Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on September 17, 2014, 05:47:PM
-
I have identified the 2% of evidence which helps to confirm Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocent - the other 98% of the evidence and argument are just bullshit that is built into every case that comes to trial, or appeal...
-
well an apeal court stating somthing as fact becouse is beyound a joke really.
-
I have argued in favour, or against, the vast majority of points which form 98% of pure bullshit in the Bamber case. Sometimes, I have argued in favour, and against, the same same bullshit, just for the sake of trying to show the extent of the bullshit in the case...
-
I have identified the 2% of evidence which helps to confirm o Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocent - the other 98% of the evidence and argument are just bullshit that is built into every case that comes to trial, or appeal...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bftQ4xxFc
-
I have argued in favour, or against, the vast majority of points which form 98% of pure bullshit in the Bamber case. Sometimes, I have argued in favour, and against, the same same bullshit, just for the sake of trying to show the extent of the bullshit in the case...
are you trying to say its all bullshit then.
-
I think that was sarcasm .
What a surprise.
-
2% of evidence establishes Bambers guilt, or his innocence...
I know what the key evidence was / is...
That evidence will soon be tested, and the result or outcome of it being scrutinised will either consign Jeremy Bamber to the rest of his life incarcerated, or he will be a free man, who was dramatically wronged, persecuted, and falsely imprisoned...
-
are you trying to say its all bullshit then.
Hi nugnug,
No, it was necessary for everyone to argue and debate the 98% portion of the evidence, which has no bearing upon guilt or innocence, every bodies view was important, but whatever anybody had to say did not prove Bamber to be guilty, or innocent...
That is my point...
-
I get a feeling it is the evidence that has not been seen which is most important.
-
thats probebly why they wont let us see it.
-
So none of us have been " warm ",Mike ?
-
The real 2% of evidence that mattered, or which matters, is (a) whether or not Jeremy Bamber was present inside the farmhouse when three generations of his own family were shot to death...
As a result of my own painstaking research into this case, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that there was, and is no physical, scientific, or witness evidence to place him at the scene at all, after about 9.30pm on evening of 6th August, and 3.48am, on the morning of 7th August 1985...
Every other bit of the 98% of the evidence is at best only circumstantial, which is insufficient to convict anyone on its own of having committed any crime, least of all, to be the basis upon which a man has been convicted of five murders, and ordered to spend the rest of his natural life in prison...
Nobody and nothing places Jeremy Bamber at the scene of the shootings between 9.30pm on 6th August 1985, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985 - the closest any witness places Bamber either leaving the scene or arriving there, which forms part of the other 98% of circumstantial evidence in the case, was a witness who testified to the effect that she heard Jeremys vauxhall astra being driven away from the farmhouse at around 9.30pm on the evening of the 6th August, taking Jeremy away from the scene of the shootings, then three police officers travelling to the incident at the scene, overtook Jeremy's vauxhall astra on the Tollsbury road, identifying Bamber as the driver travelling in the direction of the farmhouse, not travelling away from it...
No other evidence exists in between 9.30pm on one evening, and 3.48am on the following morning to place Jeremy Bamber at the scene...
Additional circumstantial evidence which falls in Bambers favour (from the other 98% of circumstantial evidence), serves to confirm that June Bamber, and her daughter, Sheila, were both very much still alive at around 10pm on the evening of the 6th August, because Junes sister, Pamela Boutflour, spoke to both of them on the telephone, after Jeremy had already left the farm previously, at around 9.30pm, that same evening...
The FACTS are, that none of the five victims from three generations of the same family had been attacked, or shot dead, whilst Jeremy was in attendance himself at the scene, before he left the farm to go home, and the occasion he was told by police to return to the scene on the following morning...
These are the bare facts upon which the jury should have been directed to look at and to consider when deciding their verdict in this case...
Everything else was circumstantial evidence which served to prove nothing at all...
-
Jeremys claim that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night alerting him to problems at the farmhouse involving Jeremys sister, is not something which can be proved not to have happened, based upon the lack of evidence relied upon at his trial, to prove his guilt, although if such a call was made by Ralph to Jeremy, it goes a long way to establishing his innocence, although again his claim about the phone call he received falls within the scope of the 98% of circumstantial evidence...
Simply by claiming that Ralph made no such call to Jeremy, does not prove that such a call was not made, or that Jeremy must be guilty, since the phone call evidence from both sides is only circumstantial evidence, it does not prove that Jeremy was present at the scene at the time of the call, or at any stage between 9.30pm on 6th August, and 3.48am 0n the 7th August 1985, to enable him to kill everyone...
