ranks and whistle blow external to their force? Of those who disagree internally, how many will go against an ACC?
-
Gringo,,the family--------again,played a part in Eddies' imprisonment. A beautiful,happy-go-lucky girl/woman,8 months pregnant and looking forward to the birth of their baby ( I signed her off at hospital on her final clinic appointment ) nothing appeared untoward,so very misleading to all concerned,as in Sheilas' case on the day of the tragedy as she was seen happily with the twins in the fields.
The police in Eddies' case omitted to produce diaries of Paulas' which they'd been" sitting on " for 16 years,which proved that Eddie played no part in the suicide. He's still fighting to this day as he was only released on appeal in 2010.
-
I've tried communicating this to many for a long time. For police corruption to take place you don't need every police officer in on it. The word from a higher authority changes everything. But I've been mocked for suggesting it.
You are absolutely correct. Most 'conspiracies' involve relatively few people. The vast majority of coppers understand that they are a very small cog in a very large wheel. Once it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing thoughts turn to careers and pensions and what the bosses want. And, in most cases, it is not necessary to lie, just to remain silent and keep one's head down. I think that you would find in this case the number of police officers who knowingly created false evidence is very small but considerably more kept quiet about their reservations and observations.
-
I kind of agree with this. I'm sure there are noble minded police officers but I think the point Bill is making about the heavy politicking within this case is valid. How many police officers break ranks and whistle blow external to their force? Of those who disagree internally, how many will go against an ACC?
Sorry Roch, I don't agree, if this was the case, there would be other examples and none have been provided. Hillsborough is completely different and there is no reason to believe the police KNEW EG was innocent.
-
Gringo,,the family--------again,played a part in Eddies' imprisonment. A beautiful,happy-go-lucky girl/woman,8 months pregnant and looking forward to the birth of their baby ( I signed her off at hospital on her final clinic appointment ) nothing appeared untoward,so very misleading to all concerned,as in Sheilas' case on the day of the tragedy as she was seen happily with the twins in the fields.
The police in Eddies' case omitted to produce diaries of Paulas' which they'd been" sitting on " for 16 years,which proved that Eddie played no part in the suicide. He's still fighting to this day as he was only released on appeal in 2010.
The diaries don't prove his innocence, simply that she had had suicidal thoughts in the past. If they knew about the diaries then yes, they framed him, but may also have had suspicions about his involvement. No one has been able to produce a case in which police knowingly framed an innocent man while knowing for certain who the real culprit was.
-
You are absolutely correct. Most 'conspiracies' involve relatively few people. The vast majority of coppers understand that they are a very small cog in a very large wheel. Once it becomes clear which way the wind is blowing thoughts turn to careers and pensions and what the bosses want. And, in most cases, it is not necessary to lie, just to remain silent and keep one's head down. I think that you would find in this case the number of police officers who knowingly created false evidence is very small but considerably more kept quiet about their reservations and observations.
And all because one man didn't like Jeremy Bamber? He was just a DS, how did he manage to convince the rank and file to frame Jeremy Bamber just because he didn't like him when their was evidence he was innocent?
-
Hillsborough is completely different, police more or less caused the incident to happen so tried to cover it up. There are still people that argue that Eddie Gilfoyle is guilty (although I don't know much about him) and didn't he ask his wife to write a suicide note (for whatever reason). I don't accept that they 'knew' Gilfoyle was/is innocent. Nor do I think it's a strange distinction - framing someone for a crime when you KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is, makes no sense whatsoever.
Caroline,,the way the Gilfoyle case was conducted was abominable. Yes,the family still think he's guilty,along with friends of theirs,but once it was learned of the background of his late wife through the immersion of the diaries,then the jig-saw was complete. Blood is still thicker than water though !
I knew of Eddie being at work at a hospital that morning and the tragedy occurred after he'd gone to work. No time of death was ever recorded and police interfered with the scene before the coroner carried out his part. I won't go into anything on an open forum.
A few years ago,Patti and myself were on a forum discussing the McCann case and a poster was convinced that the parents played a part in her disappearance,whereas I'd argued that they hadn't. This particular poster turned out to be a cop,or an ex-cop,who'd obviously overseen the Gilfoyle case because he preferred " not to discuss " it. The said poster didn't appear again !!
-
personally I can not think of any justification for "framing" a person whether innocent or guilty.A case should be tried on the evidence that is in existence.
Any framing could lead to either an innocent person that the police THINK is guilty being convicted or if the framing is discovered it could lead to a guilty person being released.
Its a lose lose situation IMO.
-
Caroline,,the way the Gilfoyle case was conducted was abominable. Yes,the family still think he's guilty,along with friends of theirs,but once it was learned of the background of his late wife through the immersion of the diaries,then the jig-saw was complete. Blood is still thicker than water though !
I knew of Eddie being at work at a hospital that morning and the tragedy occurred after he'd gone to work. No time of death was ever recorded and police interfered with the scene before the coroner carried out his part. I won't go into anything on an open forum.
A few years ago,Patti and myself were on a forum discussing the McCann case and a poster was convinced that the parents played a part in her disappearance,whereas I'd argued that they hadn't. This particular poster turned out to be a cop,or an ex-cop,who'd obviously overseen the Gilfoyle case because he preferred " not to discuss " it. The said poster didn't appear again !!
Hi Lookout, I'm not arguing that they didn't balls the case up, what I am saying is that it is not cut and dried that they KNEW for certain he was innocent. Just because they were useless idiots, doesn't mean they framed him knowing he didn't do it.
-
personally I can not think of any justification for "framing" a person whether innocent or guilty.A case should be tried on the evidence that is in existence.
Any framing could lead to either an innocent person that the police THINK is guilty being convicted or if the framing is discovered it could lead to a guilty person being released.
Its a lose lose situation IMO.
Totally agree Jansus!!
-
The diaries don't prove his innocence, simply that she had had suicidal thoughts in the past. If they knew about the diaries then yes, they framed him, but may also have had suspicions about his involvement. No one has been able to produce a case in which police knowingly framed an innocent man while knowing for certain who the real culprit was.
I understand what you're saying,and I suppose in the case of Eddie, because I'd met him and knew of him that I used a gut feeling after an" incident" I'd observed while working at the hospital,which when I'd heard about the tragedy a week later, I knew which way I was going with it.
Jeremy of course I don't know and have never met,but got the same feeling 30 years ago when I first saw the headlines, even though I realise that in cases such as this, 95% of the time it's a family member,,and I would imagine that the police would have taken this into consideration without looking in-depth at the real cause. That 5% will be hidden amongst documents/files with EP,and I feel will surface pretty soon.
-
And all because one man didn't like Jeremy Bamber? He was just a DS, how did he manage to convince the rank and file to frame Jeremy Bamber just because he didn't like him when their was evidence he was innocent?
Stan Jones was a tool. A willing guy who saw which way the political wind was blowing and he pitched in. Of course he was not the prime mover. The motivation for prosecuting JB came from a higher authority. If ACC Simpson had not felt the heat from the family nothing would have happened.
Stan Jones let it be known that he was sceptical about JB's innocence and spoke out against his boss, Taff Jones. The senior officers knew that they had someone who would do as they wished. Stan Jones could be manipulated, wound-up like a toy and pointed in whatever direction was deemed necessary.
Let's not overlook the probability that ACC Simpson probably just wanted to go through the motions of investigating and prosecuting JB to get the relatives off his back. Quite likely he couldn't care tuppence whether JB was found guilty or not as long as he demonstrated a willingness to investigate. This case is all about appearances and politics, way beyond Stan Jones's level.
-
Stan Jones was a tool. A willing guy who saw which way the political wind was blowing and he pitched in. Of course he was not the prime mover. The motivation for prosecuting JB came from a higher authority. If ACC Simpson had not felt the heat from the family nothing would have happened.
Stan Jones let it be known that he was sceptical about JB's innocence and spoke out against his boss, Taff Jones. The senior officers knew that they had someone who would do as they wished. Stan Jones could be manipulated, wound-up like a toy and pointed in whatever direction was deemed necessary.
Let's not overlook the probability that ACC Simpson probably just wanted to go through the motions of investigating and prosecuting JB to get the relatives off his back. Quite likely he couldn't care tuppence whether JB was found guilty or not as long as he demonstrated a willingness to investigate. This case is all about appearances and politics, way beyond Stan Jones's level.
The relatives came to Taff Jones with their suspicions, if he had proof of a phone call from Neville (which must have been the proof that shots were fired), they wound him up so much that he would have mentioned the phone call. Stan Jones would have known about the call, as would many of the other officers involved. The call would have exonerated Jeremy Bamber. So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!
-
I understand what you're saying,and I suppose in the case of Eddie, because I'd met him and knew of him that I used a gut feeling after an" incident" I'd observed while working at the hospital,which when I'd heard about the tragedy a week later, I knew which way I was going with it.
Jeremy of course I don't know and have never met,but got the same feeling 30 years ago when I first saw the headlines, even though I realise that in cases such as this, 95% of the time it's a family member,,and I would imagine that the police would have taken this into consideration without looking in-depth at the real cause. That 5% will be hidden amongst documents/files with EP,and I feel will surface pretty soon.
Good :)
-
I completely agree Susan! But not only did they have a suspect, according to Bill they had solid evidence to prove it 'wasn't' Jeremy.
Hi Susan, I agree they wouldn't have framed him because one man didn't like him, that is beyond possibility in my mind, however there are other possibilities where he may have been framed and I agree it is possible they knew he was guilty but had to frame him to get a conviction ...... have forgotten the phrase.
-
He may have done? But we only know the relative's version of their talks with Taff Jones don't we? We've already seen how police close ranks and a single officer very rarely breaks ranks. I've know this before. If one officer does speak out against another everyone else in that station sends them to coventry and often the single officer has to be moved so as to secure the smooth running of the station. No one likes someone who creates waves.
I'm sorry Grahame, I don't buy any of this theory at all - what motivation could a senior police officer have for fitting up an innocent man when he KNEW who the guilty party was? And whether he was taken off the case or not, I don't believe for one moment TJ would have stood by and let them frame an innocent man. Did he just feel like it? Or was RB that intimidating that he could get the whole of EP to do his bidding even though they had proof that Sheila was responsible. Like I said, he hold no water.
-
Hi Susan, I agree they wouldn't have framed him because one man didn't like him, that is beyond possibility in my mind, however there are other possibilities where he may have been framed and I agree it is possible they knew he was guilty but had to frame him to get a conviction ...... have forgotten the phrase.
That was my post Maggie ;D. However, I think you mean 'noble cause'? I do believe he was framed, but only because they thought he was guilty and didn't think they would have enough to convict.
-
Perhaps he didn't know that? Remember that he died just before the trial. Maybe he would have testified in Bamber's favour, who knows? I personally would like to hear more from Bill before I too am convinced of his scenario.
How could he not know? The trial was more than a year after the event, EP were building a case against Jeremy while (if Bill's claims are to be believed) TJ (and other officers) must have known he couldn't have done it. It makes no sense at all to frame another man when you can prove who was responsible just to appease a few relatives.
-
Hillsborough is completely different, police more or less caused the incident to happen so tried to cover it up. There are still people that argue that Eddie Gilfoyle is guilty (although I don't know much about him) and didn't he ask his wife to write a suicide note (for whatever reason). I don't accept that they 'knew' Gilfoyle was/is innocent. Nor do I think it's a strange distinction - framing someone for a crime when you KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is, makes no sense whatsoever.
Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?
It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
-
Caroline did I read correctly (may have been from Adam) that Taff Jones actually arrested Jeremy Bamber when he returned from holiday. Also Bambergate has stated that Taff Jones's widow said her husband was convinced Jeremy was innocent.
-
That was my post Maggie ;D. However, I think you mean 'noble cause'? I do believe he was framed, but only because they thought he was guilty and didn't think they would have enough to convict.
Yes, I meant 'noble cause corruption', can never remember that phrase. Sorry I mixed you up. ;)
-
Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?
It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
I don't accept that because I can't think of anything big enough for there to be sufficient reason. Had shts been fired at Sheila, Jeremy would have heard it. They messed the crime scene up - but that's not enough to fame someone who they knew was innocent!
-
Caroline I have to agree EP would not have convicted an innocent man on the say so of the relatives Freemasons or not. Some of the guilters on this forum have for many many months been of the opinion that they knew Jeremy was guilty but did not have enough evidence so manufactured some.
-
Maggie I am more than delighted to be Caroline. I feel young again ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie I am more than delighted to be Caroline. I feel young again ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are welcome, Susie ;) ;)
-
Whether you accept that police knew gilfoyle to be innocent or not is your opinion but the evidence suggests so. Hillsborough is not completely different at all. Police lied to cover their own bungling and many believe that this is the reason for the covering up and withholding of evidence in this case.
The police lied about Ian Tomlinson, again to cover their own arses. Police lying and framing people they know to be innocent has happened so many times that it makes no sense to believe that they would only frame someone where they don't know who the real perpetrator is and it is a strange distinction whether you believe it to be so or not.
You are willing to accept that the police knowingly frame innocent people, that they are known to have conspired and blamed innocent people to cover up for their own mistakes, corruption and lies but you cannot believe that they would frame someone if they knew the real culprit. Would they consider this to be unethical but all the rest is ok? Why would you have this faith in the police in the light of all we know and accept?
It makes perfect sense for police to frame someone when they "KNOW for a FACT who the real perpetrator is". If you accept that something happened during or after the raid that needed to covered up, then when the relatives got involved and questioned the discrepancies it left EP in the position of having to admit to what they were covering up or blame it on Jeremy and they took the choice to protect themselves.
Hillsborough is very different in that thousands and thousands of people knew the real truth from the minute it happened because they were actually there.
Hillsborough is also different in that a completely different crime has been committed. Whereas with the JB case the crux of the matter was whether JB did in fact murder 5 members of his family or not, with regards Hillsborough the main issue is the apportionment of blame for the disaster, the scandalous initial inquest verdicts and the consideration of whether police officers, other emergency workers, Sheffield Wednesday FC, the FA should be held liable for the tragic loss of 96 lives, with some still calling for corporate manslaughter charges to be brought.
JUSTICE means something very different with regards Hillsborough and JB, particularly given that JUSTICE means something different to different people depending on how they have been affected by Hillsborough.
The truth was finally revealed in September 2012 but my Hillsborough justice could be very different to the justice that the victims families deserve.
JFT96
-
Perhaps he didn't know that? Remember that he died just before the trial. Maybe he would have testified in Bamber's favour, who knows? I personally would like to hear more from Bill before I too am convinced of his scenario.
Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done.
I don't know for sure what ACC Simpson's motives may have been; he was clearly placed under a lot of pressure. But let me offer one thought. I don't think that Essex Police actually wanted Jeremy Bamber convicted at the trial. I think they put up a weak case with a very dodgy chief witness who they probably thought the Jury would not believe. They offered no evidence in relation to four of the murders. Most people thought Jeremy would be acquitted.
Maybe the best possible outcome politically for ACC Simpson and EP was for Jeremy to be acquitted. They could then have said to the relatives, "Look, we did our best but the evidence did not persuade the Jury. Sorry, but there is nothing more we can do". The relatives would have grumbled and moaned, Jeremy would have walked free, his reputation tarnished and lingering doubts would have existed about his innocence. He would have been hounded by the gutter press. His life would have been miserable.
Instead EP got the worst possible scenario. A young man who protested his innocence and doubts were voiced about the safety of his conviction straight away. A man who continues to protest his innocence and by doing so has caused EP to become embroiled in on-going controversy and if I may say so, become involved in creating ever more desperate-looking and highly implausible explanations about some of the emerging evidence. i.e. "Police in conversation with someone from inside the Farm" "Oh that was a reference to Jeremy Bamber" - who do they think buys that?
So, in my view this was not some clever and devious widespread conspiracy. This was policy being made on the hoof; pretty much always reactive in nature. They tripped themselves up with the evidence.
And, I bet EP still regret the fact that Jeremy was found guilty.
Anyway, just a thought.
-
Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done.
I don't know for sure what ACC Simpson's motives may have been; he was clearly placed under a lot of pressure. But let me offer one thought. I don't think that Essex Police actually wanted Jeremy Bamber convicted at the trial. I think they put up a weak case with a very dodgy chief witness who they probably thought the Jury would not believe. They offered no evidence in relation to four of the murders. Most people thought Jeremy would be acquitted.
Maybe the best possible outcome politically for ACC Simpson and EP was for Jeremy to be acquitted. They could then have said to the relatives, "Look, we did our best but the evidence did not persuade the Jury. Sorry, but there is nothing more we can do". The relatives would have grumbled and moaned, Jeremy would have walked free, his reputation tarnished and lingering doubts would have existed about his innocence. He would have been hounded by the gutter press. His life would have been miserable.
Instead EP got the worst possible scenario. A young man who protested his innocence and doubts were voiced about the safety of his conviction straight away. A man who continues to protest his innocence and by doing so has caused EP to become embroiled in on-going controversy and if I may say so, become involved in creating ever more desperate-looking and highly implausible explanations about some of the emerging evidence. i.e. "Police in conversation with someone from inside the Farm" "Oh that was a reference to Jeremy Bamber" - who do they think buys that?
So, in my view this was not some clever and devious widespread conspiracy. This was policy being made on the hoof; pretty much always reactive in nature. They tripped themselves up with the evidence.
And, I bet EP still regret the fact that Jeremy was found guilty.
Anyway, just a thought.
One has to question what the Jury was on, that they accepted "gems" from the chief witness, such as Jeremy strangling rats with his bare hands. Undoubtedly to make sure his fingers were strong enough to pull a trigger. There were also the copious tears which flowed -making it virtually impossible for Jeremy's counsel to question her- miraculously drying up when she was questioned by the prosecution. Living locally, seeing how Julie purported herself, reading what she said, I don't think anyone expected her to be believed. Did SHE expect to be believed?
-
Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done.
I don't know for sure what ACC Simpson's motives may have been; he was clearly placed under a lot of pressure. But let me offer one thought. I don't think that Essex Police actually wanted Jeremy Bamber convicted at the trial. I think they put up a weak case with a very dodgy chief witness who they probably thought the Jury would not believe. They offered no evidence in relation to four of the murders. Most people thought Jeremy would be acquitted.
Maybe the best possible outcome politically for ACC Simpson and EP was for Jeremy to be acquitted. They could then have said to the relatives, "Look, we did our best but the evidence did not persuade the Jury. Sorry, but there is nothing more we can do". The relatives would have grumbled and moaned, Jeremy would have walked free, his reputation tarnished and lingering doubts would have existed about his innocence. He would have been hounded by the gutter press. His life would have been miserable.
Instead EP got the worst possible scenario. A young man who protested his innocence and doubts were voiced about the safety of his conviction straight away. A man who continues to protest his innocence and by doing so has caused EP to become embroiled in on-going controversy and if I may say so, become involved in creating ever more desperate-looking and highly implausible explanations about some of the emerging evidence. i.e. "Police in conversation with someone from inside the Farm" "Oh that was a reference to Jeremy Bamber" - who do they think buys that?
So, in my view this was not some clever and devious widespread conspiracy. This was policy being made on the hoof; pretty much always reactive in nature. They tripped themselves up with the evidence.
