Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on August 17, 2014, 06:01:PM
-
Anne Eaton makes a point in her statements that Jeremy thought killing birds for fun was cruel
A strange statement for her to make in regard to her bias unless it was to tie in with Julie's story of a hitman
-
wich rather contradicts mugfords story about him strangling rats with his bear hands.
-
Anne Eaton makes a point in her statements that Jeremy thought killing birds for fun was cruel
A strange statement for her to make in regard to her bias unless it was to tie in with Julie's story of a hitman
i think your right jackie i cant think of any other reason she would say that.
-
You know Nugnug
-
Anne Eaton makes a point in her statements that Jeremy thought killing birds for fun was cruel
A strange statement for her to make in regard to her bias unless it was to tie in with Julie's story of a hitman
That is evidence she told the truth regardless of which way the chips fall like when she said she didn't know either of them to shoot not just Sheila.
-
but why was it so important for there to be a hitman.
-
but why was it so important for there to be a hitman.
Just my opinion BUT I think Jeremy told Julie that he had hired a hitman because he knew the story wouldn't check out and he could simply say she was lying because they had fallen out. He couldn't tell her too much just in case she told police - which in the end she did.
-
but why was it so important for there to be a hitman.
It wasn't. Had Jeremy not made up the hitman story to Julie then there would not have been anything bandied about regarding a hitman. Julie recounting his hitman claims in September is the first mention of a hitman to police. Jeremy had no alibi there was no reaosn at all to think a hitman did it, th eonly reaosn it was investigated was because he told such to Julie.
-
wich rather contradicts mugfords story about him strangling rats with his bear hands.
But it also contradicts his own story about going out to 'shoot rabbits'
-
Just my opinion BUT I think Jeremy told Julie that he had hired a hitman because he knew the story wouldn't check out and he could simply say she was lying because they had fallen out. He couldn't tell her too much just in case she told police - which in the end she did.
but in that case why would he tell her at all.
he would he know the story was going to check he wouldn't know MacDonald had an albi.
-
But it also contradicts his own story about going out to 'shoot rabbits'
well not that much i mean theirs a difference between killing an animal for practical reasons and doing so for fun.
-
You take it which way you want and I will decide why she said what she said
-
But it also contradicts his own story about going out to 'shoot rabbits'
Caroline you are aware farmers count rabbits as vermin
Do you?
-
well it is a very strange thing to say considering everything else she said.
-
Caroline you are aware farmers count rabbits as vermin
Do you?
They count rats as vermin too.
-
but in that case why would he tell her at all.
he would he know the story was going to check he wouldn't know MacDonald had an albi.
Not being him, I couldn't tell you but perhaps he needed thing from her - like sleeping pills? It may have started as a fantasy between them, one that became more and more serious - he just ended up telling her too much and then had to try and cover himself, just in case.
-
did an eaton think jeremy couldent of done it himself why would she think that i wonder.
-
Oh I forgot u believe Mugfords stories
-
but in that case why would he tell her at all.
he would he know the story was going to check he wouldn't know MacDonald had an albi.
He probably just didn't even consider that.
-
Oh I forgot u believe Mugfords stories
Not all of them, but lets just say - there's a ring of truth about them. Pointless having a dig Jackie, I'm simply stating my opinion, as you are. You said that farmers consider rabbits as Vermin - no more than they do rats. However, I don't believe he strangled rats, but he may have told Julie he did.
-
Just my opinion BUT I think Jeremy told Julie that he had hired a hitman because he knew the story wouldn't check out and he could simply say she was lying because they had fallen out. He couldn't tell her too much just in case she told police - which in the end she did.
While it is possible he said it in case she ratted him out, more likely it was just because he didn't want her to think he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids. She made a big deal over how oculd he do that. He didn't want her to be scared of her.
If he were truly thinking in his mind maybe she will rat me out and calculating then th ehitman claim is to discourage her from ratting him out because she will be in fear of the hitman coming after her as opposed to just having to fear him.