-
Alternatively, the call made to police by Ralph Bamber is not direct evidence that Jeremy was at the scene, whether or not you accept that such a call was made by Ralph, or whether you accept that the phone log details of the 3.26am call, were another version of Jeremys own call to police, as per the contents of the 3.36am, phone log - this is circumstantial evidence, and does not prove that Jeremy was ever present at the scene after 9.30pm, on 6th August, and before 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, to enable him to kill everyone...
-
Nothing which Julie Mugford had to say, placed Jeremy at the scene between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, to enable him to shoot three generations of his own family dead - her evidence falls within the 98% of circumstantial evidence gathered by the prosecuting authorities so they could present a load of old codswallop and rely upon it by suggesting that the overall weight of the evidence pointed to Bambers guilt (without producing any evidence at all to place him at the scene at the time of the shootings)...
-
I fully endorse everything you've said Mike and I couldn't give a damn what anyone else thinks either.
-
Use of a sound moderator (silencer) in the shootings of one or more of the five victims, is not evidence that Jeremy Bamber must have been present at the scene of these shootings, between 9.30pm on the 6th August 1985, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, there was no evidence at all presented during the trial to link or to associate Jeremy Bamber to that sound moderator. Simply by claiming that this silencer had unique blood on the inside and outside of it belonging to one or more of the victims, and some red paint upon it from the kitchen surround, did not prove or establish that Jeremy Bamber had been present at the scene at any stage between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985 - there was no physical, scientific, or witness evidence introduced during the trial that remotely linked or associated that sound moderator with Jeremy Bamber at the time of the shootings, it was all circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence...
-
Not one police officer, and no scenes of crime officer found anything, nor says anything to remotely link Jeremy Bamber to the scene, at any stage, between 9.30pm, on 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985...
This is the 2% of evidence which helps to establish that Jeremys convictions are unsafe, and that they should be quashed ASAP...
-
Not one police officer, and no scenes of crime officer found anything, nor says anything to remotely link Jeremy Bamber to the scene, at any stage, between 9.30pm, on 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985...
This is the 2% of evidence which helps to establish that Jeremys convictions are unsafe, and that they should be quashed ASAP...
[/b]
Exactly
-
The fact that there are no times of death for any of the five victims, forms part of the 2% of admissible evidence relied upon during the trial, to help establish Jeremy Bambers innocence, because the prosecuting authorities have failed to provide evidence at all, that the five victims died at the scene between 9.30pm, on the 6th of August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, or at any other time when Bamber was known to be present at the scene prior to 9.30pm on 6th August, and after 3.48am on the 7th August 1985...
We know that at least two of the victims (June, an Sheila) were still very much alive, after Jeremy Bamber left the scene at 9.30pm on the 6th August 1985...
-
are there no times of death though.
offically theres no time of death.
-
They were indeed,because they shot each other !
-
Nothing said by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, about the five individual or collective deaths, proves that somebody in Jeremy Bambers position, could have killed anyone of them...
-
Nothing said by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, about the five individual or collective deaths, proves that somebody in Jeremy Bambers position, could have killed anyone of them...
This forms part of the 2% of evidence which is capable of establishing Bambers guilt, or innocence...
-
No photographic evidence relied upon during the trial, or subsequent appeal, provides any evidence to suggest that Jeremy Bamber killed any of the five victims - this is part of the 2% of the evidence which helps to confirm, or to disprove, Jeremy Bambers involvment in the shootings...
-
Medical records relating to the mental illness, and odd behaviour of Sheila Caffell at the scene on the eve' of the shootings, as spoken about by June Bamber, in her telephone conversation with her sister Pamela Boutflour, sheds light on the likelihood that the police originally got it right when treating the shootings originally, as a case of 'four murders, and a suicide', believing Sheila to be the shooter...
-
Medical records relating to the mental illness, and odd behaviour of Sheila Caffell at the scene on the eve' of the shootings, as spoken about by June Bamber, in her telephone conversation with her sister Pamela Boutflour, sheds light on the likelihood that the police originally got it right when treating the shootings originally, as a case of 'four murders, and a suicide', believing Sheila to be the shooter...
This is part of the 98% circumstantial evidence in the case...
-
The complete original file (SC/688/85) which was withheld, had gone missing, or was destroyed, forms part of the 2% of evidence, which helps to establish Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocence - what the prosecuting authorities did, was that they created a new file under a crime reference of SC/786/85, the evidence inside of which they produced during the trial to help to persuade the jury to convict him as the murderer, without any reference by them to the original approach (SC/688/85) when the prosecuting authorities believed Sheila had shot the others, and then (supposedly) shot herself...