And, I bet EP still regret the fact that Jeremy was found guilty.
Anyway, just a thought.
Sorry, still don't buy any of it BUT let me ask you if you KNOW for a FACT the things you claim happened?
-
One has to question what the Jury was on, that they accepted "gems" from the chief witness, such as Jeremy strangling rats with his bare hands. Undoubtedly to make sure his fingers were strong enough to pull a trigger. There were also the copious tears which flowed -making it virtually impossible for Jeremy's counsel to question her- miraculously drying up when she was questioned by the prosecution. Living locally, seeing how Julie purported herself, reading what she said, I don't think anyone expected her to be believed. Did SHE expect to be believed?
My guess is that JM was an opportunist, possibly when she was told by police Jeremy was going down and she could be going with him she switched loyalties in the wink of an eye. Conversations with Jeremy could easily be manipulated to have other meanings in such a way that Julie quickly became to believe herself that he had done it as that was her best bet. The NOTW offered a nice cheque, very enticing and a photo in the paper may have brought forth another opportunity, it didn't but it was worth a try and the £25, 000 gave her the opportunity to move to Canada which offered her endless opportunities.
-
My guess is that JM was an opportunist, possibly when she was told by police Jeremy was going down and she could be going with him she switched loyalties in the wink of an eye. Conversations with Jeremy could easily be manipulated to have other meanings in such a way that Julie quickly became to believe herself that he had done it as that was her best bet. The NOTW offered a nice cheque, very enticing and a photo in the paper may have brought forth another opportunity, it didn't but it was worth a try and the £25, 000 gave her the opportunity to move to Canada which offered her endless opportunities.
Maggie, it strikes me that there is greater residual anger about the way Julie walked away, Scot free, pockets well lined, to a new and lucrative future, having, supposedly, been aware for more than a year, of Jeremy's plans, than there was about Maxine Carr, who wasn't there but gave Huntley an alibi, presumably because his hand in the horrific crime wouldn't cross her mind, Whether she deserved it or not, SHE served a prison sentence for what, IMO, was a lesser crime.
-
What I want to know is that the very first headlines to reach the press from a journo who was in Pages Lane awaiting news,,came from " a police officer "? who told the journo that the grandmother had had a " brainstorm " and killed the family. How would this have been deduced ? Then a phone-call to the press to say that it was the daughter.
What was it that made officers think that it was either women ? Something must have led them to believe that either one of them was responsible,,or why didn't they blame Neville ? Why the women ??
-
Maggie, it strikes me that there is greater residual anger about the way Julie walked away, Scot free, pockets well lined, to a new and lucrative future, having, supposedly, been aware for more than a year, of Jeremy's plans, than there was about Maxine Carr, who wasn't there but gave Huntley an alibi, presumably because his hand in the horrific crime wouldn't cross her mind, Whether she deserved it or not, SHE served a prison sentence for what, IMO, was a lesser crime.
Personally, don't really understand why Maxine Carr was/is demonised, she wasn't aware of Huntley's crime whereas if Julie was telling the truth she was far more liable to accusations of guilty by association.
Think Julie looked after Julie to the detriment of anyone else. Think this stands whether Jeremy was guilty or not.
-
Poor June saw right through her.
-
Oh I don't know? It has a ring of truth about it. :)
To you perhaps, but certainly not to me, but I'd like to know if he knows for a FACT that his claims are true?
-
You really have to start worrying when the police have to read the papers to see where they are in an investigation. ;D
These media-driven cases are no good at all.
-
Why do you want to be Caroline?
She doesn't, she was joking! But why shouldn't she? :P
-
I think she moved to Canada to get out of the way? If she was still in England she may have let certain things slip and let the cat out of the bag?
She very well may have and the cheque certainly enabled her to do so. Very handy, thanks very mucho.
-
She doesn't, she was joking! But why shouldn't she? :P
She's after Alfie, Caroline ;D ;D
-
To you perhaps, but certainly not to me, but I'd like to know if he knows for a FACT that his claims are true?
That is the problem with this case, we are starved of FACTS how we would relish a few proven facts.
-
I was playing on words Caroline. ::)
:-[
-
She's after Alfie, Caroline ;D ;D
He's been a little sh*t today ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Grahame I want to be Caroline as she is better looking than me, younger than me and got the most gorgeous doggie you have ever seen and he could share my bed any night ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He's been a little sh*t today ;D ;D ;D ;D
Find that hard to believe, Caroline?? ;)
-
Grahame I want to be Caroline as she is better looking than me, younger than me and got the most gorgeous doggie you have ever seen and he could share my bed any night ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Awwww!! :) XX
-
I kind of agree with this. I'm sure there are noble minded police officers but I think the point Bill is making about the heavy politicking within this case is valid. How many police officers break ranks and whistle blow external to their force? Of those who disagree internally, how many will go against an ACC?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.msg243389.html#msg243389
"So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!"
Roch
I would not dispute a person’s right to change his or her view, but it is worth noting that Caroline was, formerly, strongly opposed to the position she represents now. Ironically, a pro guilt poster from the red forum called big-goolies held the opinion Caroline has recently taken up. Here is Caroline’s reply and it’s not without a tone of impatience and sarcasm.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3961.msg164033.html#msg164033
"Then why are you asking the question again? It's not about 'sway'. IF (and I do say IF) Sheila had been killed by one of the police officers, they couldn't afford to have that revealed. The relatives (or RWB) went above the investigating officers heads - it was obvious they weren't going to drop the idea about Jeremy, so it would have been only a matter of time before the whole mess was uncovered.”
The use of slogans.
If have a criticism to make of Caroline, it’s that, since her change of position, she has shown an inclination to misrepresent her opponent’s point of view in a way which tends to make it sound ridiculous. It’s a habit I associate with Steve_uk.
“They framed him because they thought he was guilty, not because they thought he was innocent.”
That is a propaganda slogan which she has used on a few occasions and not a fair representation of the position she formerly held with but now rejects.
DS Jones did not know Bamber was innocent.
It is important to remember that the policemen who are alleged to have fabricated evidence against Bamber are not the same ones who would have known he is innocent. The raid team members had nothing to do with the silencer evidence, so she should really stop coming out with rubbish which she knows full well is just a distraction.
Nobody needs to say that Stan Jones knew that Bamber was innocent. It appears that he did not. In the simplest terms, the people who allegedly did the framing were not the same group who knew he was innocent.
On the other hand the framing may have been authorised by a person who knew that Bamber was innocent. It is false to mock the notion of such a possibility, as Caroline does. Such things are known to have happened.
-
Can someone clarify something for me .
As far as I can see the OP is saying that the situation as far as the police were concerned could have changed between the times of Jeremys call and the time the final arrival at the house . He did not say there were necessarily shots fired whilst they were outside ( although I think there are many differing opinions about whether or not the shots would be heard from outside)
What i need to clarify is I saw a court transcript where the police stated that when Jeremy called the police called back to check the line was engaged - but they did not clarify whether it was or not.
Was the phone at this point engaged - or off the hook?
I guess it could have been engaged when JB called back and if Neville was making another call it then got cut off ? But I just wondered because in court they police did not seem to make it clear?
-
I would have said it was definitely engaged.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.msg243389.html#msg243389
"So are you saying with all this in mind, ACC Simpson decided just to frame Jeremy Bamber cos the rellies were pestering him? Really? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. Sorry!"
Roch
I would not dispute a person’s right to change his or her view, but it is worth noting that Caroline was, formerly, strongly opposed to the position she represents now. Ironically, a pro guilt poster from the red forum called big-goolies held the opinion Caroline has recently taken up. Here is Caroline’s reply and it’s not without a tone of impatience and sarcasm.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3961.msg164033.html#msg164033
"Then why are you asking the question again? It's not about 'sway'. IF (and I do say IF) Sheila had been killed by one of the police officers, they couldn't afford to have that revealed. The relatives (or RWB) went above the investigating officers heads - it was obvious they weren't going to drop the idea about Jeremy, so it would have been only a matter of time before the whole mess was uncovered.”
The use of slogans.
If have a criticism to make of Caroline, it’s that, since her change of position, she has shown an inclination to misrepresent her opponent’s point of view in a way which tends to make it sound ridiculous. It’s a habit I associate with Steve_uk.
“They framed him because they thought he was guilty, not because they thought he was innocent.”
That is a propaganda slogan which she has used on a few occasions and not a fair representation of the position she formerly held with but now rejects.
DS Jones did not know Bamber was innocent.
It is important to remember that the policemen who are alleged to have fabricated evidence against Bamber are not the same ones who would have known he is innocent. The raid team members had nothing to do with the silencer evidence, so she should really stop coming out with rubbish which she knows full well is just a distraction.
Nobody needs to say that Stan Jones knew that Bamber was innocent. It appears that he did not. In the simplest terms, the people who allegedly did the framing were not the same group who knew he was innocent.
On the other hand the framing may have been authorised by a person who knew that Bamber was innocent. It is false to mock the notion of such a possibility, as Caroline does. Such things are known to have happened.
Oh you're back again with your conspiracy theories ::). It doesn't matter whether Jones knew or not, senior police officers WOULD have known so why would they simply fall in line with a DS and a bunch of relatives. It's ridiculous to even suggest it! ;D. Also, you're post is deliberately misrepresenting my position - I have NEVER thought that Jeremy was framed in the full knowledge that Sheila was guilty!! NEVER!!
-
Can someone clarify something for me .
As far as I can see the OP is saying that the situation as far as the police were concerned could have changed between the times of Jeremys call and the time the final arrival at the house . He did not say there were necessarily shots fired whilst they were outside ( although I think there are many differing opinions about whether or not the shots would be heard from outside)
What i need to clarify is I saw a court transcript where the police stated that when Jeremy called the police called back to check the line was engaged - but they did not clarify whether it was or not.
Was the phone at this point engaged - or off the hook?
I guess it could have been engaged when JB called back and if Neville was making another call it then got cut off ? But I just wondered because in court they police did not seem to make it clear?
Off the hook but the tone is the same so I guess that's why they said engaged.
-
Off the hook tone is/was a long drawn-out tone. An engaged tone was/is a series of bleeps.
So it's down to the dozy officer what tone it was.
-
Off the hook tone is/was a long drawn-out tone. An engaged tone was/is a series of bleeps.
So it's down to the dozy officer what tone it was.
That would depend on whether it had been disconnected at the exchange and as the small exchanges weren't manned the tone would have been the same. I asked an engineer, perhaps Grahame could ask the guy he knows just to clarify.
-
I would imagine if it was disconnected from the exchange it could quite possibly have given out the same,or similar tone to " number unobtainable ",another long hollow tone until it shuts/clicks off.
There could very well have been a difference of phone operations depending on areas of the country,Essex being " out in the sticks " in comparison to a city or large town. Telephone systems there seemed to differ from mine at that time.
-
Which officer would have checked the line? - its just that when I saw the court transcript they said they were checking the line to see if the phone was engaged or off the hook - so I would imagine the tones would have been different . I am only asking because it annoyed me at the time that it was not clarified what they found when they tested the line. And if perhaps they heard shots later then presumably the line was not engaged?
I know its annoying because we have been over the phone thing so often.
-
I agree,Jansus,it's not good enough. Saying that,it's how the investigation went from start to finish,a bloody shambles.
First we had the silencer debacle,then two bodies that changed into one,the figure at the window-----or was it ? The list goes on.
-
Surely a phone has to be removed from the cradle in order for a call to be made from it. Whether it's simply off cradle, being used to make an out going call, OR somewhere in between the two, it would amount to the same thing.
-
That's right,April,,then the number dialled in order to activate it.
-
Which officer would have checked the line? - its just that when I saw the court transcript they said they were checking the line to see if the phone was engaged or off the hook - so I would imagine the tones would have been different . I am only asking because it annoyed me at the time that it was not clarified what they found when they tested the line. And if perhaps they heard shots later then presumably the line was not engaged?
I know its annoying because we have been over the phone thing so often.
An officer wouldn't have checked the line, the operator would. The operator breaks into the line and if there is a convo going on, it was engaged, if all they hear is nothing or background noise, it's off the hook.
-
Surely a phone has to be removed from the cradle in order for a call to be made from it. Whether it's simply off cradle, being used to make an out going call, OR somewhere in between the two, it would amount to the same thing.
Exactly!
-
Is that tumble weed rolling by?
-
Is that tumble weed rolling by?
D'ya know, for a moment there, I THOUGHT I heard someone say something. Must have been my imagination.
-
An officer wouldn't have checked the line, the operator would. The operator breaks into the line and if there is a convo going on, it was engaged, if all they hear is nothing or background noise, it's off the hook.
Ok so as they said they heard a dog barking at one stage it was off the hook then - I was only confused because the statement or court transcript said they were making sure it was engaged.
So if it was confirmed at just off the hook at the stage they first tried it and there were shots in the house then there is a POSSIBILTY that the operator could have heard shots whilst the police cars were on their way.
Also because it is ALLEGED that we have never seen the ORIGINAL ( if it exists) record of Nevilles POSSIBLE call to the police we don't know how his call ended do we?
-
I wonder if either officers who answered the calls for assistance that night,described the voice of a young man and one of an older man. There must have been a difference,one being 24 and the other 61 ?
Or were the calls referred to a " Mr Bamber ",when in fact there were two Mr Bambers' and this was where the confusion was ? They'd have thought the call only came from Jeremy.
There was even a mix-up in the timings,where one officer quoted the time of a call at 3.36,even though it was said that a car was sent at 3.35,before the call ?
What a jumble !
-
Ok so as they said they heard a dog barking at one stage it was off the hook then - I was only confused because the statement or court transcript said they were making sure it was engaged.
So if it was confirmed at just off the hook at the stage they first tried it and there were shots in the house then there is a POSSIBILTY that the operator could have heard shots whilst the police cars were on their way.
Also because it is ALLEGED that we have never seen the ORIGINAL ( if it exists) record of Nevilles POSSIBLE call to the police we don't know how his call ended do we?
Why didn't they come forward as an independent witness? As for the call, as you say, it may not exist.
-
I knew I had seen the phone was engaged and they were trying to clarify that it was engaged and not off the hook
evidence from West
-
I knew I had seen the phone was engaged and they were trying to clarify that it was engaged and not off the hook
evidence from West
Yes I know, then the operator told them it was off the hook.
-
It's in the logs ....
-
In actual fact when Jeremy was asked who was in the house,he answered by first saying " his father,obviously " ( being cocky because of his father having phoned ) then proceeded to name the rest of the family.
-
In actual fact when Jeremy was asked who was in the house,he answered by first saying " his father,obviously " ( being cocky because of his father having phoned ) then proceeded to name the rest of the family.
Lookout, I CAN understand that he may have said "My sister, obviously.........." because the call was about a weapon his sister had, but at that point, how would he have been aware that his father had called the police? He didn't say that Nevill had SAID he'd called them.
-
I see from the transcript that Jeremy spoke to West twice.
He means twice because he asked him to hold on.
-
Lookout, I CAN understand that he may have said "My sister, obviously.........." because the call was about a weapon his sister had, but at that point, how would he have been aware that his father had called the police? He didn't say that Nevill had SAID he'd called them.
I rather think that it was an officer who was outside the farmhouse with Jeremy. I do remember seeing Jeremys' sarcastic comment though when he was asked who was in the house.
-
These little things stick in my mind, as even in a situation such as it was,Jeremy maintained his cavalier attitude which didn't help at all.
-
I'm sure Roch will tell you all about it.
-
Sorry Roch, I don't agree, if this was the case, there would be other examples and none have been provided. Hillsborough is completely different and there is no reason to believe the police KNEW EG was innocent.
Ok, the reasoning I'm using is as follows.
I believe Bill Robertson has called it right, when he asserts that once an ACC instructs / desires a certain outcome, that outcome will be striven for. Perhaps this was even more so, back in the mid 80's.
I was once told by a person in the know, that ACC Simpson went ballistic when DCS (?) Jim Kenneally reached the same conclusion as DCI Taff Jones after having reviewed the case evidence. So it sounds like ACC was very desirous for this outcome, regardless of the fact that they already had a prime suspect in Sheila Caffell. It wasn't just Taff who thought it was not Jeremy. The pathologist was not impressed by DS Stan Jones arguments either.
In order for the ACC to instruct / insist that a case around Bamber as culprit be made, the ACC him self must have been placed under some kind of pressure, whether it be from JM's evidence or whether it be from a disconcerting and purposful Robert Boutflour.
There is a link between the relatives and a cabal of police officers which stinks to high heaven. It is likely that this link strongly contributed to the controversial silencer evidence.
The circs of how JM's evidence came to light are shrouded in controversy. Where this fits in with ACC Simpson, I'm not sure. Was he keen on her evidence being taken seriously because it potentially aided in the outcome he desired?
How much went wrong on the day, in terms of errors, bad practice, direspectful behaviour towards the victims bodies (whether by training exercise or photographs of officers larking around), inconsistencies in crime scene photgraphy and inconsistencies in logs.
I believe Andrew Hunter when he says the police did some terrible things in the 1980's. I believe that special branch officers threatened victims of VIP paedophiles and threatened their supporters also. I believe that senior police officers closed down the investigations of junior officers in to VIP paedophiles.
I believe that the relatives did have some inside info from some police and could have put pressure on ACC Simpson, who would have been concerned about any wrongdoing being exposed and the reputation of his force / his senior officers being potentially impugned, on his watch. If running with Sheila all the way as being the main and only culprit equates to the press and potentially other officials asking awkward questions of EP (in response to the relatives who have turned to the press or other officials) then I do not believe it is beyond the realms of fantasy that Simpson would switch to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber in order to prevent such a scenario.
I believe the police did have the power to 'frame' people and to conceal or manipulate evidence from pocket books to scientific exhibits. However, they would not have time to do so at such short notice, after the tragedy, in the event of the relatives not being accommodated by EP and therefor stirring up all kinds of enquiries or unwanted attention on EP. I've always thought that gunning for JB bought EP time. It put them in control of the situation and control of the 'evidence'.
The person that was undoubtedly framed was a drug dealer who had alientated some of his relatives and lost his only support on the day of the killings. Barbara Wilson claimed that Nevill knew Jeremy had commited the burglary but wanted to keep it 'in house'. To me this suggests a degree of protection afforded to Jeremy. Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour were never going to afford him any such thing. He was persona non grata and the police would effectively be framing a 'bad apple'. Which if Campion's anecdote is to be taken seriously, goes some way to explaining Kelvin McKenzie's alleged remark, which I take to mean - nobody really cares that bamber has been framed - he deserved it anyway.
I suspect that police officers rarely (if ever) moved to expose wrong-doing in terms of framing, externally. They may raise concerns internally. But you dont see them on newsnight saying that their ACC sanctioned the framing of a suspect when evidence pointed elsewhere, despite the fact that they themselves protested.
For this reason, I believe that any police officers who needed to unburden themselves would have done so internally and in doing so, felt expunged from guilt or responsibility thereafter, regardless of whether their concerns were disregarded.
I dont believe that this case has to mirror any other case. This case was unique in it's own way, with its own pressures and its own things at stake.