I personally think Jeremy was just saying it so she would not think he was as cold blooded as he was not thinking about trying to discourage her from ratting him out or in case she did for the story to flop.
It could be a mixture of these things though there is no way for us to know for sure what was running through his mind.
-
Not all of them, but lets just say - there's a ring of truth about them. Pointless having a dig Jackie, I'm simply stating my opinion, as you are. You said that farmers consider rabbits as Vermin - no more than they do rats. However, I don't believe he strangled rats, but he may have told Julie he did.
I still want ot see the exact claim about these rats. The characterization of so many things about this case have been way off base. I would like to see if he told her he was strangling them or what and if they were dead when he was playing with them or what have you. I have only touched a rat with gloves did he have gloves on?
The people who make so much of the rat claims don't even know what exactly was said...
-
While it is possible he said it in case she ratted him out, more likely it was just because he didn't want her to think he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids. She made a big deal over how oculd he do that. He didn't want her to be scared of her.
If he were truly thinking in his mind maybe she will rat me out and calculating then th ehitman claim is to discourage her from ratting him out because she will be in fear of the hitman coming after her as opposed to just having to fear him.
I personally think Jeremy was just saying it so she would not think he was as cold blooded as he was not thinking about trying to discourage her from ratting him out or in case she did for the story to flop.
It could be a mixture of these things though there is no way for us to know for sure what was running through his mind.
The reason I think he told her on purpose is because he also told her she would never be believed and the only reason no one would believe her is if he had told her something that wouldn't check out. You're right, we'll never know and it's just my opinion.
-
While it is possible he said it in case she ratted him out, more likely it was just because he didn't want her to think he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids. She made a big deal over how oculd he do that. He didn't want her to be scared of her.
If he were truly thinking in his mind maybe she will rat me out and calculating then th ehitman claim is to discourage her from ratting him out because she will be in fear of the hitman coming after her as opposed to just having to fear him.
I personally think Jeremy was just saying it so she would not think he was as cold blooded as he was not thinking about trying to discourage her from ratting him out or in case she did for the story to flop.
It could be a mixture of these things though there is no way for us to know for sure what was running through his mind.
it makes no diffrence someone who has it done is just as cold blooded as someone who does it would make abslutly no diffrence.
-
It's not a dig Caroline it's a fact
Have you always stated on this forum Mugfords statement have a ring of truth about them?
-
it makes no diffrence someone who has it done is just as cold blooded as someone who does it would make abslutly no diffrence.
Which is why I believe her told her about the hit man because it wouldn't check out and she wouldn't be believed (or so he hoped).
-
but he couldent know macdonald had an albi
-
It's not a dig Caroline it's a fact
Have you always stated on this forum Mugfords statement have a ring of truth about them?
What is?
No I can honestly say when I thought he was innocent; I USED to think they were a complete work of absolute fiction, now I think there is 'some' truth to her statements but I think there's quite a lot she has left out.
I've changed my mind Jackie, I've changed my mind because I don't think Jeremy is truthful and if he had nothing to hide, he would be. He obviously has something to hide.
-
but he couldent know macdonald had an albi
Well, he certainly knew he wasn't killing 5 people at WHF so he he had to be some place else and given he was married ....... Jeremy obviously didn't give that much thought.
-
how macdonald wouldent be at home and his wife somwhere else and therefore have no albi at all.
-
how macdonald wouldent be at home and his wife somwhere else and therefore have no albi at all.
Someone who would kill five members of his family, wouldn't really consider whether MM had an alibi or not. Like I said, he obviously didn't give it much thought OR assumed he would have one.
-
I am 99% sure the only thing Jeremy said to Mugford night of the murders was
'Theres something wrong at the farm'
She lied about before and after the murders
-
thats bloody risky though why not just not tell her at all.
-
I am 99% sure the only thing Jeremy said to Mugford night of the murders was
'Theres something wrong at the farm'
She lied about before and after the murders
That definitely has a ring of truth about it don't u think Caroline
-
thats bloody risky though why not just not tell her at all.