Withholding the contents of the original (SC/688/85) file from the jury, was a biased approach which helped to fool the jury into convicting Bamber as the murderer - withholding this evidence during the trial and since, forms part of the case which should have been considered regarding Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocence...
-
dont they know what happend.
-
There is no time of death, for any of the five victims, yet for Bamber to be the killer, he had to have been present inside the farmhouse between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am on the following morning, yet because there is no time of death, it creates a contradiction surrounding the legality of the convictions arrived at by way of a 10/2 majority verdict - technically speaking it remains a distinct possibility that one or more of the victims died after Bamber had returned to the scene after 3.48am, on the morning of the 7th August 1985, but how could Jeremy Bamber have got into the farmhouse to kill the victims individually or collectively with a large police presence at the scene alongside him (after 3.48am)?
-
Simple,Mike,he didn't do it.
-
Evidence contained in the original SC/688/85 file, contains information that in Sheila's case, two doctors attended the scene at different times, to pronounce her as being dead, wheress, each of the other four victims were only pronounced dead at the scene once, at 8.44am...
Police surgeon, Dr Craig, pronounced all five victims as being dead at 8.44am, but a Dr Harris was requested to attend the scene at around 9.20am, and pronounced Sheila as being dead, again, at 9.57am. This coincided with the 40 minute delay before the crime scene was officially handed over to SOCO at 10 O'clock...
-
Evidence contained in the missing SC/688/85 regarding the period between 8.15 and 9.57am, would settle Bambers culpability once and for all...
Dr Harris attended the scene and pronounced Sheila as being dead at 9.57am, when she had already been pronounced dead, by Dr Craig, earlier (8.44am)?
-
Mike
what is your view , trying to look at both sides here , about the fact of neither Sheila or Jeremy having any signs of a struggle on them?
Also about Sheila not being splattered by some of the victims blood?
-
Mike
what is your view , trying to look at both sides here , about the fact of neither Sheila or Jeremy having any signs of a struggle on them?
Also about Sheila not being splattered by some of the victims blood?
In the main, the way I see it, is that there was not enough close contact between the shooter and each victim after each victim had been shot, so that blood was transferred from one to the other, with the exception of Sheila, where there is clear evidence that she was in an upright position at the time she was first shot, and horizontal at the time of the second shot - with blood splashes, clearly visible near the top right side of her nightdress, consistent with these being deposited there immediately after initially being shot before she crashed onto the floor in the kitchen...
Hope this helps...
-
yes it does thanks mike.
-
Everybody knows, that if there had been immediate access to the farmhouse and everyone of the five victims had all been discovered dead at around 4am, that police would have been able to tell how long Ralph Bamber had been dead, which would have either supported what Jeremy told the police in his own phone call to the police about 24 minutes previously (prior to possible first entry which in fact did not materialize). Jeremy Bamber had no way of controlling what police did once the police responded to any alert passed to the police by his father, or himself....
-
What we have, are two doctors, Craig and Harris, being driven to the scene to look at the bodies of the victims, to confirm whether or not they were alive, or dead. Now, in Dr Craigs case, he was summoned to the scene in response to the discovery of only two of the five bodies, but by the time of his arrival he pronounced all five victims (8.44am) dead. This means that en route to the scene, nobody re contacted Dr Craig to alert him to the fact that there were now five dead bodies, not two. He does not appear to have been for warned by anybody that a further three dead bodies had been discovered inside the farmhouse once he had set off to the scene. Well, he did not get to the scene until about 8.44am, so there was ample time for someone in the know so to speak or elsewhere, that five victims had died in the shooting by say 8.10am, so what we have is a police surgeon, en route to the scene of a shooting to look at two bodies already claimed to be dead from as long ago as say 7.37am, yet no-one contacts Dr Craig about the find of the other three bodies, despite these allegedly having been located upstairs by 8.10am. By this time (8.10am) Dr Craig is still travelling to the scene, and does not arrive at the scene until just before 8.44am, so, for a period of about 34 minutes police at the scene are in the knowledge that there had been five bodies all believed to be dead, two bodies downstairs, the other three bodies upstairs, yet even upon Dr Craig arriving at the scene, no-one tells him there are in fact five bodies they want him to look at to confirm death in each case, Dr Craig is simply taken into the farmhouse and pronounces Ralph Bamber dead in the kitchen. His body is the only one downstairs by that stage, so off goes Craig looking for the second body he has been told about, but does not see another body until he enters the so called main bedroom, and there are now a further two bodies on top of the bed, one body the side of the other (the true version). At this time, June Bambers body was closest to the door through which Craig had been brought into the bedroom, and the body of Sheila was on the far side of the bed...