Fo all these reasons, I believe it is possible that the police framed a man that some of them knew to be innocent (to the extent that they knew Sheila was responsible). It is also possible that some officers who were not in possession of all the facts that morning regarding the TFG's experiences may have genuinely felt Bamber knew more than he let on (and perhaps this might even prove to be the case one day).
-
See. :-\
-
Ok, the reasoning I'm using is as follows.
I believe Bill Robertson has called it right, when he asserts that once an ACC instructs / desires a certain outcome, that outcome will be striven for. Perhaps this was even more so, back in the mid 80's.
I was once told by a person in the know, that ACC Simpson went ballistic when DCS (?) Jim Kenneally reached the same conclusion as DCI Taff Jones after having reviewed the case evidence. So it sounds like ACC was very desirous for this outcome, regardless of the fact that they already had a prime suspect in Sheila Caffell. It wasn't just Taff who thought it was not Jeremy. The pathologist was not impressed by DS Stan Jones arguments either.
In order for the ACC to instruct / insist that a case around Bamber as culprit be made, the ACC him self must have been placed under some kind of pressure, whether it be from JM's evidence or whether it be from a disconcerting and purposful Robert Boutflour.
There is a link between the relatives and a cabal of police officers which stinks to high heaven. It is likely that this link strongly contributed to the controversial silencer evidence.
The circs of how JM's evidence came to light are shrouded in controversy. Where this fits in with ACC Simpson, I'm not sure. Was he keen on her evidence being taken seriously because it potentially aided in the outcome he desired?
How much went wrong on the day, in terms of errors, bad practice, direspectful behaviour towards the victims bodies (whether by training exercise or photographs of officers larking around), inconsistencies in crime scene photgraphy and inconsistencies in logs.
I believe Andrew Hunter when he says the police did some terrible things in the 1980's. I believe that special branch officers threatened victims of VIP paedophiles and threatened their supporters also. I believe that senior police officers closed down the investigations of junior officers in to VIP paedophiles.
I believe that the relatives did have some inside info from some police and could have put pressure on ACC Simpson, who would have been concerned about any wrongdoing being exposed and the reputation of his force / his senior officers being potentially impugned, on his watch. If running with Sheila all the way as being the main and only culprit equates to the press and potentially other officials asking awkward questions of EP (in response to the relatives who have turned to the press or other officials) then I do not believe it is beyond the realms of fantasy that Simpson would switch to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber in order to prevent such a scenario.
I believe the police did have the power to 'frame' people and to conceal or manipulate evidence from pocket books to scientific exhibits. However, they would not have time to do so at such short notice, after the tragedy, in the event of the relatives not being accommodated by EP and therefor stirring up all kinds of enquiries or unwanted attention on EP. I've always thought that gunning for JB bought EP time. It put them in control of the situation and control of the 'evidence'.
The person that was undoubtedly framed was a drug dealer who had alientated some of his relatives and lost his only support on the day of the killings. Barbara Wilson claimed that Nevill knew Jeremy had commited the burglary but wanted to keep it 'in house'. To me this suggests a degree of protection afforded to Jeremy. Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour were never going to afford him any such thing. He was persona non grata and the police would effectively be framing a 'bad apple'. Which if Campion's anecdote is to be taken seriously, goes some way to explaining Kelvin McKenzie's alleged remark, which I take to mean - nobody really cares that bamber has been framed - he deserved it anyway.
I suspect that police officers rarely (if ever) moved to expose wrong-doing in terms of framing, externally. They may raise concerns internally. But you dont see them on newsnight saying that their ACC sanctioned the framing of a suspect when evidence pointed elsewhere, despite the fact that they themselves protested.
For this reason, I believe that any police officers who needed to unburden themselves would have done so internally and in doing so, felt expunged from guilt or responsibility thereafter, regardless of whether their concerns were disregarded.
I dont believe that this case has to mirror any other case. This case was unique in it's own way, with its own pressures and its own things at stake.
Fo all these reasons, I believe it is possible that the police framed a man that some of them knew to be innocent (to the extent that they knew Sheila was responsible). It is also possible that some officers who were not in possession of all the facts that morning regarding the TFG's experiences may have genuinely felt Bamber knew more than he let on (and perhaps this might even prove to be the case one day).
With all you have said, I still see no good enough reason why EP (not even ACC Simpson) would frame a man when they knew he wasn't responsible but knew who was. I do believe he was framed but ONLY because they thought he was guilty and didn't feel they had enough to convict. Initially, everyone readily accepted that Sheila was guilty so, had there been a call from Neville, the relatives would have been told about it when they questioned Jeremy's story. TJ wanted them off his back and given that there was no investigation going on as far as any other suspect was concerned, there was nothing to stop him saying that Jeremy's story checked out and that Neville had called the police himself and they have a record of it. There was no cover up in the beginning so how come no details were forthcoming that corroborated Jeremy's story? No one claimed to have heard any shots and no one mentioned a call from Neville.
-
Sorry Mr Richardson but your theory is little more than a house of cards bult upon a sand foundation.
The foundation of your argument is that police knew the murders happened before they ever arrived on the scene and thus knew Jeremy was innocent.
The shootings occurring prior to police arriving doesn't help Jeremy one bit. That is indeed what the prosecution asserted- that the murders happened prior to police arriving, in fact prior to police being called.
At any rate you have failed miserably at establishing that police were aware that there was shooting prior to their arrival. Jeremy told unarmed police officers that his sister was inside with an arsenal at her disposal, told them that he had taken her shooting and that she had fired and thus was proficient with all the weapons in the house. Trying to enter the house unarmed would endager their own lives but also those that she had inside who were considered potential hostages. Evne when officers are armed they first try to talk to a gunman and try to get the gunman to surrender rather than rush inside immediately risking the hostages and potentially the officers as well. Your entire premise that they had to know shots were fired and that Jeremy was thus innocent is nonsense.
They were operated simply based on the facts jeremy gave them which turned out to be lies. He lied about Sheila having fired all the weapons in the house, having gone shooting with him, leaving the weapon out for her to grab and obviously much more.
Your claim about them planting evidence to frame Jeremy is on equally poor footing and doesn't seem to have been well thought out let alone supported by anything credible.
Aside from a complete absense of physical evidence to suggest Sheila shot or beat any of the victims the evidence proves she can't have killed herself. The evidence establishes that Sheila was shot while sitting down propped up against something. Very shortly after she died while she was still bleeding someone did the following:
1) dragged her body flat so that the blood stopped dripping vertically down her neck ot her shoulder and arm and instead dripped down the side of her neck onto the floor where it pooled.
2) placed the bble in the pool of blood that formed after her death and repeatedly opened and closed it while the blood was still wet thus having the blood creating a mirror image on some pages
3) removed the moderator from the rifle and placed it in a box in the closet
Unless she died very close to the time that police entered the house there is no way they would be in a position to do any of these things and she still could not have shot herself with the moderator attached. There is not a shred of evidence that suggests she did die after police arrived on the scene let alone around the time they entered the house. Nor would police have any reason to do any of these things.
You need to go back to the drawing board.
-
A very thought provoking post Bill. Thanks for posting.
That's funny because you swore up and down that police followed proper procedure for what they thought might be a hostage situation and insisted there is no way they would have rushed in fast.
Richardson's claims that police should have rushed right in and the fact they didn't means they already knew shots have been fired is the complete opposite of what you argued in the past.
Instead of challenging the views you seem supportive now that it is coming from someone pro-Jeremy instead of anti-Jeremy.
-
Oh you're back again with your conspiracy theories ::). It doesn't matter whether Jones knew or not, senior police officers WOULD have known so why would they simply fall in line with a DS and a bunch of relatives. It's ridiculous to even suggest it! ;D. Also, you're post is deliberately misrepresenting my position - I have NEVER thought that Jeremy was framed in the full knowledge that Sheila was guilty!! NEVER!!
Nobody thinks that senior policemen fell in line with DS Jones’s supposed decision to frame Jeremy. Talk about misrepresentation! That’s what called a straw man.
The basic idea is that Stan Jones fell in line with the wishes of senior officers. There need only have been one or two of such people, so no grand circle of conspirators is required. And you say that you think that it’s “ridiculous” even to suggest that that could have happened.
You did not used to think it was "ridiculous", even if you’ve now reversed your position. So why not stop pretending to, even if you no longer subscribe to that view.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3961.msg164033.html#msg164033
“The relatives (or RWB) went above the investigating officers heads - it was obvious they weren't going to drop the idea about Jeremy, so it would have been only a matter of time before the whole mess was uncovered.”
-
Oh you're back again with your conspiracy theories ::). It doesn't matter whether Jones knew or not, senior police officers WOULD have known so why would they simply fall in line with a DS and a bunch of relatives. It's ridiculous to even suggest it! ;D. Also, you're post is deliberately misrepresenting my position - I have NEVER thought that Jeremy was framed in the full knowledge that Sheila was guilty!! NEVER!!
And where did I say that you did? The point I'm making is that the people who fabricated evidence against Bamber did not think he was innocent, although there were others, not involved in the investigation, who knew it. Better just let it drop!
-
What words have I used that says I agree with him? In fact if you read my subsequent posts I said that before I accept his scenario I would like to read more of what he has to say. I'm just wondering why you are trying to read something into my post that is not there?
This is what I said: Now what can you deduce from those words that tells you that I agree with him?
I think that the timing of his appearance is more than a little suspect, not to mention the claims contained in his posts.
I wonder what his other username(s) is/are? :-\
-
Bill registered in January 2013. I think I can recall seeing the username as a lurker on a number of occasions. There are several lurkers. I wish they would post, even if just to say 'hello'.
-
And where did I say that you did? The point I'm making is that the people who fabricated evidence against Bamber did not think he was innocent, although there were others, not involved in the investigation, who knew it. Better just let it drop!
I'll let it drop when you STOP using me to 'try' to further your argument. People will believe what they want to believe including myself!!
-
Bill registered in January 2013. I think I can recall seeing the username as a lurker on a number of occasions. There are several lurkers. I wish they would post, even if just to say 'hello'.
is it any wonder people dont want to post if there motives for doing so are constantly questioned.
-
Funnily enough I agree with you. Unless he is the Australian crime writer? ;)
Mike you mean? ;D
-
No the timing of his appearance. Plus his scenario had very few or no facts to back it up.
Yes, I was just making a cheap shot that I believe our Australian friend to be a moniker for Mr T. :P
-
Harters I like it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
is it any wonder people dont want to post if there motives for doing so are constantly questioned.
Well said !!!
-
Hi Roch
I love lurkers as they can come with an element of surprise ;D ;D ;D I watch them daily.
-
i bet he wishes he hadent bothered now this is no way to treat a new poster.
-
i bet he wishes he hadent bothered now this is no way to treat a new poster.
I agree - if there is an ulterior motive it will become obvious later - so as long as a poster answers questions and we are honest in our posts I dont see what the problem is ?
-
Basically a house of cards should stand quite securely on a sand foundation, as it is constructed of light materials. The instability comes when a well build stone structure is built upon an unstable foundation such as sand. The analogy being that to the sight the structure looks pretty sound, but when tested by the elements would quickly fail. Not because of the bad structure, which is made of an excellent material, rock. But it is only bound to fail because of the sand which as you know is unstable and moves. So it is in fact the foundation which is at fault and not the actual building. :) To bring the analogy out of the metaphore and into plain speech. The argument itself may be quite a good one and may look impressive. But the whole argument may be based upon a lie and it is this lie that will ultimately cause the whole argument to come crashing down.
We tried playing Jenga at the beach but it failed miserably. Granted Jenga blocks are heavier than cards but I still don't think my card house will work unless I wet the sand first. I will try building a card house the next time I go.
-
No the timing of his appearance. Plus his scenario had very few or no facts to back it up.
Dear Grahame, There is no mystery over the timing of my appearance. I have been reading posts on this website for a year or so, wondering whether to share information and ideas. I decided to share some information. I have no other agenda; I'm not here to wind anyone up. Now, as to the facts, in my original post please see below.
FACT: At 03:26 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: At 03:36 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: According to records made by PC West and Malcolm Bonnett, no communications occurred between 03:36 and 03:48 with any police vehicles
FACT: At 03:42 PC West received a report from BT that the telephone line at WHF was ‘busy’ i.e. engaged
FACT: At 03:48 the police arrived at Pages Lane and prepared for a siege
FACT: At 04:04 the FSU were withdrawn from Colchester before any report had been received from WHF (this was not broadcast until some 5 minutes later) in preparation for an armed siege
FACT: At 04:08 approximately Acting Inspector Targrass reported to Chief Superintendent Harris a “shooting incident” at WHF – before any report had been received from PS Bews
FACT: CA7 did not communicate any information from WHF until 04:09 – and there was still no report of any casualties or shots being fired
FACT: At 03:48 when CA7 containing PS Bews, PCs Saxby and Myall arrived at Pages Lane they parked 200 yards distant
FACT: Between 03:48 and 04:05 approximately CA7 and Jeremy Bamber waited for around 15 minutes before PS Bews and PC Myall approached WHF with Jeremy Bamber out in front
FACT: PC Saxby remained at the police car even though, in theory, there was nothing for him to do
FACT: PC Saxby was said to be waiting for further messages – where were they going to come from if Jeremy Bamber was already with them?
FACT: They stopped 100 feet from the Farmhouse and crouched behind a wall.
FACT: They saw that the kitchen lights were on
FACT: Jeremy Bamber pleaded with PS Bews to enter the property
FACT: PS Bews refused to go any closer than 100 feet
FACT: PS Bews refused to even consider trying to rescue anyone inside the Farmhouse
FACT: Essex Police abandoned the occupants of WHF to their fate
FACT: PS Bews ran away when they saw a figure in a bedroom window
FACT: CA5 with PCs Cracknell and Norcup took 50 minutes to complete an 18 mile journey to WHF on deserted roads, in an Area Car equipped with blue lights and two-tone siren. A journey that can be done in between 15-20 minutes.
FACT: None of 5 police officers who initially attended the scene approached the Farmhouse
FACT: None of the 5 police officers who attended WHF in CA5 or CA7 faced any disciplinary charges for dereliction of duty, despite the FACT that they did not attempt any rescue or even consider any rescue options
All of the above facts can be found in witness statements contained in the archive section of this website.
I would like you to consider some further facts please.
FACT: When PC Michael West received a telephone call at Chelmsford police station prior to 03:30 on 7th August, (around 03:26), PCs Cracknell and Norcup were in the control room with him
FACT: PC West did not mention that PCs Cracknell or Norcup were in the control room with him in either of his two witness statements
FACT: PC Cracknell and PC Norcup heard whatever telephone conversation PC West had at approximately 03:26
FACT: As a result of hearing the telephone conversation that took place at 03:26 PCs Cracknell and Norcup discussed the content of the telephone call with PC West
FACT: As a result of their conversation with PC West, at 03:33 CA5 containing PCs Cracknell and West commenced their journey to WHF from Chelmsford police station
FACT: Despite the point that the telephone call at 03:26 is highly controversial and subject to much dispute as to who the caller was (Nevill or Jeremy Bamber), Essex police have never asked PCs Cracknell or Norcup to divulge what they heard in the control room or indeed, to confirm that the caller was Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: PC West faced disciplinary charges over the falsification of an incident recording sheet. Even though PC West was in need of assistance, PCs Cracknell and Norcup did not come forward to support him or corroborate his version of events. I find this significant.
FACT: PC West in written evidence twice and after being questioned on oath at Jeremy’s trial, insisted that he received a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber at 03:36, not 03:26. He stated that he did not make a mistake in reading the time, despite what was subsequently reported
FACT: If PCs Cracknell and Norcup could confirm that it was Jeremy Bamber who called PC West at 03:26 rather than Nevill Bamber, they would be priceless witnesses for the prosecution – the FACT that they have not been required to give evidence is strongly suggestive that they in FACT heard a telephone call from Nevill Bamber, thus giving Jeremy Bamber an alibi.
FACT: All of this information is contained in witness statements in the archive section of the Bamber Forum website.
Once you have all these facts at your disposal you have to draw some conclusions. Inevitably one has to speculate somewhat, which is not a problem if speculation is based on facts. My conclusion is:
PCs Cracknell and Norcup know what was said to PC West at 03:26. They had a conversation with him; they must know whether it was Nevill or Jeremy Bamber who telephoned at 03:26. They have remained mute. If they could confirm that the call was from Jeremy Bamber they would have given evidence to that effect. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the 03:26 telephone call was from Nevill Bamber, which is exactly the impression given from looking at the documentary record made by Malcolm Bonnett at Essex Police HQ Information Room. “daughter gone berserk -has got hold of one of my guns”
-
Essex police have never said they heard from Neville. They would have told Jeremy on the night or in the month afterwards if they had.
Jeremy never claimed he was told that Neville phoned the police. And even gave a reason why Neville would not do this. He knew Neville not phoning the police would support his claim that Neville phoned his son instead.
Only decades later did Jeremy claim Neville phoned the police.
-
If all these are facts, they do not show proof of guilt or innocence.
Do you have a source please that says Jeremy begged the police to enter WHF.
-
I often wondered why nobody moved for nearly 3 hours outside WHF ! No wonder Neville had no faith in authority.
-
If all these are facts, they do not show proof of guilt or innocence.
Do you have a source please that says Jeremy begged the police to enter WHF.
You're a blooming embarrassment with your sources.
Jeremy himself wanted to go inside to speak to his father. You can trot off with your source for that one.
-
Dear Grahame, There is no mystery over the timing of my appearance. I have been reading posts on this website for a year or so, wondering whether to share information and ideas. I decided to share some information. I have no other agenda; I'm not here to wind anyone up. Now, as to the facts, in my original post please see below.
FACT: At 03:26 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: At 03:36 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: According to records made by PC West and Malcolm Bonnett, no communications occurred between 03:36 and 03:48 with any police vehicles
FACT: At 03:42 PC West received a report from BT that the telephone line at WHF was ‘busy’ i.e. engaged
FACT: At 03:48 the police arrived at Pages Lane and prepared for a siege
FACT: At 04:04 the FSU were withdrawn from Colchester before any report had been received from WHF (this was not broadcast until some 5 minutes later) in preparation for an armed siege
FACT: At 04:08 approximately Acting Inspector Targrass reported to Chief Superintendent Harris a “shooting incident” at WHF – before any report had been received from PS Bews
FACT: CA7 did not communicate any information from WHF until 04:09 – and there was still no report of any casualties or shots being fired
FACT: At 03:48 when CA7 containing PS Bews, PCs Saxby and Myall arrived at Pages Lane they parked 200 yards distant
FACT: Between 03:48 and 04:05 approximately CA7 and Jeremy Bamber waited for around 15 minutes before PS Bews and PC Myall approached WHF with Jeremy Bamber out in front
FACT: PC Saxby remained at the police car even though, in theory, there was nothing for him to do
FACT: PC Saxby was said to be waiting for further messages – where were they going to come from if Jeremy Bamber was already with them?
FACT: They stopped 100 feet from the Farmhouse and crouched behind a wall.