I suppose he thought he was clever enough to deal with any eventuality.
-
That definitely has a ring of truth about it don't u think Caroline
I believe you're 99% sure if you say you are, so I guess it does. And whether Mugford told the truth about what he actually said or not, I think the phone call was to let as many people as possible, know he was home around the time he stated he received a call from his father - I think that also has a ring of truth about it.
-
Caroline when your on the forum a lot of nights at say 4 am sending pm messages or whatever could you highlight which parts of Mugfords statements have a ring of truth and which don't
A very important subject for me the truth
-
Caroline I think you are right about why he phoned Julie he wanted it on record he was home using the phone in a situation that he was supposed to be in she would be the last person he would phone it would have been 999 or straight over to the farm to help his Dad in a mad rush what could she do to help.
-
One thing that has never changed Mike's faith that Jeremy is innocent and he knows him better than anyone
-
Caroline when your on the forum a lot of nights at say 4 am sending pm messages or whatever could you highlight which parts of Mugfords statements have a ring of truth and which don't
A very important subject for me the truth
I hardly ever send PM's Jackie. The truth is also important to me, which is why I have no problem changing my mind and admitting it. It is also why I use my own name and post a picture of 'myself' but that's not good enough for some people, they STILL have the odd sly dig which alludes to me being a woman who called herself Keira. I'll say it again - I'm not keira, we aren't even from the same part of the country ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline I think you are right about why he phoned Julie he wanted it on record he was home using the phone in a situation that he was supposed to be in she would be the last person he would phone it would have been 999 or straight over to the farm to help his Dad in a mad rush what could she do to help.
We're agreed Susan :)
-
One thing that has never changed Mike's faith that Jeremy is innocent and he knows him better than anyone
How well do you ever get to know anyone in prison?
-
I hardly ever send PM's Jackie. The truth is also important to me, which is why I have no problem changing my mind and admitting it. It is also why I use my own name and post a picture of 'myself' but that's not good enough for some people, they STILL have the odd sly dig which alludes to me being a woman who called herself Keira. I'll say it again - I'm not keira, we aren't even from the same part of the country ;D ;D ;D ;D
Total respect for you Caroline x
-
I would say very very well
-
Ha Ha Caroline who do you send all these pm's to during the night certainly not me ;D ;D ;D I have to say you are a person who does seek the truth and the last thing you do is "gossip" in pm's about anyone and I for one place a great deal of credence in your theories and you have helped to change my stance on this case not intentionally but made me think deeply about Jeremy Bamber.
-
Total respect for you Caroline x
Thank you Justice - and to you!! X
-
Ha Ha Caroline who do you send all these pm's to during the night certainly not me ;D ;D ;D I have to say you are a person who does seek the truth and the last thing you do is "gossip" in pm's about anyone and I for one place a great deal of credence in your theories and you have helped to change my stance on this case not intentionally but made me think deeply about Jeremy Bamber.
Thank you Susan :). I shan't take offense being as her beef isn't even with me, just someone she 'thinks' I am. Bet Keira's ears would melt ice cubes!!
-
Caroline
People have come and gone over 30 years you weren't the first and you won't be the last! Maybe you could find something to do that you believe in and where your degree could be more useful
-
Caroline
People have come and gone over 30 years you weren't the first and you won't be the last! Maybe you could find something to do that you believe in and where your degree could be more useful
Come and gone where? Where have I been and where am I going? I'm quite happy here thanks and my degree has never been more useful and it's getting more so each and everyday but thank you for your concern. :)
-
Come and gone where? Where have I been and where am I going? I'm quite happy here thanks and my degree has never been more useful and it's getting more so each and everyday but thank you for your concern. :)
As the psychiatrist said to Basil Fawlty "there's enough material there for an entire conference.
-
As the psychiatrist said to Basil Fawlty "there's enough material there for an entire conference.