FACT: They saw that the kitchen lights were on
FACT: Jeremy Bamber pleaded with PS Bews to enter the property
FACT: PS Bews refused to go any closer than 100 feet
FACT: PS Bews refused to even consider trying to rescue anyone inside the Farmhouse
FACT: Essex Police abandoned the occupants of WHF to their fate
FACT: PS Bews ran away when they saw a figure in a bedroom window
FACT: CA5 with PCs Cracknell and Norcup took 50 minutes to complete an 18 mile journey to WHF on deserted roads, in an Area Car equipped with blue lights and two-tone siren. A journey that can be done in between 15-20 minutes.
FACT: None of 5 police officers who initially attended the scene approached the Farmhouse
FACT: None of the 5 police officers who attended WHF in CA5 or CA7 faced any disciplinary charges for dereliction of duty, despite the FACT that they did not attempt any rescue or even consider any rescue options
All of the above facts can be found in witness statements contained in the archive section of this website.
I would like you to consider some further facts please.
FACT: When PC Michael West received a telephone call at Chelmsford police station prior to 03:30 on 7th August, (around 03:26), PCs Cracknell and Norcup were in the control room with him
FACT: PC West did not mention that PCs Cracknell or Norcup were in the control room with him in either of his two witness statements
FACT: PC Cracknell and PC Norcup heard whatever telephone conversation PC West had at approximately 03:26
FACT: As a result of hearing the telephone conversation that took place at 03:26 PCs Cracknell and Norcup discussed the content of the telephone call with PC West
FACT: As a result of their conversation with PC West, at 03:33 CA5 containing PCs Cracknell and West commenced their journey to WHF from Chelmsford police station
FACT: Despite the point that the telephone call at 03:26 is highly controversial and subject to much dispute as to who the caller was (Nevill or Jeremy Bamber), Essex police have never asked PCs Cracknell or Norcup to divulge what they heard in the control room or indeed, to confirm that the caller was Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: PC West faced disciplinary charges over the falsification of an incident recording sheet. Even though PC West was in need of assistance, PCs Cracknell and Norcup did not come forward to support him or corroborate his version of events. I find this significant.
FACT: PC West in written evidence twice and after being questioned on oath at Jeremy’s trial, insisted that he received a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber at 03:36, not 03:26. He stated that he did not make a mistake in reading the time, despite what was subsequently reported
FACT: If PCs Cracknell and Norcup could confirm that it was Jeremy Bamber who called PC West at 03:26 rather than Nevill Bamber, they would be priceless witnesses for the prosecution – the FACT that they have not been required to give evidence is strongly suggestive that they in FACT heard a telephone call from Nevill Bamber, thus giving Jeremy Bamber an alibi.
FACT: All of this information is contained in witness statements in the archive section of the Bamber Forum website.
Once you have all these facts at your disposal you have to draw some conclusions. Inevitably one has to speculate somewhat, which is not a problem if speculation is based on facts. My conclusion is:
PCs Cracknell and Norcup know what was said to PC West at 03:26. They had a conversation with him; they must know whether it was Nevill or Jeremy Bamber who telephoned at 03:26. They have remained mute. If they could confirm that the call was from Jeremy Bamber they would have given evidence to that effect. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the 03:26 telephone call was from Nevill Bamber, which is exactly the impression given from looking at the documentary record made by Malcolm Bonnett at Essex Police HQ Information Room. “daughter gone berserk -has got hold of one of my guns”
There is not considerable dispute over whether Jeremy called police or Nevill called police. There are some clowns who claim they believe Bonnet's log proves that he fielded a call from Nevill but the log doesn't suggest such at all and there is no way that someone claling the main police line could have reached Bonnet's call station anyway so the suggestions is not only not supported at all by any evidence but worse absurd. These clowns are rightly considered at best buffoons and at worst outright liars.
It is a fact that Jeremy called and spoke to PC West that is not in dispute at all.
As for your suggestions that the unarmed officers should have ran in the house to challenge someone supposedly armed and holding the others hostage- that is also absurd. Even armed officers try instead to talk gunmen out and there are situations where police will wait outsid eof alocation for mor ethan 24 hours.
Your arguments are simply not credible at all.
-
Lookout I think Bill is wrong on some of this? Although of course if he was really a copper then I must be wrong? But I was under the impression that it was normal police procedure to hold back in seige situations. Just as with fire fighters are told to evacuate their personnel if the building is in danger of falling. The first precaution in any seige situation is to protect their own officers. This must always take precedent in a suspected gun seige.
Also we must not forget that it was Jeremy himself who put the police on their guard. Take a look at the Iranian Embassy seige. The police held back and waited and negotiated. It was only when they killed one of the embassy staff and threw his body into the street that the Home Secretary decided to send in the SAS.
So although I do stand to be corrected the police were carrying out standard procedure. They were not being cowards for want of a better term. But they really didn't know what was behind those doors. Someone may have had a shotgun pointed at them for all they knew?
I understand what you're saying and what you mean,but when you KNOW there's a siege,surely the police would be prepared to storm in ? Not sit and twiddle their thumbs for nearly 3 hours.
As it happened,,Jeremy went down for more reasons than enough which wasn't his fault,whereas,if that time hadn't been wasted,then proof of his innocence would have been right there.
I feel very strongly about that time having been wasted. To me it's as bad as the fact that no times of death had been reported.
-
I understand what you're saying and what you mean,but when you KNOW there's a siege,surely the police would be prepared to storm in ? Not sit and twiddle their thumbs for nearly 3 hours.
As it happened,,Jeremy went down for more reasons than enough which wasn't his fault,whereas,if that time hadn't been wasted,then proof of his innocence would have been right there.
I feel very strongly about that time having been wasted. To me it's as bad as the fact that no times of death had been reported.
If they had stormed the house immediately, I think it would have been clear what happened either way.
-
They'd have had their answer there and then,Caroline. Time was of the essence.
-
I think bill is implying it was not a siege situation originally. The call from Jeremy never stated any shots had been fired. But he feels there was more info received by the time the second car arrived that made them hold back. Why would they attempt contact for so long if they heard or saw nothing. Also i am not convinced about some of the alleged conversation with Jeremy about Shiela as for some reason it does not appear in the original note books or statements of the officers that were with him :D
-
Nobody,not even Jeremy knew how sick Sheila was. He was only repeating in his own language what he'd heard already from his parents,,and that wouldn't have been very much.
-
I understand what you're saying and what you mean,but when you KNOW there's a siege,surely the police would be prepared to storm in ? Not sit and twiddle their thumbs for nearly 3 hours.
As it happened,,Jeremy went down for more reasons than enough which wasn't his fault,whereas,if that time hadn't been wasted,then proof of his innocence would have been right there.
I feel very strongly about that time having been wasted. To me it's as bad as the fact that no times of death had been reported.
well thats the reason they needed to blame him they needed a scapegoat for there own cock this happens a lot.
-
He's been a scapegoat that's for sure. No getting away from it,,but sadly,he's not a forceful character to have been able to have got his point across. I'd have screamed at everyone and probably made matters worse,,though he couldn't have ended up any worse himself if he had have carried on. :(
-
Come back Bill - I am interested to hear more.
We all get jaded with going round in circles and as I have half the posters on ignore its refreshing to see new posts.
-
I think bill is implying it was not a siege situation originally. The call from Jeremy never stated any shots had been fired. But he feels there was more info received by the time the second car arrived that made them hold back. Why would they attempt contact for so long if they heard or saw nothing. Also i am not convinced about some of the alleged conversation with Jeremy about Shiela as for some reason it does not appear in the original note books or statements of the officers that were with him :D
well they could of done 2 things when they got they could of ether said theirs no clearly no problem here and gone home again..
or they could of gone in but they did neither.
i mean if nobody had heard a gunshot how did they know it was a siege situation.
-
well with that sort of situation there normally geting to go in.
they would normaly try and establish contact and if there wasnt any contact they would go in.
-
Yes lookout there is one difference between this case and a seige situation. In a seige situation communication is established. But here it is alleged that no communication was established. I agree, 3 hours does seem strange to say the least?
It does seem strange Grahame, can remember reading in the past the reason for waiting was for daylight but why? I cannot believe the police didn't make any effort to ensure the safety of occupants of the farmhouse. They knew there were two, six year old boys and made no attempt to ensure their safety? That seems negligent to my mind?
-
It does seem strange Grahame, can remember reading in the past the reason for waiting was for daylight but why? I cannot believe the police didn't make any effort to ensure the safety of occupants of the farmhouse. They knew there were two, six year old boys and made no attempt to ensure their safety? That seems negligent to my mind?
They did believe they were dealing with someone unhinged so I imagine that that's why they were cautious. Two young boys or not, they are trained to maintain the safety of their own officers first.
-
They did believe they were dealing with someone unhinged so I imagine that that's why they were cautious. Two young boys or not, they are trained to maintain the safety of their own officers first.
I agree however if they knew shots had been fired but they did not . the house was silent and there was no movement except a trick of the light why would you try for so long to contact someone inside the house. In theory if Jeremy was guilty there would have been nothing , nothing at all to stop them entering the house. no noise , no movement and jeremy outside asking them to go in.
-
It does seem strange Grahame, can remember reading in the past the reason for waiting was for daylight but why? I cannot believe the police didn't make any effort to ensure the safety of occupants of the farmhouse. They knew there were two, six year old boys and made no attempt to ensure their safety? That seems negligent to my mind?
it was totally negligent and i think sooner or later that would of been exposed and they knew it.
-
They did believe they were dealing with someone unhinged so I imagine that that's why they were cautious. Two young boys or not, they are trained to maintain the safety of their own officers first.
Yes, I agree, they have to ensure the safety of their own officers and can see there are arguments on both sides but still find it a bit odd that they did absolutely nothing for so long :-\
-
well whats the point of having an armed unit there if there not going to do anything.
and why if they heard nothing and saw nothing were they still frightened to go in.
-
Fire officers don't think of their own safety. They daren't, if children in particular are in danger. I accept and appreciate the fact that they're equipped for any eventuality,but so should police officers be by wearing bullet-proof clothing if and when the need arises,even if it happens to be a false alarm.
There was no damned excuse---------no sound,no shooting,nothing. The raid team were as much use as an ash-tray on a motorbike. As were EP !
-
well if there was nobody alive in there they couldn't negotiate with anybody.
and sooner or later it would of become clear that there was nobody to negotiate with.
-
We don't know of course? Perhaps if they had heard shots they would have gone in? As I said I believe they are trained to wait. But wait and negotiate. Which might mean that they were negotiating?
Grahame,,if shots were heard,then that lets Jeremy off the hook does it not ?
-
I suppose there were no brave Hawaii five-O officers among them then?
The mind boggles Grahame ;D
-
Grahame,,if shots were heard,then that lets Jeremy off the hook does it not ?
Well obviously. But no shots were heard.
-
No wonder Jeremy was pacing up and down chain-smoking,,so would I have been. When you consider that EP knew that there were children inside the farmhouse. Questions SHOULD have been asked and heads SHOULD have rolled. Jeremy should have insisted on an inquiry as to why so much time was wasted.
-
well if had remained freee he might well of done.
all the more reason to get him out the way.
-
well if had remained freee he might well of done.
all the more reason to get him out the way.
That was the grand idea. They'd have hanged him without hesitation if it had been in force.
-
of course once they had sent down for murder they knew nobody would believe him.
-
We don't know of course? Perhaps if they had heard shots they would have gone in? As I said I believe they are trained to wait.
You have to look at this case through a 1985 lens, not a 2014 lens. In 1985 a police officer was expected to deal with a situation (on his own in many cases). Hanging back and waiting was not what we were trained to do and was not the culture or custom and practice.
Bews should have entered the premises unless he had solid evidence that his life was in danger and if the police are to be believed there was no evidence.
Overtime was severely rationed. He should have found out why the light was on in the downstairs kitchen. If the family were sat round the table having a cuppa and Bews had caused the Tactical Firearms Group to assemble he would have not just been a laughing stock, he would have been on the carpet for a severe bollocking.
It is disgusting that Bews abandoned people to their fate; people who could have been rescued. Unless of course Bews had some other information that has never been disclosed.
-
and if he hadent seen or herad anything he had abslutly no reason to think hes life was in danger.
-
You have to look at this case through a 1985 lens, not a 2014 lens. In 1985 a police officer was expected to deal with a situation (on his own in many cases). Hanging back and waiting was not what we were trained to do and was not the culture or custom and practice.
Bews should have entered the premises unless he had solid evidence that his life was in danger and if the police are to be believed there was no evidence.
Overtime was severely rationed. He should have found out why the light was on in the downstairs kitchen. If the family were sat round the table having a cuppa and Bews had caused the Tactical Firearms Group to assemble he would have not just been a laughing stock, he would have been on the carpet for a severe bollocking.
It is disgusting that Bews abandoned people to their fate; people who could have been rescued. Unless of course Bews had some other information that has never been disclosed.
I think it's disgusting too,Bill-----------nearly 3 hours !? I don't suppose anyone thought of weighing up Jeremys' behaviour during this time,because some " clever cops " ( old school ones ) can usually tell at certain points whether someone is guilty or not,and I would have said this would have been a good opportunity to have studied his behaviour. I know he wasn't a suspect at this stage.
-
and those days shooting incidents were rare so they would have less reason to consider there safety.
-
All his interviews ae just a defence of his own cowardly actions.
I agree he was a coward - if he had entered the house when they arrived there, we probably wouldn't be discussing it now.
-
well its was just him nobody went in even the armed unit and it was there job to go in.
-
well its was just him nobody went in even the armed unit and it was there job to go in.
Take a look outside the window one morning this week at 05:00; it is pretty much broad daylight. yet we are told that the Firearms group were waiting for daylight at 07:30. Total BS.
-
im not sure why daylight wa so important to them anyway im mea surely they had entred places at night before.
-
Take a look outside the window one morning this week at 05:00; it is pretty much broad daylight. yet we are told that the Firearms group were waiting for daylight at 07:30. Total BS.
There's just NO excuse,Bill. They were all clearly out of their depth,the same as they were over the Diane Jones murder.
-
i can understand bews being out of his detph and some of the others.
but the armed unit shouldent of been i mean surely they had dealt with situations like that before.
-
The armed unit would have been equipped with bullet-proof vests anyway,,so what kept them ?
They didn't give a toss,did they ?
-
and they would of had trianing as to what to do in a situation like that.
-
Of course they would. It's a specialized job within the police,,and to be prepared to storm in given any eventuality concerning firearms. They do it in drugs raids,,where there are arms.
This alone should have come up for question and people should be reminded of it.
What annoys me intensely,is the smarmy letter that RWB sent to EP after the trial.
EVERYONE covered their own backs at the expense of Jeremy !
-
also they dont seem to have tried comunicate with anybody in the house.
-
Either way of this particular episode in the murders,if there had have been communication,then they should have let Jeremy know,the same as if there hadn't been anyone alive inside,,he still should have had an explanation as to why they WASTED nearly 3 hours. Jeremy just accepted that they were " all doing their jobs ".Not good enough-----------and he wouldn't have realised this until it was too late,as so much had happened, to try and get his head around all that had happened. It's no wonder he took off abroad.
A guilty person would have hung around to keep up to speed with developments ! They're frightened of missing anything in case they haven't got a quick enough answer.
-
I don't know for sure what ACC Simpson's motives may have been; he was clearly placed under a lot of pressure. But let me offer one thought. I don't think that Essex Police actually wanted Jeremy Bamber convicted at the trial. I think they put up a weak case with a very dodgy chief witness who they probably thought the Jury would not believe. They offered no evidence in relation to four of the murders. Most people thought Jeremy would be acquitted.
Maybe the best possible outcome politically for ACC Simpson and EP was for Jeremy to be acquitted. They could then have said to the relatives, "Look, we did our best but the evidence did not persuade the Jury. Sorry, but there is nothing more we can do". The relatives would have grumbled and moaned, Jeremy would have walked free, his reputation tarnished and lingering doubts would have existed about his innocence. He would have been hounded by the gutter press. His life would have been miserable.
Instead EP got the worst possible scenario. A young man who protested his innocence and doubts were voiced about the safety of his conviction straight away. A man who continues to protest his innocence and by doing so has caused EP to become embroiled in on-going controversy and if I may say so, become involved in creating ever more desperate-looking and highly implausible explanations about some of the emerging evidence. i.e. "Police in conversation with someone from inside the Farm" "Oh that was a reference to Jeremy Bamber" - who do they think buys that?
So, in my view this was not some clever and devious widespread conspiracy. This was policy being made on the hoof; pretty much always reactive in nature. They tripped themselves up with the evidence.
And, I bet EP still regret the fact that Jeremy was found guilty.
Anyway, just a thought.
Excellent post.
-
Dear Grahame, There is no mystery over the timing of my appearance. I have been reading posts on this website for a year or so, wondering whether to share information and ideas. I decided to share some information. I have no other agenda; I'm not here to wind anyone up. Now, as to the facts, in my original post please see below.
FACT: At 03:26 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: At 03:36 the situation at WHF was a domestic dispute; with no reported casualties
FACT: According to records made by PC West and Malcolm Bonnett, no communications occurred between 03:36 and 03:48 with any police vehicles
FACT: At 03:42 PC West received a report from BT that the telephone line at WHF was ‘busy’ i.e. engaged
FACT: At 03:48 the police arrived at Pages Lane and prepared for a siege
FACT: At 04:04 the FSU were withdrawn from Colchester before any report had been received from WHF (this was not broadcast until some 5 minutes later) in preparation for an armed siege
FACT: At 04:08 approximately Acting Inspector Targrass reported to Chief Superintendent Harris a “shooting incident” at WHF – before any report had been received from PS Bews
FACT: CA7 did not communicate any information from WHF until 04:09 – and there was still no report of any casualties or shots being fired
FACT: At 03:48 when CA7 containing PS Bews, PCs Saxby and Myall arrived at Pages Lane they parked 200 yards distant
FACT: Between 03:48 and 04:05 approximately CA7 and Jeremy Bamber waited for around 15 minutes before PS Bews and PC Myall approached WHF with Jeremy Bamber out in front
FACT: PC Saxby remained at the police car even though, in theory, there was nothing for him to do
FACT: PC Saxby was said to be waiting for further messages – where were they going to come from if Jeremy Bamber was already with them?
FACT: They stopped 100 feet from the Farmhouse and crouched behind a wall.
FACT: They saw that the kitchen lights were on
FACT: Jeremy Bamber pleaded with PS Bews to enter the property
FACT: PS Bews refused to go any closer than 100 feet
FACT: PS Bews refused to even consider trying to rescue anyone inside the Farmhouse
FACT: Essex Police abandoned the occupants of WHF to their fate
FACT: PS Bews ran away when they saw a figure in a bedroom window
FACT: CA5 with PCs Cracknell and Norcup took 50 minutes to complete an 18 mile journey to WHF on deserted roads, in an Area Car equipped with blue lights and two-tone siren. A journey that can be done in between 15-20 minutes.
FACT: None of 5 police officers who initially attended the scene approached the Farmhouse
FACT: None of the 5 police officers who attended WHF in CA5 or CA7 faced any disciplinary charges for dereliction of duty, despite the FACT that they did not attempt any rescue or even consider any rescue options
All of the above facts can be found in witness statements contained in the archive section of this website.
I would like you to consider some further facts please.
FACT: When PC Michael West received a telephone call at Chelmsford police station prior to 03:30 on 7th August, (around 03:26), PCs Cracknell and Norcup were in the control room with him
FACT: PC West did not mention that PCs Cracknell or Norcup were in the control room with him in either of his two witness statements
FACT: PC Cracknell and PC Norcup heard whatever telephone conversation PC West had at approximately 03:26
FACT: As a result of hearing the telephone conversation that took place at 03:26 PCs Cracknell and Norcup discussed the content of the telephone call with PC West
FACT: As a result of their conversation with PC West, at 03:33 CA5 containing PCs Cracknell and West commenced their journey to WHF from Chelmsford police station
FACT: Despite the point that the telephone call at 03:26 is highly controversial and subject to much dispute as to who the caller was (Nevill or Jeremy Bamber), Essex police have never asked PCs Cracknell or Norcup to divulge what they heard in the control room or indeed, to confirm that the caller was Jeremy Bamber.
FACT: PC West faced disciplinary charges over the falsification of an incident recording sheet. Even though PC West was in need of assistance, PCs Cracknell and Norcup did not come forward to support him or corroborate his version of events. I find this significant.
FACT: PC West in written evidence twice and after being questioned on oath at Jeremy’s trial, insisted that he received a telephone call from Jeremy Bamber at 03:36, not 03:26. He stated that he did not make a mistake in reading the time, despite what was subsequently reported
FACT: If PCs Cracknell and Norcup could confirm that it was Jeremy Bamber who called PC West at 03:26 rather than Nevill Bamber, they would be priceless witnesses for the prosecution – the FACT that they have not been required to give evidence is strongly suggestive that they in FACT heard a telephone call from Nevill Bamber, thus giving Jeremy Bamber an alibi.
FACT: All of this information is contained in witness statements in the archive section of the Bamber Forum website.
Once you have all these facts at your disposal you have to draw some conclusions. Inevitably one has to speculate somewhat, which is not a problem if speculation is based on facts. My conclusion is:
PCs Cracknell and Norcup know what was said to PC West at 03:26. They had a conversation with him; they must know whether it was Nevill or Jeremy Bamber who telephoned at 03:26. They have remained mute. If they could confirm that the call was from Jeremy Bamber they would have given evidence to that effect. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the 03:26 telephone call was from Nevill Bamber, which is exactly the impression given from looking at the documentary record made by Malcolm Bonnett at Essex Police HQ Information Room. “daughter gone berserk -has got hold of one of my guns”
If you read Andrew Hunter's unpublished manuscript from 2005, it does place importance on the incredible speed in which a request from the scene for an armed response was ok'd. I can recall something like it being within four minutes of the request, seemingly based on the fact that dogs were barking.
It doesn't add up for all the reasons given re how things were done in that era.
-
to me it don't sound credible that an armed response unit would be sent because of a couple of barking dogs.
-
Perhaps if they'd gone sooner,they just might have heard the screams of people too.
-
so the got a report someone is running with a gun and send unarmed cops but then these cops complain about a couple of barking dogs and they send an armed unit.
ive never heard so much bullshit in all my life.
-
so the got a report someone is running with a gun and send unarmed cops but then these cops complain about a couple of barking dogs and they send an armed unit.
ive never heard so much bullshit in all my life.
Me either but such BS is coming from Jeremy supporters. The unarmed cops were worried about being shot and the hostages potentially being shot not because they might get attacked by dogs.
-
Now I'll quote what RWB stated after the trial " I have nothing but admiration for the painstaking and diligent manner in which I believe they set out to achieve ( EP ) the task that was assigned to them.I consider it was to the highest standards of their profession,unquote ". More bullshit !
Apparently the Police Complaints Authority were waiting with bated breath of the family ( relatives ) approaching them for a public inquiry over the handling of the case.
Remember at the beginning when RWB threw a wobbly ?? Well he gained his composure once Jeremy was out of the way,and probably spent the rest of the time working out,one for you,two for me,etc-----thousands,that is. Funny how money perks you up,isn't it ? Makes you forget everything else.
-
Me either but such BS is coming from Jeremy supporters. The unarmed cops were worried about being shot and the hostages potentially being shot not because they might get attacked by dogs.
so why were they sent there unarmed in the first place.
who ever sent them obviously wasn't worried about that.
-
Me either but such BS is coming from Jeremy supporters. The unarmed cops were worried about being shot and the hostages potentially being shot not because they might get attacked by dogs.
And the non-supporters !
-
That word " diligent " should be altered to DILATORY.
-
now i think about it bills abslutly right they must till at least 2 hours after daybreak to go in.
-
When there is a fire, hostage situation or other type of emergency what is the natural reaction of concerned family and friends?
1) to be nervous and worried
2) to go inside to try to help
First responders must typically try to calm down loved ones and to prevent them from going inside because they do not like to wait. When they don't wait they often are injured or even perish hence why they are stopped.
What was Jeremy's reaction?
Did Jeremy rush there to help? NO!
Did he immediately call police? NO!
Jeremy called Julie around 3AM and finally got around to calling police at 3:26AM. He claimed he didn't realize at first it was urgent so did NOTHING! other than phone Julie. But after thinking about it a while became more concerned so then decided to call police.
After becoming concerned enough to call police did he go over? No he wanted police to pick him up so they could see he was at his home and alibi him. When that failed he set out to WHF driving 5MPH or less. Then as he saw the police car approaching he pulled over the the side of the road and parked. Several minutes after they passed he got on the road again and finished the drive so that they could see him pull over severla minutes later and say he was not at WHF and thus alibi him.
Is this how a concerned loved one acts? No it is how someone guilty who needs to convince police he had been home all night acts.
Upon arriving does he try to go up to the house to look int he windows or listen to hear if he can hear anything? Does he try to go in like relatives do in such cases? NO! Far from police having to hold him back he made no effort to go in or even get close he hid behind the police. Was he panicked like a concerned love one would be? NO! Police say he was very calm, surprisingly calm.
He told police there was an arsenal in the house, that he had taken Sheila shooting, and that she had fired all wepaons in the house including one he left in the kitchen with a loaded magazine and extra ammunition nearby. This is what convinced police they needed armed personnel and could not go in.
Unarmed personnel could be shot. Moreover, the people inside could also be shot upon police entering. Worse yet after shooting everyone inside she could potentially escape.
2 different firearms teams arrived on the scene the first around 5AM and the 2nd around 7AM. Shortly after the first arrived they surrounded the house and tried to communicate to those inside but received no response. The lack of a response meant:
1) Sheila did not want to talk and the hostages were being kept from talking
2) Sheila did not want to talk and the hostages were dead
3) They were all dead.
Police had no way to know which was the case.
If police entered at that point and everyone was still alive:
Sheila could shoot the hostages and/or police
If they were all dead except Sheila she could shoot police or even try to leave the house through a different door as they entered and threaten police outside or even flee the scene and be at large.
They thus needed enough armed personnel to enter the house and yet still have enough outside to be able to secure the perimiter in case she fled as they entered. After the second batch arrived around 7AM is when they had enough to do that.
They set up the perimeter, assigned the team to enter, made a plan and then exectuted it.
Was there any indication that had they entered the house sooner that anyone would have been alive/ No! According to Dr. Craig the victims had been dead for hours. Had they actually heard gunshots when armed personnel were outside then they would have gone in sooner because if hostages are being shot anyway it is worth trying to save the remainder by going in. But no gunshots were heard and there is ZERO evidence to suggest that the victims died after police arrived on the scene.
The real question is why did Jeremy lie to the initial responders about Sheila firing all the weapons in the house? Why did Jeremy not act like a person who would have in such situation if he had actually been concerned about his family. Why did he lie about the gun being found with the scope and moderator detached and being left on the kitchen table and stage the bullets?
All reliable indications are that he staged everything and that the phone call was made up.
We are supposed to believe that:
1) Around 9 at night he "heard rabbits" quite a ways from the house.
2) For the first time in his life he decided to shoot rabbits though he was opposed to it
3) Nevill decided to remove the scope and moderator for no reason at all instead of leaving them attached like he noramlly did when storing the gun because you would always want to use the gun with the scope and moderator attached and it is a hassle to rezero the scope and there is simply no reaosn to bother taking it off and requiring the effort of rezeroing later
4) That Jeremy decided to load the magazine in the kitchen right in front of Sheila so she could get a good look at how to do it. He took a box of ammo containing 48-50 rounds and dumped it out next to the phone
5) That he left the gun and magazine somewhere in the kitchen. The location changed each time he told the story sometimes the kitchen table sometimes the settle...
6) That June and Nevill didn't bother to move the gun or bullets and left it in the kitchen despite the twins staying over
7) That Sheila used 18-20 rounds from the ammunition supply he left in the kitchen but went to the closet to get an additional 5-7 rounds because there were 30 rounds left in the kitchen and in order for Jeremy's claims to be true that means the killer had to use 5-7 rounds obtained from somewhere else.
8) That despite being in a frenzy Sheila managed to load the rounds without chipping her nails or getting lead on her hands
9) That sheila managed to beat Nevill without getting any blood spatter on her body or chothing and even suffered no scratches, wounds or broken nails in the incident despite the stock breaking where she would have been holding it and thus would have cut, scratched or otherwise wounded her hand in some way unless she had gloves on
10) That Sheila managed to shoot everyone including herself without getting any GSR on her body or clothing and no back spatter on her clothing or body from the other victims
11) Sheila figured out how to load the gun to capacity (11 rounds) and decided to do so even though she never used the gun before and would not have even likely known how to chamber a round. 11 rounds were fired in the master bedroom at June and Nevill before Nevill managed to run to the kitchen. The way to load the gun to capacity is to insert eh magazine, chamber a round, remove the magazine, load another round into the magazine, reinsert the magazine. Why would Sheila bother with such let alone know how? Only someone who was planning to kill everyone would go out of their way to load an 11th round.
This doesn't even take into account the evidence that proves Sheila can't have killed herself.
-
Me either but such BS is coming from Jeremy supporters. The unarmed cops were worried about being shot and the hostages potentially being shot not because they might get attacked by dogs.
From what I've read previously, armed back up was not issued lightly. Detailed reports had to be made to state the need. This wasn't Michigan or Bakersville or Hazzard County. It was rural Essex, 1985.
-
From what I've read previously, armed back up was not issued lightly. Detailed reports had to be made to state the need. This wasn't Michigan or Bakersville or Hazzard County. It was rural Essex, 1985.
The need was that a man claimed his father phoned him to say his daughter with mental problems was running around with a loaded gun and there were 4 people in the house she could shoot including him.
This son also claimed she had an arsenal at her disposal and was proficient with all the weapons in this arsenal.
The unarmed cops were scared for their safety and the 4 peopel believed to be hostages. That is why armed personnel were summoned.
-
The need was that a man claimed his father phoned him to say his daughter with mental problems was running around with a loaded gun and there were 4 people in the house she could shoot including him.
This son also claimed she had an arsenal at her disposal and was proficient with all the weapons in this arsenal.
The unarmed cops were scared for their safety and the 4 peopel believed to be hostages. That is why armed personnel were summoned.
That's actually not a bad reply, off the cuff. However, it doesn't seem to tie in with what elements within the defence have been informed about 80's policing practices at that time. The police didn't send in Dirty Harry or an armed response because of Bamber's phone call to them. They sent an armed response team because of the Bews / Myall / Saxby assessment of the scene. So where is that assessment?
-
That's actually not a bad reply, off the cuff. However, it doesn't seem to tie in with what elements within the defence have been informed about 80's policing practices at that time. The police didn't send in Dirty Harry or an armed response because of Bamber's phone call to them. They sent an armed response team because of the Bews / Myall / Saxby assessment of the scene. So where is that assessment?
What I posted was their assessment. It came from Jeremy's claims to them and the phone being off the hook so no one could phone the house to ask if they are ok or what is going on. Why would a phone be off the hook at that hour after placing a call like Jeremy claimed to have received?
"The phone is off the hook so something is wrong, I wonder if there really is a crazy girl with a bunch of guns in there holding 4 people hostage like Jeremy claims. Let me break down a door or break a window and stick my head in and see if I hear any hostages shot in response or my head is blown off."
Does that sound like something you would expect the unarmed cops to do? Unarmed cops hear about guns and they want armed cops around that is the way it goes. The same way that armed cops want SWAT if there are guys running aorund with automatic wepaons and body armor.
Dirty Harry is fake while some of the things he did to poke fun at the establishment were valid his exploits of running into a hostage situations were outlandish and broke police rules that exist for the protection of innocent people as well as cops.
I love Dirty Harry but in Sudden Impact I can't figure out why the robbers in the diner did not kill him before he drew his weapon. In real life he would have been killed by the shotguns along with some of the diners. Surely in other stores as well the hostages would have been killed.
You rush a hostage situation when:
1) someone starts shooting hostages already so you are not causing them to be shot but rather trying to stop the shooting before they are all killed
2) if you have reason to think the person is going to start shooting and you are in a position to try to stop them from even getting off a first shot. For this to work you have to know exactly where the perp and hostages are located to be able to pull it off. Sometimes it involves snipers othertimes flashbang grenades. The object is to surprise the killers and take them out before they have time to respond and harm the hostages.
In one movie Dirty Harry's flash bang grenade was to drive a car through the store window to surprise the perps and then he was able to shoot them before they killed any hostages though in real life they probably would have managed to kill someone. But even Dirty Harry had talked to them first and saw how many were holding the hostages and where before he drove in gun blazing and he had a 44 magnum not a whistle or billy club like Bews et al.
-
What I posted was their assessment. It came from Jeremy's claims to them and the phone being off the hook so no one could phone the house to ask if they are ok or what is going on. Why would a phone be off the hook at that hour after placing a call like Jeremy claimed to have received?
"The phone is off the hook so something is wrong, I wonder if there really is a crazy girl with a bunch of guns in there holding 4 people hostage like Jeremy claims. Let me break down a door or break a window and stick my head in and see if I hear any hostages shot in response or my head is blown off."
Does that sound like something you would expect the unarmed cops to do? Unarmed cops hear about guns and they want armed cops around that is the way it goes. The same way that armed cops want SWAT if there are guys running aorund with automatic wepaons and body armor.
Dirty Harry is fake while some of the things he did to poke fun at the establishment were valid his exploits of running into a hostage situations were outlandish and broke police rules that exist for the protection of innocent people as well as cops.
I love Dirty Harry but in Sudden Impact I can't figure out why the robbers in the diner did not kill him before he drew his weapon. In real life he would have been killed by the shotguns along with some of the diners. Surely in other stores as well the hostages would have been killed.
You rush a hostage situation when:
1) someone starts shooting hostages already so you are not causing them to be shot but rather trying to stop the shooting before they are all killed
2) if you have reason to think the person is going to start shooting and you are in a position to try to stop them from even getting off a first shot. For this to work you have to know exactly where the perp and hostages are located to be able to pull it off. Sometimes it involves snipers othertimes flashbang grenades. The object is to surprise the killers and take them out before they have time to respond and harm the hostages.
In one movie Dirty Harry's flash bang grenade was to drive a car through the store window to surprise the perps and then he was able to shoot them before they killed any hostages though in real life they probably would have managed to kill someone. But even Dirty Harry had talked to them first and saw how many were holding the hostages and where before he drove in gun blazing and he had a 44 magnum not a whistle or billy club like Bews et al.
Someone was listening in on the phone, all they could hear was the dog barking.
-
So Scipio
in your opinion, because after all that is all that your posts are, why did they go in at the time they did? Just because it was light? So they felt safer? And why after all those hours of NO response what so ever were they so jumpy and on alert as they went in? And do you think they felt guilty when they got in and realised every body had been dead for hours. For all they knew at that point they could have saved those poor children as they were not to know death was instant. Sorry but whatever your opinion you were not there and it still makes no sense to me.
-
Someone was listening in on the phone, all they could hear was the dog barking.
All that proves is that no one was talking near that phone. They were not even sure which room the phone off the hook was in at the time. When you take a phone off the hook you do so for a reason so something was clearly wrong and they had no reason to disbelieve Jeremy and just go bang on the door and hope no one answers with a gun or starts shooting anyone in the house.
Police broke in an saw Nevill was dead. Did they decide that Sheila killed herself and that there was no longer a threat? Absolutely not. They were very slow in their room to room searches out of fear she was in hiding somewhere waiting to shoot them. They gew more bold after finding her dead with the gun on her and then broke into other rooms with less fear though they still cleared the whole house to make sure there was no one else inside with a gun.
-
So Scipio
in your opinion, because after all that is all that your posts are, why did they go in at the time they did? Just because it was light? So they felt safer? And why after all those hours of NO response what so ever were they so jumpy and on alert as they went in? And do you think they felt guilty when they got in and realised every body had been dead for hours. For all they knew at that point they could have saved those poor children as they were not to know death was instant. Sorry but whatever your opinion you were not there and it still makes no sense to me.
1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.
2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through.
They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.
-
1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.
DAYLIGHT AT 5am. LIGHTS ON IN HOUSE?
2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through.
A PERIMETER OF ARMED PEOPLE AGAINST ONE "SLIGHT" GIRL?
They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.
-
1) They wanted it light so they would not accidentally shoot hostages, eachother and would be able to see any potential threat.
2) they wanted a perimeter of armed people so that a gunman could not escape and successfully flee the scene from a different door than the one the raid team was going in through.
They had sufficient personnel around 7, it was sufficiently light so they stationed the people around who would portect the perimeter, selected the raid team formulated their plan and went in.
but they dident go in at 5 am did they.
-
but they dident go in at 5 am did they.
At 5AM it wasn't light, they had not even tried to communicate with the occupants and they didn't have enough personnel to go inside and protect a perimeter. The first armed personnel just arrived and needed to be briefed as to what was going on.
So I repeat at 7AM the second firearms team arrived so tha tthey had enough personnel to establish a perimeter AND also go inside.
It was sufficiently light to go inside.
They had already been trying to communicate with those inside to no avail.
So they formulated a plan, reconnoitered the building, saw Nevill dead through the window and then executed their raid plan with some armed personnel entering while the remainder secured the scene to make sure no armed perpetrators could escape.
-
At 5am it was LIGHT !
-
Sunrise on the morning in question was 04.50 and Sunset was 21.20
-
In other words,it was light.
-
so daylight would about an hour or so after they got there.
-
That's right,nugs. They contradict themselves by saying that the moon created " a trick of the light ",yet when they were sitting twiddling their thumbs,they said it was dark ? The excuses just rolled off their tongues.
-
Another shooting I'm reading about is that of Jennifer Berman of Florida,who shot dead her two beautiful teenage children,aged 15 and 16,as they lay asleep. She then opened fire on herself. A divorced woman who couldn't manage financially after the divorce and who herself worked as a nurse doing 12 hour shifts to make ends meet. Another sad story of not being able to cope,made worse because the USA doesn't come cheap where help and support is concerned.
A neighbour had remarked on Mrs Berman having been upset,disappointed and confused prior to the murders.
The three deceased were found all together,bless them,it's heartbreaking.
-
Sunrise on the morning in question was 04.50 and Sunset was 21.20
Thank you for that FACT.
Just because posters write things as if they are factual it does not mean they are .
I took a photo of a sunrise recently ( when the light woke me up) and trust me I could see very clearly across the fields by my house.