Exactly!! Well said ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A nice message from a friend
Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is Innocent
Search this site
Trudi Jackson
When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. I knew the basic facts of course, I had followed it in the media from day one. You could say I had grown up with the case. Over the last four years I have done as much in depth research as I can and I now spout with confidence (and I do often!) why I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family. I have spent probably 100’s of hours reading all the information that is available to me and I know the following to be true or point to Jeremy’s innocence, in no particular order and certainly not exhaustive:
• No forensics link Jeremy to the murders.
• There was more than one sound moderator, exhibit labels were manipulated and four moderators were passed off to the jury as one and recent forensics have revealed that the silencer wasn’t even used in the murders.
• We are asked to believe that Jeremy was able to get Shelia to calmly lay down whilst he shot her after first killing her children and her parents. I conclude that this would have been impossible.
• We are asked to believe that Jeremy got from the murder scene home in time to make a phone call and leave no forensic trace. No Mud, blood or gun shot residue. I conclude that this would have been impossible.
• We now know that Nevill called the police also, a fact that the jury never heard.
• Non-disclosure of evidence by Essex Police in this case stinks of a cover-up. In fact the 1986 Dickinson report into their conduct was a whitewash based on the biased testimony of Jeremy’s relatives. The very fact that the original murder/suicide file remains under PII is very suspicious.
• We know that the police made a mess of the investigation but failing to mention for twenty odd years that they used the bodies in a training exercise and, furthermore, re-staged and photographed Shelia with the gun and then tried to make out it was Jeremy who had done the staging, is appalling.
• The relatives were terrified that they were going to lose their land and livelihood should Jeremy inherit and had everything to gain from Jeremy’s conviction. Certain members of the family were also incredulous that the “adopted” son would inherit everything.
• Julie Mugford was a bitter jealous jilted woman, who would have been charged with drug offences, cheque book fraud and burglary. Instead she got the ultimate revenge on Jeremy and gained £25K from the NOTW and immunity from prosecution. Not hard to see why she lied.
• Whose fingerprints were on the Bible and why was this never disclosed?
• Why were exhibits destroyed despite a Court Order for them to be retained?
• Why was it claimed that Shelia’s feet were clean when actually photographs show otherwise?
• Jeremy passed a lie detector test. This in itself as been criticised as a meaningless exercise but most importantly for me is why on earth would he push so hard to take it if he was guilty and risked failing. Now that would have been game over!
It still doesn’t explain why I campaign for Jeremy, so I believe he is innocent but I’m often asked why dedicate so much of my time and energy for someone I have no connection to and have never met. Well that is simple I hate injustice. I hate it with a passion. I have watched other miscarriage of justices and seen innocent men and women walk from the Court of Appeal, whilst Jeremy continues to be left behind. It fills me with horror that for nearly 29 years justice has failed him. The jury didn’t get to hear a large part of the most important evidence and the evidence they did hear was tainted by manipulation and lies. I have read and re-read the 2002 appeal document and I’m no legal expert but Jeremy didn’t catch one break, not once did any of the Judges concede even tiny points, it was as if their minds were made up even before the hearing. Jeremy deserves a fair crack at presenting what the jury didn’t hear. It also makes me angry how he has been misrepresented in the press, how people who once supported him give accounts to newspapers that they never mentioned previously and how awful it is for Jeremy to have had his family almost demonized at times, as if they somehow deserved what happened to them. Jeremy loved his family very much and I have no doubt that they loved him. Suggesting anything else and having to hear all the lies about them is an injustice all by itself.
Getting to know Jeremy through his letters over the last four years has been a privilege. In my opinion he is a very intelligent,
articulate, resilient and honest individual. He has a very dry sense of humour which has often cheered me up. Jeremy offers help and advice when asked and has never failed to support me in my normal life struggles. His strength of character is the single most important reason why he has kept going nearly three decades. Jeremy never wants his friends to worry about him and I’m pretty sure he hides how hard it is at times to keep his head above water, even so I never hear any self pity or thoughts of giving up. It is his sense that the truth will finally prevail which keeps him going. In the very first letter Jeremy wrote to me about his case he said “….never miss an opportunity and make hay while the sun shines – but most of all tell the truth always, never be tempted to lie or misrepresent the situation and above all else work hard…” Jeremy has exhibited these qualities to me over and over and it is why I will continue to campaign for him until I witness him walking free from The Court of Appeal also and I have a feeling that day isn’t long away.