-
All that proves is that no one was talking near that phone. They were not even sure which room the phone off the hook was in at the time. When you take a phone off the hook you do so for a reason so something was clearly wrong and they had no reason to disbelieve Jeremy and just go bang on the door and hope no one answers with a gun or starts shooting anyone in the house.
Police broke in an saw Nevill was dead. Did they decide that Sheila killed herself and that there was no longer a threat? Absolutely not. They were very slow in their room to room searches out of fear she was in hiding somewhere waiting to shoot them. They gew more bold after finding her dead with the gun on her and then broke into other rooms with less fear though they still cleared the whole house to make sure there was no one else inside with a gun.
If someone was listening in they would have been able to hear if there were gunshots or people fighting or any kind of commotion, all they heard was the dog barking. After an hour or so, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume they would have tried to gain access.
-
Thank you for that FACT.
Just because posters write things as if they are factual it does not mean they are .
I took a photo of a sunrise recently ( when the light woke me up) and trust me I could see very clearly across the fields by my house.
Just this week, because I had a VERY early start!! I was up at 5 am, pulled the curtains back and put on my make up. The day was overcast, but it was BROAD daylight.
-
Thank you for that FACT.
Just because posters write things as if they are factual it does not mean they are .
I took a photo of a sunrise recently ( when the light woke me up) and trust me I could see very clearly across the fields by my house.
5a.m here is daylight !
-
5a.m here is daylight !
yes and it wakes the birds up who in turn sit on our roof and wake us up!
-
yes and it wakes the birds up who in turn sit on our roof and wake us up!
Indeed,plus the seagulls sitting " laughing ",here in this seaside place.
-
Indeed,plus the seagulls sitting " laughing ",here in this seaside place.
And I live close enough to WHF to have the same daylight ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Digressing again,but still in the same tone where mental illness is concerned.
Yet another mother committed suicide brought on by PND. The married daughter of an aristocrat took her life. This tragedy occurred in 2008 when her children were two and 9 weeks respectively,when she appeared to be short-tempered and tearful,which was out of character for Kate Chetwynd. Her diagnosis of PND was made and when she was receiving the appropriate medication,everyone thought that Kate would now be fine. Much the same as Junes' attitude that it'll go away !!
However,it came out that Kate had previously suffered from depression before being married,but hadn't told her husband. Before Kate took her life,her husband had noticed a change in her as though " possessed " by something. On the day of her suicide,she was calm,took the dog for a walk,and didn't return.
The difference in Kates' death and Sheilas' was that Sheila had,and faced some awful issues prior to her death. Issues in which the family were involved with and to Sheila,were the cause of her illness on top of which she also would have suffered from PND too so that was a means to an end.
Poor women. As the news states," Thousands of mothers and babies are at risk of life-threatening psychosis because of a lack of NHS provision.Warning that PND can become a far more severe mental illness. Post partum psychosis can lead sufferers to take their lives and also those of their children."
-
And I live close enough to WHF to have the same daylight ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I live MUCH further north in Durham and it was 'starting' to get light around 3:30 this morning.
-
I live MUCH further north in Durham and it was 'starting' to get light around 3:30 this morning.
Wonder what it's like at that time of the morning in Scipioville. Guess it must be pitch dark, going on what he says.
-
Hi Caroline same in the Highlands very bright at 3. 30.
-
I live MUCH further north in Durham and it was 'starting' to get light around 3:30 this morning.
Up North in the badlands!!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
If someone was listening in they would have been able to hear if there were gunshots or people fighting or any kind of commotion, all they heard was the dog barking. After an hour or so, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume they would have tried to gain access.
They were not listening continuously and in any event all that deonstrated once again was no commotion near that telephone. The notion one can hear everything going on throughout th eentire house from a phone in 1 location is not well thought out.
Even today there are situations where police hear nothing for hours and wait to go in until they have decided they waited long enough and then find out everyone died hours earlier so they were waiting for nothing.
The had no way to know if any of the victims were still alive and no reason to think that Sheila had killed herself so had to operate from the position that she was still alive and upon entering could:
1) shoot at officers
2) shoot at victims
3) run out a different door with a gun and try to flee the scene
That being the case they wanted enough armed personnel outside to be able to prevent her from escaping if she did run out when the team entered.
They had enough armed personnel after the second batch arrived around 7AM and accordingly that is when they formulated the raid strategy and executed it.
At any rate, there is no evidence at all that anyone died after police arrived and thus that police could potentially have saved anyone by entering sooner, indeed Sheila did not kill herself let alone anyone else the murders clearly happened prior to the police ever being called by the killer.
Jeremy supporters are critical because had police entered right away around 4AM they feel they would have a stronger argument that police could have moved her body while her blood was still wet and thus their conspiracy claims would not be as utterly absurd as they are now.
-
They were not listening continuously and in any event all that deonstrated once again was no commotion near that telephone. The notion one can hear everything going on throughout th eentire house from a phone in 1 location is not well thought out.
Even today there are situations where police hear nothing for hours and wait to go in until they have decided they waited long enough and then find out everyone died hours earlier so they were waiting for nothing.
The had no way to know if any of the victims were still alive and no reason to think that Sheila had killed herself so had to operate from the position that she was still alive and upon entering could:
1) shoot at officers
2) shoot at victims
3) run out a different door with a gun and try to flee the scene
That being the case they wanted enough armed personnel outside to be able to prevent her from escaping if she did run out when the team entered.
They had enough armed personnel after the second batch arrived around 7AM and accordingly that is when they formulated the raid strategy and executed it.
At any rate, there is no evidence at all that anyone died after police arrived and thus that police could potentially have saved anyone by entering sooner, indeed Sheila did not kill herself let alone anyone else the murders clearly happened prior to the police ever being called by the killer.
Jeremy supporters are critical because had police entered right away around 4AM they feel they would have a stronger argument that police could have moved her body while her blood was still wet and thus their conspiracy claims would not be as utterly absurd as they are now.
That last paragraph is not true. The whole aregument has been that if they had gone in earlier
1) they may have ( in theory ) been able to save some of the victims ( it is only in hindsight that we know this was not possible)
2) the time of death would probably have been more accurate.If it was before 3.26 in other words within the hour then they would have KNOWN that the call from Neville to Jeremy was false
3) We would not have the ambiguous logs that happened and raised suspicions
4) there probably would not have been two crime files - so all the statements we would have seen would be the originals from August
5) Because the phone call would have been proved as false then Jeremy would have been a suspect immediately ( that was a big risk for him) and he would have had no time to destroy any forensic evidence.
Don't you think we all wished that the case was clear cut ? Why would we try and defend a man if we really thought he was guilty ?
I don't understand your motives when you believe he is exactly where he should be - so I dont expect you to understand ours .
-
That last paragraph is not true. The whole aregument has been that if they had gone in earlier
1) they may have ( in theory ) been able to save some of the victims ( it is only in hindsight that we know this was not possible)
Without the benefit of hindsight then what we have is the assumption she is in there holding the family hostage and that if sppoked she will likely start shooting them and that she could shoot them and police with impunity if they entered because the police were not armed.
2) the time of death would probably have been more accurate.If it was before 3.26 in other words within the hour then they would have KNOWN that the call from Neville to Jeremy was false
The time of death would be no easier to tell unless the wounds were still wet in which case it would say recent. How would that disprove the phone call? Unless rigor started the obvious state of the bodies would not be able to suggest right away that the call was BS. For your claims to be true the victims would have needed to have been shot at least 2 hours before police found the bodies. While we don't know exactly when Jeremy killed them it is unlikely he did so around 1AM then waited so long to call Julie and police. That kind of gap might have been noticable and have been enough to cause suspicion. A gap of less doesn't and leaves the door open to the defense trying to claim it was police who moved her body while she was still bleeding.
3) We would not have the ambiguous logs that happened and raised suspicions
The logs are only ambiguous and suspicious to Jeremy advocates looking for something to twist and the claims seized upon had nothing at all to do with the timing of the raid.
The claims made are:
1) that the log from Bonnet might have indicated he received a call from Nevill.
2) that police might have found 2 bodies in the kitchen because they saw a female through the window and then noted finding a male inside as well.
Neither claim has anything to do with the timing of the raid and both are wholly meritless.
Jeremy definitely spoke with West. West stated he forwarded the information to Bonnet and Bonnet confirmed he received the information from West. The log doesn't support the notion that Nevill called it clearly attributes the call to West an dnotes it was passed ot West from Nevill's son. West's statement further makes this clear. There is no valid basis to suggest any of this suggests a call directly from Nevill. Indeed Bonnet was not at a station that was answering regular calls from the public. He was at a different station from West (HQ) and he was to keep track of incidents reported to him by police personnel.
The raid statements are veyr clearl. Collins looked through the window and saw what he thought was a female but upon entereing found out it was Nevill. He stated this clear as day. Teh police state as clear as day no other bodies found int he kitchen but rather 2 in the master bedroom and 2 boys in another bedroom. Furthermore the autospy report makes clear Sheila died with her body in the position she was found and in the location where found based on the blood pool.
There was never ambiguity or a real question over this the defnese TRIED to see if they could parlay this into something but they were not able to.
The only people who try asserting either of these things are extremely dishonest or extraordinaraily ignorant and crazy. It is a waste of time even trying to pretend either claim might be meritorious.
4) there probably would not have been two crime files - so all the statements we would have seen would be the originals from August
I don't know what you are talking about as far as 2 crime files. The raosn for additional statements was to cover additional gorund that was developed by processing the scene and the case progressing. taht always happens. Statements are obtained for set purposes when necessary just like affidavots are only secured for a set purpose. The dates of the statements doesn't mean squat.
5) Because the phone call would have been proved as false then Jeremy would have been a suspect immediately ( that was a big risk for him) and he would have had no time to destroy any forensic evidence.
Don't you think we all wished that the case was clear cut ? Why would we try and defend a man if we really thought he was guilty ?
I don't understand your motives when you believe he is exactly where he should be - so I dont expect you to understand ours .
No Bamber supporters don't wish the evidence wa smore clear cut against him they wish it was less so which is why supporters raise complete nonsense like the claim Nevill made a call himself or that SHeila's body was moved.
Nothing you raised makes this an ambiguous case. The evidence is strong Jeremy supporters simply choose to dismiss any evidence of his guilt and want to believe he is innocent no matter what. The case is so strong that wild conspiracy claims have to be leveled to try to pretend he is innocent.
What evidence is there to establish and evidentiary basis for these wild allegations? None the claims are not being made based on any evidence but simply because the only way Jeremy could be innocent would be if the evidence that proves his guilt were all faked.
The same way supporters took an innocent log and tried to misrepresent it as proof of Nevill making a call despite it not supporting such a claim at all, jeremy supporters claim all the evidence was faked despite having no raitonal reason to actually believe it and simply arguing it out of necessaity because it is the only way for Jeremy to be innocent.
-
Without the benefit of hindsight then what we have is the assumption she is in there holding the family hostage and that if sppoked she will likely start shooting them and that she could shoot them and police with impunity if they entered because the police were not armed. SO THEY TRIED SHOUTING AT HER WITH MEGAPHONE INSTEAD _ OF COURSE THAT WOULD NOT SPOOK HER _ EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SNEAKING AROUND "IN THE DARK"
The time of death would be no easier to tell unless the wounds were still wet in which case it would say recent. How would that disprove the phone call? Unless rigor started the obvious state of the bodies would not be able to suggest right away that the call was BS. For your claims to be true the victims would have needed to have been shot at least 2 hours before police found the bodies. While we don't know exactly when Jeremy killed them it is unlikely he did so around 1AM then waited so long to call Julie and police. That kind of gap might have been noticable and have been enough to cause suspicion. A gap of less doesn't and leaves the door open to the defense trying to claim it was police who moved her body while she was still bleeding. YOU ARE RIGHT THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN EARLIER OR LATER AND FROM THEIR VAST EXPERIENCE THEY WOULD KNOW THE CALL COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT THE PURPORTED TIME .
The logs are only ambiguous and suspicious to Jeremy advocates looking for something to twist and the claims seized upon had nothing at all to do with the timing of the raid. NO THEY ARE AMBIGUOUS FULL STOP.
The claims made are:
1) that the log from Bonnet might have indicated he received a call from Nevill.
2) that police might have found 2 bodies in the kitchen because they saw a female through the window and then noted finding a male inside as well.
Neither claim has anything to do with the timing of the raid and both are wholly meritless.
Jeremy definitely spoke with West. West stated he forwarded the information to Bonnet and Bonnet confirmed he received the information from West. The log doesn't support the notion that Nevill called it clearly attributes the call to West an dnotes it was passed ot West from Nevill's son. West's statement further makes this clear. There is no valid basis to suggest any of this suggests a call directly from Nevill. Indeed Bonnet was not at a station that was answering regular calls from the public. He was at a different station from West (HQ) and he was to keep track of incidents reported to him by police personnel.
The raid statements are veyr clearl. Collins looked through the window and saw what he thought was a female but upon entereing found out it was Nevill. He stated this clear as day. Teh police state as clear as day no other bodies found int he kitchen but rather 2 in the master bedroom and 2 boys in another bedroom. Furthermore the autospy report makes clear Sheila died with her body in the position she was found and in the location where found based on the blood pool. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A LIE BUT AT 8.10 THEY COULD HAVE SAID "MISTAKE MADE ONE BODY DOWSTAIRS MALE , 4 BODIES UPSTAIRS " I DONT KNOW WHAT IS TRUE I WAS NOT THERE , BUT TO ME IF YOU MADE SUCH A BIG MISTAKE YOU JUST CORRECT IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - SIMPLES
There was never ambiguity or a real question over this the defnese TRIED to see if they could parlay this into something but they were not able to.
The only people who try asserting either of these things are extremely dishonest or extraordinaraily ignorant and crazy. It is a waste of time even trying to pretend either claim might be meritorious. SO STOP WASTING YOUR TIME
I don't know what you are talking about as far as 2 crime files. The raosn for additional statements was to cover additional gorund that was developed by processing the scene and the case progressing. taht always happens. Statements are obtained for set purposes when necessary just like affidavots are only secured for a set purpose. The dates of the statements doesn't mean squat.
No Bamber supporters don't wish the evidence wa smore clear cut against him they wish it was less so which is why supporters raise complete nonsense like the claim Nevill made a call himself or that SHeila's body was moved.
Nothing you raised makes this an ambiguous case. The evidence is strong Jeremy supporters simply choose to dismiss any evidence of his guilt and want to believe he is innocent no matter what. The case is so strong that wild conspiracy claims have to be leveled to try to pretend he is innocent.
What evidence is there to establish and evidentiary basis for these wild allegations? None the claims are not being made based on any evidence but simply because the only way Jeremy could be innocent would be if the evidence that proves his guilt were all faked.
The same way supporters took an innocent log and tried to misrepresent it as proof of Nevill making a call despite it not supporting such a claim at all, jeremy supporters claim all the evidence was faked despite having no raitonal reason to actually believe it and simply arguing it out of necessaity because it is the only way for Jeremy to be innocent. SORRY BORED NOW. I KNOW YOU WONT FIND THAT RUDE _ AFTER ALL YOU MADE IT QUITE CLEAR YOU CAN TAKE ASGOOD AS YOU GIVE
-
Nothing ambiguous about this log. It is very clear.
-
Or this one:
One dead male and one dead female in kitchen.
-
Then the call for Dr. Craig to attend to examine two bodies:
-
Scipio - you obviously don't know this case as well as you like to make out otherwise you would know about the two lots of crime files that Jansus referred to. It is common knowledge that there were TWO investigations carried out. The first was carried out by Taff Jones and after he was taken off the case was then reviewed by Kineally. Both officers investigations stated that the evidence pointed to Sheila as having been the culprit. Case was pretty much closed. The second investigation came about due to RWB. The files from the original investigation are,rather conveniently,held under pii.
-
SO THEY TRIED SHOUTING AT HER WITH MEGAPHONE INSTEAD _ OF COURSE THAT WOULD NOT SPOOK HER _ EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SNEAKING AROUND "IN THE DARK"
They tried communicating with a megaphone around 5:30AM. At that point they had been there for over 1.5 hours without hearing or seeing anything and tried to get some kind of line of communication going. Since they phoe would not work they had to resort to megaphone.
That is far different from breaking in, people won't usually open fire on hostages just from hearing a megaphone but they often will if someone is breaking into where they are holed up.
YOU ARE RIGHT THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN EARLIER OR LATER AND FROM THEIR VAST EXPERIENCE THEY WOULD KNOW THE CALL COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT THE PURPORTED TIME .
Going in sooner would have little chance of police being able to tell the phonecall could not have happened the time stated. Your supposed reaosn it would did not survive scrutiny and you provide no rebuttla you just choose to pretend you are right though you have no evidence or reaosn to support your claims. That is the hallmark of a Jeremy supporter- lose the debate no problem just repeat the same mantra all over again even though it was refuted.
NO THEY ARE AMBIGUOUS FULL STOP.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A LIE BUT AT 8.10 THEY COULD HAVE SAID "MISTAKE MADE ONE BODY DOWSTAIRS MALE , 4 BODIES UPSTAIRS " I DONT KNOW WHAT IS TRUE I WAS NOT THERE , BUT TO ME IF YOU MADE SUCH A BIG MISTAKE YOU JUST CORRECT IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - SIMPLES
SO STOP WASTING YOUR TIME
I'm not wasitn gmy time correcting this garbage, the poeple making the claims are wasting their time and humilating themselves in the process.
The raid team wasn't back at HQ reading the log. They therefore could not note the log was wrong and order it to be corrected.
The error was insignifant since the log was not used for anything that caused anyone to repeat the error or to buy the error. The raid team gave statements and that was used to figure out where the bodies were found and what state they were in not relying on the log.
Many years later Jeremy advocates found the error, KNEW it was an error and yet tried to pretend otherwise to try suggesting there was police wrongdoing in a hail mary play to try to figure out some crock of a way to get the conviction overturned. It went no where though because it was an obvious crock.
It is plainly obvious that the person writing up the log heard a female was seen in the window and then heard a male found and just added both together and that ended up with 1 male and 1 female in the kitchen. This is not a case where the defense is unaware what the raid team stated they found. The defense team knew what the raid team stated. If they had not seen the raid team statements then the log would be a reaosn to question the raid team but they knew.
That is why the defense team at trial paid no attention to it.
SORRY BORED NOW. I KNOW YOU WONT FIND THAT RUDE _ AFTER ALL YOU MADE IT QUITE CLEAR YOU CAN TAKE ASGOOD AS YOU GIVE
That's the typical response when a Jeremy supporter has no rebuttal either to claim boredom, repeate the same mantra or to simply dismiss claims that they have no ability to rebut.
-
Nothing ambiguous about this log. It is very clear.
From Inspector 1 dead male and 1 dead female. Does it say where these bodies were found? No
Does it say both in the same room? No. At the time of the dispatch from the Inspector could both Nevill and June have been found? Yes. June's body was found before they actually went upstairs because they were scanning using a periscope and saw June's body right away. The same log mentions a little later 3 further bodies found , 5 total. It likewise doesn't detail where the additional 3 bodies were found.
The claim this clearly states 2 bodies in the kitchen is wrong.
-
You forget that the logs were communications from the raid team. Not the other way round. Therefore the call for Dr. Craig to attend two bodies. They are clear logs. They only changed when they had a debriefing. That is why I would like to see the audio tapes of the raid which are being kept under PII. Unlike you I am not that ready to accept the common line and quite frankly I think that you have all too readily accepted the common line and seem to accept the BS put out by various quarters. I think that if you are any kind of investigator you too would be curious as to why the police still refuse to reveal those files that they refused to release even when ordered to by the CCRC.
-
Or this one:
One dead male and one dead female in kitchen.
That is the only one that claims there were 2 in th ekitchen and the reason for the error has alreayd been explained infinitem. Collins' statement makes clear he botched it and the body he saw in the kitchen was actually a man.
Trying to say that a log written by someone off scene being relayed messages trumps the statements of those who were on the scene is a complete waste of time.
Worse the medical evidence establishes Sheila died in the bedroom because of the blood pool.
To a lawyer a log like this would AT BEST result in interviewing the raid team about the issue but the raid team was already interviewed about such issue and we know already about how Collins mistook Nevill for a female and that this log is because of that error.
No one has any rational basis to sugges thter ewere 2 bodies in the kitchen anyone makeing the claim is either intentionally lying, extrmely ignroant of the surrounding facts and thus falling for lies from others or has mentla problems and thus despite knowing all the facts chooses to believe what rational peopel realize are lies.
-
From Inspector 1 dead male and 1 dead female. [color=red Does it say where these bodies were found? No[/color]
Does it say both in the same room? No. At the time of the dispatch from the Inspector could both Nevill and June have been found? Yes. June's body was found before they actually went upstairs because they were scanning using a periscope and saw June's body right away. The same log mentions a little later 3 further bodies found , 5 total. It likewise doesn't detail where the additional 3 bodies were found.
The claim this clearly states 2 bodies in the kitchen is wrong.
Yes it does "in the kitchen". Take your delusional specs off so you can read properly.
-
That is the only one that claims there were 2 in th ekitchen and the reason for the error has alreayd been explained infinitem. Collins' statement makes clear he botched it and the body he saw in the kitchen was actually a man.
Trying to say that a log written by someone off scene being relayed messages trumps the statements of those who were on the scene is a complete waste of time.
Worse the medical evidence establishes Sheila died in the bedroom because of the blood pool.
To a lawyer a log like this would AT BEST result in interviewing the raid team about the issue but the raid team was already interviewed about such issue and we know already about how Collins mistook Nevill for a female and that this log is because of that error.
No one has any rational basis to sugges thter ewere 2 bodies in the kitchen anyone makeing the claim is either intentionally lying, extrmely ignroant of the surrounding facts and thus falling for lies from others or has mentla problems and thus despite knowing all the facts chooses to believe what rational peopel realize are lies.
And I suggest that there was no error. It was for some reason deliberately changed. I must again remind you that it was a log FROM the raid team to headquarters and not the other way round. I suggest you get a bit more curious instead of towing the accepted line. The so called "errors" have not been explained away to my satisfaction I'm afraid. It appears that I am more suspicious of these cops than you are? For there are plenty and even an abundance of crooked cop investigations these days. There is definitely something wrong with this case. You cannot simply sweep it aside as being a few gullible Bamber supporters. NGB is a former top criminal barrister and has sat on some leading criminal cases. He believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice and he is not alone in the criminal law profession in thinking so. What, do you think that we would defend Bamber if we knew he was a murderer. What kind of people do you think we are? I suggest you begin to get curious and start to look into these things much more deeply instead of towing the party line. Prove that you are a real investigator and not just a bullying numpty like the rest of the guilters.
-
Scipio - you obviously don't know this case as well as you like to make out otherwise you would know about the two lots of crime files that Jansus referred to. It is common knowledge that there were TWO investigations carried out. The first was carried out by Taff Jones and after he was taken off the case was then reviewed by Kineally. Both officers investigations stated that the evidence pointed to Sheila as having been the culprit. Case was pretty much closed. The second investigation came about due to RWB. The files from the original investigation are,rather conveniently,held under pii.
The claim seemed to be that police statements were made after August were part of some second file and that those in August part of a first file.
"there probably would not have been two crime files - so all the statements we would have seen would be the originals from August"
There are no police statements being hid under PII. We have seen the statements he seems to be trying to suggest statements made after August are unreliable because they are part of a second file and that all statements would have been made in August and thus be reliable had the police gone in sooner.
This is all hogwash. Many statements were in September and beyond because that is when the results of processing evidence were completed. Moreover statements are taken when there is a specific need for information to be put in a statement. The date a statement is made doesn't have any effect on its integrity.
Hidden under PII are the notes and assessments made by Inspector Clousseau AKA Taff Jones not police statements.
Taff Jones was incompetent that is why he refused to change his assessment even after the evidence proved he was wrong which in turn provides a second ground to challenge Jansus. Not only would going in sooner not have likely resulted in being able to tell Jeremy was lying, even if it coudl have done such there is no reason to think Taff Jones would have admitted such or paid attention to it he refused to change his mind even in the face of evidence that Sheila could not have killed herself.
-
The claim seemed to be that police statements were made after August were part of some second file and that those in August part of a first file.
"there probably would not have been two crime files - so all the statements we would have seen would be the originals from August"
There are no police statements being hid under PII. We have seen the statements he seems to be trying to suggest statements made after August are unreliable because they are part of a second file and that all statements would have been made in August and thus be reliable had the police gone in sooner.
This is all hogwash. Many statements were in September and beyond because that is when the results of processing evidence were completed. Moreover statements are taken when there is a specific need for information to be put in a statement. The date a statement is made doesn't have any effect on its integrity.
Hidden under PII are the notes and assessments made by Inspector Clousseau AKA Taff Jones not police statements.
Taff Jones was incompetent that is why he refused to change his assessment even after the evidence proved he was wrong which in turn provides a second ground to challenge Jansus. Not only would going in sooner not have likely resulted in being able to tell Jeremy was lying, even if it coudl have done such there is no reason to think Taff Jones would have admitted such or paid attention to it he refused to change his mind even in the face of evidence that Sheila could not have killed herself.
Sorry,but Taff Jones was NOT incompetent! He was a highly respected and highly experienced copper. Findings of the original investigation have NEVER been disclosed,as in what EVIDENCE led them to conclude that Sheila was the culprit. Where is Kineallys report (he who succeeded Taff Jones)? Was he incompetent too in your opinion?? Jeremy has requested this document along with many others and has been refused. If they have nothing to hide,then why not release it?
-
And I suggest that there was no error. It was for some reason deliberately changed. I must again remind you that it was a log FROM the raid team to headquarters and not the other way round. I suggest you get a bit more curious instead of towing the accepted line. The so called "errors" have not been explained away to my satisfaction I'm afraid. It appears that I am more suspicious of these cops than you are? For there are plenty and even an abundance of crooked cop investigations these days.
What was deliberately changed? The body was deliberately changed from the kitchen to the bedroom?
The log wasn't from the raid team to HQ, the log was relayed from the raid team to police outside and then relayed from police outside to HQ. SO the police outside had a chance to misinterpret the raid team claims OR be less than clear to HQ and for HQ to misinterpret what was conveyed to them. A historian and court would consider the best evidence ot be the claims of the raid team members and to ask them precisely what they saw and what they saw is contained in their noteebooks and statements.
What they say in their statements is the same:
1) prior to entry only 1 body seen in the kitchen bent over the chair (oh yeah you forgot that they looked in the kitchen before brekaing in and didn't see 2 bodies)
2) upon entry only 1 body in the kitchen, the same one bent over the chair
3) 2 bodies in the master bedroom on the floor each body on opposite sides of the bed
4) 2 chidlren in a different bedroom
There was a dried pool of blood in the bedroom near Sheila's body that formed from the blood that leaked down the side of her neck and though June would not have been able to make it to the kitchen she was lucky to make it from the bed to the doorway. This confirms the bedroom is where both women died.
Why would police move a female body formt he kitchen to the bedroom? There is no possible reason to move a upstairs ven if there was not such strong evidence that the females had been killed in the bedroom.
So let's recap, you choose to believe there were 2 bodies in the kitchen even though: 1) only 1 body was in the kitchen prior to entry, 2) all the police who went in insist there was only one upon entry, 3) the mixup in the log clearly was because because Nevill was initially thought female but discovered to be male close up, 4) though there would be no reaosn for police to relocate a body to the bedroom, and 5) though the physcial evidence makes clear both females died in the master bedroom where they were found.
Worse you decide this female moved was Sheila not June just because that is more convientie to yuor conspiracy claims. In the meantime the reality is that there would not have been a dried pool of blood in the bedroom by her body had they moved her there from somewhere else.
The evidence is clear you have no leg to stand on you constantly assert stupid things that ar enot credible, and which you have no evidentiary basis to assert.
Your opinion is not one any objective person or rational person could hold. It is a baseless, unsupportable irraitonal opinion.
There is definitely something wrong with this case. You cannot simply sweep it aside as being a few gullible Bamber supporters. NGB is a former top criminal barrister and has sat on some leading criminal cases. He believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice and he is not alone in the criminal law profession in thinking so. What, do you think that we would defend Bamber if we knew he was a murderer. What kind of people do you think we are? I suggest you begin to get curious and start to look into these things much more deeply instead of towing the party line. Prove that you are a real investigator and not just a bullying numpty like the rest of the guilters.
1) I don't know what NGB's belief is wih respect to this allegation because I have not seen him address it. However if NGB supports the alelgation then that simply would be a black eye for him because it doesn't matter who makes the allegation it is baseless and totally invalid.
2) as for NGB believing it is a MOJ big deal. His credentials do not impress me. I care about the strenth of one's arguments and the basis for their opinions. I never subsribe to an unsupported opinion just because of the person making the claim is supposedly an authority. in court lawyers don't present their credientials and try to win based on who went to the better law school or who has a mor eimpressive case record. Cases turn on the weight of the evidence that can be brought to bear.
I have not seen NGB's basis for beliving that a MOJ occurred or evidence he has put forth if any to back up his beliefs.
Someone else posted an argument he made in a debate against me but NGB's argument did not impress me. He suggested that the defense has the duty to call out police and accuse them of planting evidence even if there is no evidentiary basis to suggest it and that such is proper not a ethical violation as someone named Bridget was claiming. A case he tried to hold up to support his claims didn't fit though. In that case the defense did not accuse the police of planting evidence. The defense simply presented a scientist who explained it is possible to plant fingerprints and explained the scientific mechanics of how they are able to be transferred. The main evidence in the case was fingerprints. The defense suggested someone could have planted the prints and thus that there was reasonable doubt. He did not suggest police planted the prints but simply that someone potentially could have planted them including the real cuplrets.
NGB admitted this was a futile effort as simply making the claim that evidence could theoretically be planted doesn't establish reasonable doubt. So in effect he argued a wasted effort should have been made in this case to argue planting.
But he ignored that in that case the defense did not simply make a claim evidence could be planted they had an expert establish such was theoretically possible. The defense here did not find any experts who would testify like the expert in the failed fingerprinting challenge. They found no expert who can explain a procedure by which blood could be planted in a manner which would result in blood being distributed in a manner found by the prosecution and defense experts. If they can't find that they they cna' even get as far as the claim made in the fingerprint case. The defense would have needed to find someone who would testify as to a device that coudl be used to spyay blood inside the moderator so that it would deposit a good amount of blood on the first 8 baffles with the volume on each baffle decreasing the further away from the opening. That still wound not have amounted to reaosnable doubt even if they could haved found someone to testify to such.
To establish reasonable doubt requires establishing that such method could be used to plant blood and then establishing someone used such method to plant it. That reuires estbalishing what blood was used and who did it and when and why.
That is what a skilled lawyer would set out to try to prove but if no evidence is found then the argument can't be made.
Jeremy supporters don't even get over the threshold issue of establishing how the blood could have been planted let alone provide any evidence of who did such, when and using what blood. There are unsupported allegations nothing more.
This is endemic of all Jeremy supporter claims. Always claims that are outright bogus like the claim about 2 bodies in the kitchen othersie just unfounded allegations that could not sway anyone who was actually thinking raitonally and objectively.
-
Sorry,but Taff Jones was NOT incompetent! He was a highly respected and highly experienced copper. Findings of the original investigation have NEVER been disclosed,as in what EVIDENCE led them to conclude that Sheila was the culprit. Where is Kineallys report (he who succeeded Taff Jones)? Was he incompetent too in your opinion?? Jeremy has requested this document along with many others and has been refused. If they have nothing to hide,then why not release it?
Taff Jones was indeed incompetent. He decided who did it based on hearing what Jeremy had told police and what he observed at the scene. He made up his mind before the evidence was processed and after it was processed and proved him wrong he refused to waiver.
Keneally's report doesn't matter it is opinion just like anything from Taff Jones. His job was to review the case. Their opinions do not mean spit and are not discoverable material. If Kineally believed Jeremy was innocent as well then obviously he was not very skilled either or didn't review it in depth supposedly he reviewed it in 1 day if Mike is correct but usually he sisn't nor are any other Jeremy supporters I have noticed.
What is relevant discoverable material is the evidence in the case not opinions of police and the relevant evidence was all released to the defense.
-
And I suggest that there was no error. It was for some reason deliberately changed. I must again remind you that it was a log FROM the raid team to headquarters and not the other way round. I suggest you get a bit more curious instead of towing the accepted line. The so called "errors" have not been explained away to my satisfaction I'm afraid. It appears that I am more suspicious of these cops than you are? For there are plenty and even an abundance of crooked cop investigations these days. There is definitely something wrong with this case. You cannot simply sweep it aside as being a few gullible Bamber supporters. NGB is a former top criminal barrister and has sat on some leading criminal cases. He believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice and he is not alone in the criminal law profession in thinking so. What, do you think that we would defend Bamber if we knew he was a murderer. What kind of people do you think we are? I suggest you begin to get curious and start to look into these things much more deeply instead of towing the party line. Prove that you are a real investigator and not just a bullying numpty like the rest of the guilters.
I think you should be careful in using NBG's beliefs as some sort of trump card, especially when you don't actually know what his beliefs are regarding the actual guilt of JB, regardless of any potential or perceived legal argument against his conviction.
-
What was deliberately changed? The body was deliberately changed from the kitchen to the bedroom?
The log wasn't from the raid team to HQ, the log was relayed from the raid team to police outside and then relayed from police outside to HQ. SO the police outside had a chance to misinterpret the raid team claims OR be less than clear to HQ and for HQ to misinterpret what was conveyed to them. A historian and court would consider the best evidence ot be the claims of the raid team members and to ask them precisely what they saw and what they saw is contained in their noteebooks and statements.
What they say in their statements is the same:
1) prior to entry only 1 body seen in the kitchen bent over the chair (oh yeah you forgot that they looked in the kitchen before brekaing in and didn't see 2 bodies)
2) upon entry only 1 body in the kitchen, the same one bent over the chair
3) 2 bodies in the master bedroom on the floor each body on opposite sides of the bed
4) 2 chidlren in a different bedroom
There was a dried pool of blood in the bedroom near Sheila's body that formed from the blood that leaked down the side of her neck and though June would not have been able to make it to the kitchen she was lucky to make it from the bed to the doorway. This confirms the bedroom is where both women died.
Why would police move a female body formt he kitchen to the bedroom? There is no possible reason to move a upstairs ven if there was not such strong evidence that the females had been killed in the bedroom.
So let's recap, you choose to believe there were 2 bodies in the kitchen even though: 1) only 1 body was in the kitchen prior to entry, 2) all the police who went in insist there was only one upon entry, 3) the mixup in the log clearly was because because Nevill was initially thought female but discovered to be male close up, 4) though there would be no reaosn for police to relocate a body to the bedroom, and 5) though the physcial evidence makes clear both females died in the master bedroom where they were found.
Worse you decide this female moved was Sheila not June just because that is more convientie to yuor conspiracy claims. In the meantime the reality is that there would not have been a dried pool of blood in the bedroom by her body had they moved her there from somewhere else.
The evidence is clear you have no leg to stand on you constantly assert stupid things that ar enot credible, and which you have no evidentiary basis to assert.
Your opinion is not one any objective person or rational person could hold. It is a baseless, unsupportable irraitonal opinion.
1) I don't know what NGB's belief is wih respect to this allegation because I have not seen him address it. However if NGB supports the alelgation then that simply would be a black eye for him because it doesn't matter who makes the allegation it is baseless and totally invalid.
2) as for NGB believing it is a MOJ big deal. His credentials do not impress me. I care about the strenth of one's arguments and the basis for their opinions. I never subsribe to an unsupported opinion just because of the person making the claim is supposedly an authority. in court lawyers don't present their credientials and try to win based on who went to the better law school or who has a mor eimpressive case record. Cases turn on the weight of the evidence that can be brought to bear.
I have not seen NGB's basis for beliving that a MOJ occurred or evidence he has put forth if any to back up his beliefs.
Someone else posted an argument he made in a debate against me but NGB's argument did not impress me. He suggested that the defense has the duty to call out police and accuse them of planting evidence even if there is no evidentiary basis to suggest it and that such is proper not a ethical violation as someone named Bridget was claiming. A case he tried to hold up to support his claims didn't fit though. In that case the defense did not accuse the police of planting evidence. The defense simply presented a scientist who explained it is possible to plant fingerprints and explained the scientific mechanics of how they are able to be transferred. The main evidence in the case was fingerprints. The defense suggested someone could have planted the prints and thus that there was reasonable doubt. He did not suggest police planted the prints but simply that someone potentially could have planted them including the real cuplrets.
NGB admitted this was a futile effort as simply making the claim that evidence could theoretically be planted doesn't establish reasonable doubt. So in effect he argued a wasted effort should have been made in this case to argue planting.
But he ignored that in that case the defense did not simply make a claim evidence could be planted they had an expert establish such was theoretically possible. The defense here did not find any experts who would testify like the expert in the failed fingerprinting challenge. They found no expert who can explain a procedure by which blood could be planted in a manner which would result in blood being distributed in a manner found by the prosecution and defense experts. If they can't find that they they cna' even get as far as the claim made in the fingerprint case. The defense would have needed to find someone who would testify as to a device that coudl be used to spyay blood inside the moderator so that it would deposit a good amount of blood on the first 8 baffles with the volume on each baffle decreasing the further away from the opening. That still wound not have amounted to reaosnable doubt even if they could haved found someone to testify to such.
To establish reasonable doubt requires establishing that such method could be used to plant blood and then establishing someone used such method to plant it. That reuires estbalishing what blood was used and who did it and when and why.
That is what a skilled lawyer would set out to try to prove but if no evidence is found then the argument can't be made.
Jeremy supporters don't even get over the threshold issue of establishing how the blood could have been planted let alone provide any evidence of who did such, when and using what blood. There are unsupported allegations nothing more.
This is endemic of all Jeremy supporter claims. Always claims that are outright bogus like the claim about 2 bodies in the kitchen othersie just unfounded allegations that could not sway anyone who was actually thinking raitonally and objectively.