-
A nice message from a friend
Why I believe Jeremy Bamber is Innocent
Search this site
Trudi Jackson
When I fist wrote to Jeremy at the tail end of 2010 I already believed that he was innocent, although I probably wasn’t exactly sure why. I knew the basic facts of course, I had followed it in the media from day one. You could say I had grown up with the case. Over the last four years I have done as much in depth research as I can and I now spout with confidence (and I do often!) why I know Jeremy did not and could not have killed his family. I have spent probably 100’s of hours reading all the information that is available to me and I know the following to be true or point to Jeremy’s innocence, in no particular order and certainly not exhaustive:
• No forensics link Jeremy to the murders.
There is no forensic link to Sheila but that never stops you from claining she did it. WHile Jeremy had the opportunity to wash up and dispose of evidence Sheila didn't. The clothes she wore to kill eveyrone would have to be in the house but weren't and worse the clothes she wore when shot and killed definitely are those that were on her body yet no GSR. She can't have killed herself then put the moderator away, moved her body flat and opened and closed the bible in her own blood so obviously someone else killed her. She was framed and the framer was Jeremy thus he had to be the one who did it.
• There was more than one sound moderator, exhibit labels were manipulated and four moderators were passed off to the jury as one and recent forensics have revealed that the silencer wasn’t even used in the murders.
There is no evidence of more than 1 moderator. The exhibit numbers were changed for legitimate reasons as the COLP investigation revealed.
• We are asked to believe that Jeremy was able to get Shelia to calmly lay down whilst he shot her after first killing her children and her parents. I conclude that this would have been impossible.
Impossible based on what? You want us to believe Nevill complied with order to march to the bedroom to be shot but that there is no way sedated Sheial would follow orders at gunpoint. Pretty pathetic. In the meantime he could have told her the boys were still alive but that he would kill them if she didn't comply. Your conclusions are not based on evidenc ebut simply your bias.
• We are asked to believe that Jeremy got from the murder scene home in time to make a phone call and leave no forensic trace. No Mud, blood or gun shot residue. I conclude that this would have been impossible.
Impossible based on what? We have no idea whether he killed them at 1AM or 2:30AM. He had plenty of time to wash and change his clothing before claling police. Your conclusion is based on bias nothing more.
• We now know that Nevill called the police also, a fact that the jury never heard.
There is no evidence at all to sugges the called police and the allegations are absurd. That you claim this to be a fact shows how delusional you truly are.
• Non-disclosure of evidence by Essex Police in this case stinks of a cover-up. In fact the 1986 Dickinson report into their conduct was a whitewash based on the biased testimony of Jeremy’s relatives. The very fact that the original murder/suicide file remains under PII is very suspicious.
Your efforts to try to pretend there was evidenc enot disclosed fell apart completely you got your ass hande dot you in the thread. The Appeal Courts and CCRC thoroughly rejected all claims of non-disclosure because what supposedly was't disclosed was in fact disclosed and worse the supposed evidence didn't actually prove anything let alone his innocence.
• We know that the police made a mess of the investigation but failing to mention for twenty odd years that they used the bodies in a training exercise and, furthermore, re-staged and photographed Shelia with the gun and then tried to make out it was Jeremy who had done the staging, is appalling.
The mess failed to preserve evidence that could have been used against Jeremy, it hurt their case it didn't hurt Jeremy. Your claim of them using the bodies for training is absurd. You post the usual nonsense that has already been debunked long ago.
• The relatives were terrified that they were going to lose their land and livelihood should Jeremy inherit and had everything to gain from Jeremy’s conviction. Certain members of the family were also incredulous that the “adopted” son would inherit everything.