Why don't they impress you? Is it because you have no credentials? Why the way 2 bodies were seen through the window before entry.
-
Always remembering that there were NO curtains obstructing the view into the kitchen !
-
I think you should be careful in using NBG's beliefs as some sort of trump card, especially when you don't actually know what his beliefs are regarding the actual guilt of JB, regardless of any potential or perceived legal argument against his conviction.
Of course I do I'm in constant contact with him.
-
Of course I do I'm in constant contact with him.
Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.
I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.
-
Veering from the posts,I read a case yesterday about the murder of a toddler who'd suffered injuries to his skull. Three people were present when this occurred------the mother,grandmother and step-father.
The court couldn't decide who'd committed this horrendous murder and stated ( as in Jeremys' case ) that it could have been any three of them,so the case was adjourned until a later date,as evidence didn't dictate that it was any of them in particular.
Isn't this where joint enterprise should be implemented ? What's the betting that they all walk free ?
-
Veering from the posts,I read a case yesterday about the murder of a toddler who'd suffered injuries to his skull. Three people were present when this occurred------the mother,grandmother and step-father.
The court couldn't decide who'd committed this horrendous murder and stated ( as in Jeremys' case ) that it could have been any three of them,so the case was adjourned until a later date,as evidence didn't dictate that it was any of them in particular.
Isn't this where joint enterprise should be implemented ? What's the betting that they all walk free ?
No.
-
No.
Why Harters ?
-
Why Harters ?
Did they all agree on a plan to murder the toddler? Or was it just an action carried out by one in the presence of the other two?
Lack of evidence doesn't suddenly morph itself in to joint liability.
-
Otherwise, apply your same logic to Sheila and Jeremy.
-
Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.
I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.
I'm not mistaken. He has told me things that he hasn't posted on forum and I am correct in what I say of his opinions. I have spoken to him many times on the phone. It is you who are misrepresenting his views. I might of course add that he believes the same as McKay concerning the CCRC decision in rejecting the forensic evidence for the last appeal request. His reason for being careful in his posting on forum these days because of the intrusion into his private life by some of the abusers on a certain forum.
ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.
-
I'm not mistaken. He has told me things that he hasn't posted on forum and I am correct in what I say of his opinions. I have spoken to him many times on the phone. It is you who are misrepresenting his views. I might of course add that he believes the same as McKay concerning the CCRC decision in rejecting the forensic evidence for the last appeal request. His reason for being careful in his posting on forum these days because of the intrusion into his private life by some of the abusers on a certain forum.
ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.
Refer to my previous post.
-
Otherwise, apply your same logic to Sheila and Jeremy.
This is what the judge implied in his summing up ?
-
This is what the judge implied in his summing up ?
No it isn't Lookout. I think you've misunderstood the notion of joint liability.
-
Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.
I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.
I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.
-
I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.
I don't think I can be any clearer, see my previous post.
Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.
I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.
-
I don't think I can be any clearer, see my previous post.
Sorry hartley, you're wrong.
-
Sorry hartley, you're wrong.
Bearing in mind that you have just posted this:
ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.
I don't really understand what you are arguing against. :-\
-
No it isn't Lookout. I think you've misunderstood the notion of joint liability.
Lookout, if you get the chance, there is a BBC film/drama that was on recently called 'Common', it is still available to watch on iplayer. Without spoiling it, it involves a stabbing case in which JE was to be used as a basis for conviction.
It's worth a watch.
-
Bearing in mind that you have just posted this:
I don't really understand what you are arguing against. :-\
I'm arguing against your comment where you said I'm only using ngb to bolster up my argument because I worship him. But I am supporting my argument by ngb because of his knowledge of the case ande because being a criminal barrister he has worked it out to his own satisfaction. That is one of the reasons I hold my views that there may be a strong possibilty that Bamber may indeed be innocent. Because I also hold the same views as ngb. You say you respect him. But I can remember you arguing against him in a disrespectful fashion. If you say you respect him? I respect him more, because of his knowledge of the case.
-
I'm arguing against your comment where you said I'm only using ngb to bolster up my argument because I worship him. But I am supporting my argument by ngb because of his knowledge of the case ande because being a criminal barrister he has worked it out to his own satisfaction. That is one of the reasons I hold my views that there may be a strong possibilty that Bamber may indeed be innocent. Because I also hold the same views as ngb. You say you respect him. But I can remember you arguing against him in a disrespectful fashion. If you say you respect him? I respect him more, because of his knowledge of the case.
As I've said, I've been incredibly clear in my posts, the fact that you've repeated the contents of my my post and claimed them as your views also, I am struggling to see your argument.
Okay the 'Worship' thing was probably a bit of a cheap shot, but the reality is, that is how your post came across.
-
As I've said, I've been incredibly clear in my posts, the fact that you've repeated the contents of my my post and claimed them as your views also, I am struggling to see your argument.
Okay the 'Worship' thing was probably a bit of a cheap shot, but the reality is, that is how your post came across.
My argument was that I represented ngb's views correctly. Yours was that I didn't. If he posts on here that I have misrepresented his views then I will back down and apologise to him and to you.
-
Taff Jones was indeed incompetent. He decided who did it based on hearing what Jeremy had told police and what he observed at the scene. He made up his mind before the evidence was processed and after it was processed and proved him wrong he refused to waiver.
Keneally's report doesn't matter it is opinion just like anything from Taff Jones. His job was to review the case. Their opinions do not mean spit and are not discoverable material. If Kineally believed Jeremy was innocent as well then obviously he was not very skilled either or didn't review it in depth supposedly he reviewed it in 1 day if Mike is correct but usually he sisn't nor are any other Jeremy supporters I have noticed.
What is relevant discoverable material is the evidence in the case not opinions of police and the relevant evidence was all released to the defense.
No It was not all released to the defence and I posted a list of evidence which they were not supplied with
There is evidence on the forum in an email from EP that there are 200 boxes under PII which they are refusing ( for a whole long list of reasons to release)
It was used as a defence for the changing of exhibit numbers that it was because of a transfer to the second file ( murder not suicide) so I don't get your argument at all
Lastly if he is proved right and Jeremy is innocent perhaps he was not so incompetent after all ;)
-
My argument was that I represented ngb's views correctly. Yours was that I didn't. If he posts on here that I have misrepresented his views then I will back down and apologise to him and to you.
You don't need to apologise. As I said, you attempted to reinforce your own views by indicating that that they are the same as those held by NGB, rattling off his CV in an attempt to add further weight to your own views.
It doesn't and I don't believe that they are.
-
You don't need to apologise. As I said, you attempted to reinforce your own views by indicating that that they are the same as those held by NGB, rattling off his CV in an attempt to add further weight to your own views.
It doesn't and I don't believe that they are.
Well lets see if he posts first shall we. If I am wrong and have misrepresented his views then he deserves an apology. But if not then that means I'm right and have correctly represented him.
-
Well lets see if he posts first shall we. If I am wrong and have misrepresented his views then he deserves an apology. But if not then that means I'm right and have correctly represented him.
Okay, but if he posts to say that I am wrong, then you deserve an apology, if not, then I have correctly pointed out your misrepresentation, you should be dipped in tar and rolled in feathers as punishment.
The reality is that it's irrelevant, as you have clearly indicated that you agree with the following:
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
-
Okay, but if he posts to say that I am wrong, then you deserve an apology, if not, then I have correctly pointed out your misrepresentation, you should be dipped in tar and rolled in feathers as punishment.
The reality is that it's irrelevant, as you have clearly indicated that you agree with the following:
Oh no! not the tar. I've had that before and its difficult to get off. :(
-
Oh no! not the tar. I've had that before and its difficult to get off. :(
I won't ask why. ??? :D
-
NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.
I just think he was being unconfrontational. ::)
-
I just think he was being unconfrontational. ::)
Oh, so they aren't his views that you share lol. :D
-
Why don't they impress you? Is it because you have no credentials? Why the way 2 bodies were seen through the window before entry.
His credentials don't impress me because as I already pointed out:
1) The credentials of a person making an argument are meaningless. People with credentials can be biased and in error just as easily as anyone else. What matters is the evidence that is brought to bear to support the arguments made not the credentials of the person making an assertion. I gave by way of example how courts don't give a rat's ass who went to what law school or won what cases in the past the weight of their arguments is what matters.
People frequently like to reference a famous hisotrian and say he believes this so this is my evidence it is true. Just because a historian is famous doesn't make his opinion worth anything. What matter sis the basis of his opinion in order to assess whether the opinion has any merit and assessing what evidence there is to support it.
People who subsrcibe blindly to authorities are fools or simply biased and lazy and know they cna't find any credible evidence so in lieu of such refence an opinion from someone else as evidence.
2) I provided a specific example where his assessment was wanting and explained in detail what must be proven in this case.
3) As I pointed out I don't even know what NGB's position is with respect to the issue of 2 bodies in the kitchen because I have not seen him say anything about it. You referenced an overall view he believes there was a MOJ not anything specific to the issue at hand.
-
I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.
-
His credentials don't impress me because as I already pointed out:
1) The credentials of a person making an argument are meaningless. People with credentials can be biased and in error just as easily as anyone else. What matters is the evidence that is brought to bear to support the arguments made not the credentials of the person making an assertion. I gave by way of example how courts don't give a rat's ass who went to what law school or won what cases in the past the weight of their arguments is what matters.
People frequently like to reference a famous hisotrian and say he believes this so this is my evidence it is true. Just because a historian is famous doesn't make his opinion worth anything. What matter sis the basis of his opinion in order to assess whether the opinion has any merit and assessing what evidence there is to support it.
People who subsrcibe blindly to authorities are fools or simply biased and lazy and know they cna't find any credible evidence so in lieu of such refence an opinion from someone else as evidence.
2) I provided a specific example where his assessment was wanting and explained in detail what must be proven in this case.
3) As I pointed out I don't even know what NGB's position is with respect to the issue of 2 bodies in the kitchen because I have not seen him say anything about it. You referenced an overall view he believes there was a MOJ not anything specific to the issue at hand.
Precisely my view. That is why I don't trust Essex Police on this one. I think they re-wrote the case quite frankly? Earlier documents are frequently the more reliable.
-
Lookout, if you get the chance, there is a BBC film/drama that was on recently called 'Common', it is still available to watch on iplayer. Without spoiling it, it involves a stabbing case in which JE was to be used as a basis for conviction.
It's worth a watch.
I saw that,Harters,and in that case the " by association " was admittedly unfair. As the law stands,Joint Enterprise needs an awful lot of thought and it's definitely down to the brains of the law-enforcers to get it right. I'm for it myself if it's conducted in the right and proper way.
-
Precisely my view. That is why I don't trust Essex Police on this one. I think they re-wrote the case quite frankly? Earlier documents are frequently the more reliable.
Documents containing opinion doesn't mean squat. The documents detailing the collection of evidence and processing of the evidence and testimony of all involved matters and such has been released.
Suppose that instead of just turning over the evidence in a case the other side wanted me to turn over my own personal notes where I evaluated the evidence and assessed it. That is privileged attorney work product- the evidence is one thing my opinions on such is something entirely different.
The complaint is that opinion work product is being withheld. Such assessments have no bearing though, you have the evidence and can make your own assessment there is no need to wonder or care what Jones or anyone else thought of if.
Suppose Jones had written in a document that he believed the supporessor evidence doesn't prove anything. Does that help counter the evidence and is it something the defense can use to overturn the verdict? The kinds of things being kept from prying eyes have no appellate use at all. At best some could be used as propaganda to say look Jones didn't buy the evidence so you shouldn't eiither because he was a cop and if he doubted it so should you.
So in effect it would amount to holding him out as an authority and saying believe his opinion because he was a great cop.
-
Documents containing opinion doesn't mean squat. The documents detailing the collection of evidence and processing of the evidence and testimony of all involved matters and such has been released.
Suppose that instead of just turning over the evidence in a case the other side wanted me to turn over my own personal notes where I evaluated the evidence and assessed it. That is privileged attorney work product- the evidence is one thing my opinions on such is something entirely different.
The complaint is that opinion work product is being withheld. Such assessments have no bearing though, you have the evidence and can make your own assessment there is no need to wonder or care what Jones or anyone else thought of if.
Suppose Jones had written in a document that he believed the supporessor evidence doesn't prove anything. Does that help counter the evidence and is it something the defense can use to overturn the verdict? The kinds of things being kept from prying eyes have no appellate use at all. At best some could be used as propaganda to say look Jones didn't buy the evidence so you shouldn't eiither because he was a cop and if he doubted it so should you.
So in effect it would amount to holding him out as an authority and saying believe his opinion because he was a great cop.
So what do you think are in the 200 boxes that EP are so determined not to release - of course this will only be your opinion because you wont know for certain.
-
So what do you think are in the 200 boxes that EP are so determined not to release - of course this will only be your opinion because you wont know for certain.
Well I believe they contain at least one set of the audio tapes of when the raid team went it? If they are among the documents I would like to listen to them. For I believe there is evidence still not revealed that needs to be examined. But sadly I also believe they will be released under the 50 year rule and by then everything will be a bit pointless?
-
Oh no! not the tar. I've had that before and its difficult to get off. :(
Were you trying to dress as a chicken or did you do it to go out and scare poor neighborhood children?
-
No It was not all released to the defence and I posted a list of evidence which they were not supplied with
There is evidence on the forum in an email from EP that there are 200 boxes under PII which they are refusing ( for a whole long list of reasons to release)
It was used as a defence for the changing of exhibit numbers that it was because of a transfer to the second file ( murder not suicide) so I don't get your argument at all
Lastly if he is proved right and Jeremy is innocent perhaps he was not so incompetent after all ;)
How could he be proved right?
The notion that Sheila killed everyone elses without getting a shred of physical evidence on her clothing/body and not suffering any cuts or abrasions or broken nails is laughable but not as laughable as the notion that she managed to kill herself with the moderator attached then after she was dead:
1) put the moderator away in the closet
2) moved from a seated position propped against something to a flat position
3) stuck the bible in a pool of blood that formed after she died and then opened and closed it while the blood was still wet
There's a greater chance of Taff Jones having faked his death than Sheila being the murderer.
-
Were you trying to dress as a chicken or did you do it to go out and scare poor neighborhood children?
Probably on trial for witchcraft knowing my luck? Serves me right for trying to make gold out of lead. ;)
-
Considering that the police were responding to what was described as a “distress call” the crew of CA7 behaved in a strange manner on the morning of 7th August 1985. They left Witham police station at 03:30 and drove at an average 50 mph to Pages Lane near White House Farm (WHF), a journey of 12 miles. During the journey their speed must at times have been between 65-70 mph. They hurried to the scene of the murders with their blue light flashing; but upon arrival they did absolutely nothing.
The AA route planner tends to use major roads. According to Google, the shortest route for the trip is 10.2 miles long. As a local driver who had been to WHF before, Pc Saxby presumably used the best route. If they used the 10.2 mile route and took 15 minutes, their average speed was 40.8 mph, and if they took 17 minutes, their average speed was 36 mph. Their blue light, even if used, wouldn't affect their speed; at that time in the morning, there would probably have been nobody around to see it anyway. They didn't necessarily act in a strange manner - after all, the call concerned someone who had allegedly gone crazy (or berserk, which suggests violence) and had possession of a gun.
-
The AA route planner tends to use major roads. According to Google, the shortest route for the trip is 10.2 miles long. As a local driver who had been to WHF before, Pc Saxby presumably used the best route. If they used the 10.2 mile route and took 15 minutes, their average speed was 40.8 mph, and if they took 17 minutes, their average speed was 36 mph. Their blue light, even if used, wouldn't affect their speed; at that time in the morning, there would probably have been nobody around to see it anyway. They didn't necessarily act in a strange manner - after all, the call concerned someone who had allegedly gone crazy (or berserk, which suggests violence) and had possession of a gun.
As someone who lives here and who knows the roads I would say that they could not reach speeds of up to 67 to 70mph in many places?
-
That's correct, but Bill Robertson's comment was based on the nearly 12-mile route suggested by AA route planner. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact times when the journey started and ended.
-
That's correct, but Bill Robertson's comment was based on the nearly 12-mile route suggested by AA route planner. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact times when the journey started and ended.
And do we know the exact location of the cars when they got the shout?
-
As far as CA07 is concerned, Pc Saxby hadn't noted doing anything since he'd returned to Witham Police Station at about 3:20am.
-
As far as CA07 is concerned, Pc Saxby hadn't noted doing anything since he'd returned to Witham Police Station at about 3:20am.
But there was more than one car, wasn't there. Not suggesting anything untoward. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a squad car to be out on patrol/en rote/ from another shout/closer to the point of the new call out.
-
Didn't the two cars come from different directions ? Dependant where they were at the time I suppose.
-
According to Pc Cracknell, he was on duty on 7 August 1985 with Pc Norcup, forming the crew of car CA5, when at 3.33am, as a result of information received whilst at Chelmsford Police Station in the Control Room, they were requested to attend White House Farm. As he was in the same control room as Pc West, it seems that there must have been some discussion in the control room that eventually resulted in the despatch of CA5. A few minutes later, Bonnett was presumably informed that CA5 was on its way, as he logged a time of 3:36am for this. For some reason, CA5 was not despatched very quickly and averaged only around 25 mph for the trip to WHF. What delayed them has never been explained.
Car CA6 arrived at WHF, according to Bonnett's log, at around the same time as car CA5. I'll try to spot more information about CA6.
-
According to Pc Cracknell, he was on duty on 7 August 1985 with Pc Norcup, forming the crew of car CA5, when at 3.33am, as a result of information received whilst at Chelmsford Police Station in the Control Room, they were requested to attend White House Farm. As he was in the same control room as Pc West, it seems that there must have been some discussion in the control room that eventually resulted in the despatch of CA5. A few minutes later, Bonnett was presumably informed that CA5 was on its way, as he logged a time of 3:36am for this. For some reason, CA5 was not despatched very quickly and averaged only around 25 mph for the trip to WHF. What delayed them has never been explained.
Car CA6 arrived at WHF, according to Bonnett's log, at around the same time as car CA5. I'll try to spot more information about CA6.
Perhaps they stopped to put an extra jumper on? ;D
-
Or a swig from the hip-flask !
-
Or a swig from the hip-flask !
Hot unheard of, Lookout.
-
Hot unheard of, Lookout.
Both PE and Jeremy showed their disgust when Stan Jones nearly polished off their whisky. PE was quite shocked when his offer to drive SJ home was refused,as SJ said he'd drive himself.
-
I'm afraid I wouldn't have put my trust in someone like that who wouldn't have had a clear head.I don't care what anyone says,they forget things,or get muddled. What a carry on.
Because these things happened,Jeremy daren't say a word in case he's accused of making excuses for himself. I bet there's heaps that Jeremy could say,and hopefully his time will come. I think this is what folk are afraid of. :-[
-
Both PE and Jeremy showed their disgust when Stan Jones nearly polished off their whisky. PE was quite shocked when his offer to drive SJ home was refused,as SJ said he'd drive himself.
I think the philosophy of "one for the road" was a popular saying in those days.
-
I think the philosophy of "one for the road" was a popular saying in those days.
Grahame, it was a necessity.
-
I've heard of the laughing policeman,but not the cross-eyed cop. ;D ;D