They wouldn't lose their land, they simply would not have inherited the property they inherited from June and Neville.
• Julie Mugford was a bitter jealous jilted woman, who would have been charged with drug offences, cheque book fraud and burglary. Instead she got the ultimate revenge on Jeremy and gained £25K from the NOTW and immunity from prosecution. Not hard to see why she lied.
She didn't get immunity. They had no evidence to prosecute her and would not have known about any f the wrongdoings had she not admitted to them. Had she said nothing against Jeremy and nothing about the crimes no one would have known about them. There is no evidence to suggest she lied and as usual your bias guides you not intellect.
• Whose fingerprints were on the Bible and why was this never disclosed?
June's and a small child. It was disclosed you just know nothing about this case. You only know the absurd allegations not any of the actual facts.
• Why were exhibits destroyed despite a Court Order for them to be retained?
There wasn't a court order. Police decided to save them till the appeals were all played out. In 1996 there were no appeals going on just comminucation between the Home Office and Jeremy's lawyers. An officer who was unaware that there still could be another appeal filed destroyed them to make room for more exhibits after the time to get rid of them came up. The exhibits would not have been useful for anything anyway so it makes no different.
• Why was it claimed that Shelia’s feet were clean when actually photographs show otherwise?
The photo released publicly could have been June's foot or not even connected to the case. There was no authentication offered. In the meantime it wasn't very dirty and seemed to have maks that are permanant to the skin. It is a red color under the outer layer skin.
• Jeremy passed a lie detector test. This in itself as been criticised as a meaningless exercise but most importantly for me is why on earth would he push so hard to take it if he was guilty and risked failing. Now that would have been game over!
They are unreliable hence not admissible. His team found a clown to give it who has a history of guilty people passing, not evidence of any value at all.
It still doesn’t explain why I campaign for Jeremy, so I believe he is innocent but I’m often asked why dedicate so much of my time and energy for someone I have no connection to and have never met. Well that is simple I hate injustice. I hate it with a passion. I have watched other miscarriage of justices and seen innocent men and women walk from the Court of Appeal, whilst Jeremy continues to be left behind. It fills me with horror that for nearly 29 years justice has failed him. The jury didn’t get to hear a large part of the most important evidence and the evidence they did hear was tainted by manipulation and lies. I have read and re-read the 2002 appeal document and I’m no legal expert but Jeremy didn’t catch one break, not once did any of the Judges concede even tiny points, it was as if their minds were made up even before the hearing. Jeremy deserves a fair crack at presenting what the jury didn’t hear. It also makes me angry how he has been misrepresented in the press, how people who once supported him give accounts to newspapers that they never mentioned previously and how awful it is for Jeremy to have had his family almost demonized at times, as if they somehow deserved what happened to them. Jeremy loved his family very much and I have no doubt that they loved him. Suggesting anything else and having to hear all the lies about them is an injustice all by itself.
Getting to know Jeremy through his letters over the last four years has been a privilege. In my opinion he is a very intelligent,
articulate, resilient and honest individual. He has a very dry sense of humour which has often cheered me up. Jeremy offers help and advice when asked and has never failed to support me in my normal life struggles. His strength of character is the single most important reason why he has kept going nearly three decades. Jeremy never wants his friends to worry about him and I’m pretty sure he hides how hard it is at times to keep his head above water, even so I never hear any self pity or thoughts of giving up. It is his sense that the truth will finally prevail which keeps him going. In the very first letter Jeremy wrote to me about his case he said “….never miss an opportunity and make hay while the sun shines – but most of all tell the truth always, never be tempted to lie or misrepresent the situation and above all else work hard…” Jeremy has exhibited these qualities to me over and over and it is why I will continue to campaign for him until I witness him walking free from The Court of Appeal also and I have a feeling that day isn’t long away.
Far from there being evidence of an MOJ, there is just evidence you are woefully ignorant of the facts and evidence of this case, not looking at anything rationally or logically but rather biased and foolishly citing bogus claims and evidence for the proposition he is innocent.