He pronounced both of these women as being dead, and it surely must have dawned upon him that there was three bodies not two that he had been called to the scene to look at and to deal with...
He was then taken into an adjoining bedroom and pronounced two children as being dead, one child in one bed, the other child in the other bed - five dead in total. Surely, it must have dawned upon Dr Craig by that stage that three people had either been shot dead after he was first requested to attend the incident, or that three further bodies had been found after he had been notified about two bodies he was required to attend the scene to deal with...
Anyway, Craig leaves the scene...
Sometime after Craig left the scene, Sheila was shot a second time, and the amount of blood which rushed from this second wound almost certainly confirmed that Sheila had not been dead at 8.44am when Craig had pronounced her as being dead. She had remained alive barely for at least another 45 minutes or so, by which stage Dr Craig and the two ambulance crews had all left the scene. This led to a Dr Harris being contacted and requested to attend the scene to examine a body, not five bodies, but only one. The body he looked at, and which he pronounced as dead at 9.57am was the body of Sheila Caffell, who by this stage had two bullet holes on her neck...
Sheila was pronounced dead at the scene twice, once by Dr Craig at 8.44am at a time when her body had been on top of the far side of the bed with only a solitary wound on her neck, and secondly, she was pronounced as being dead by a Dr Harris at 9.57am, by which stage Sheila's body was then laid on the bedroom floor alongside the edge of the bed, but with two bullet wounds on her neck - Dr Harris' bloodied fingermarks were were left upon Sheilas neck close to the second bullet wound, and also upon the front lower right hand side of her blue nightdress...
This is what really happened...
-
Police, SOCO, and DPP are withholding the information about Dr Harris' involvement with the body of Sheila Caffell at the scene. He pronounced her as being dead when her body was laid out on the bedroom floor alongside the edge of the bed, at a time when she had two bullet holes in her neck, and fresh running blood streaming from the wound, but none leaking from the lower second wound also on her neck. Evidence exists on crime scene photographs which were taken after Dr Harris visited, viewed and had physical contact with Sheila's throat, and nightdress. Blood continued to leak from the last wound long after Dr Harris tried to stem the flow of blood running out from new wound by use of his fingers, evidence of which can clearly be seen in these aforementioned photographs...
-
This discrepancy, between Dr Craigs account (disclosed), and Dr Harris' account (withheld) concerning when death was pronounced, where the body of Sheila had been at the time of each of their examinations, and how many bullet wounds were present upon her throat / neck at 8.44am, and 9.57am, establishes beyond doubt and question, that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister, nor stage manage her body to make it look like she had taken her own life - how could Jeremy have done this when Sheila had been pronounced as being dead at 8.44am with only one bullet wound to her neck, and pronounced dead a second time at 9.57am with two bullet wounds on her neck?
Key to quashing these convictions, rests with the pronouncement of death in the case of Sheila Caffell, once at 8.44am, and secondly at 9.57am, at times when she had only been shot once, and then twice...
Mystery of who shot who, is now resolved, Jeremy Bamber did not play any role in his sisters death...
-
Blood from the second wound which poured from it, over ran bloodied fingermarks pressed against the wound in an effort to stem the flow from it - yet police, and DPP refuse to release the explanation for this having happened. The only thing we do know, is that on the first occasion when Dr Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead, is that Craig himself did not carry out a physical examination of the body, because he said there was no need to, so he was not responsible for placing his fingers against the second (as yet un inflicted) bullet wound. Craig arrived at his wrong conclusion because there was hardly any trace of blood which had run from the solitary wound on her neck, which mistakenly led him to believe that the victims heart had stopped beating. He did not see any second bullet wound at all on Sheila's neck when he pronounced her as being dead, and he did not see any fresh blood running from the as yet un inflicted second wound, or at 8.44am he would not have pronounced her as being dead - he would have pressed his fingers (as Dr Harris later had) against the gaping wound to try and stem the blood from running out, in an attempt to try and keep her alive...
At 8.44am, there was only a very small amount of blood which had trickled out of the single bullet wound on her neck, a fient trail of blood which appeared to have run vertically down her neck, which offered no visible signs to him that she was still alive at that time. However, he must surely have wondered as he looked down upon the body of Sheila on the bed, why there was so little blood which had run vertically down the throat, yet her body was laid out horizontally on the bed?
There is more...
-
It beggars belief that the prosecution managed to convict Bamber as the killer, without any evidence to place him at the scene, at the time of the shootings...
Nobofy should be convictrd based purely on what so and so, believes - where is the evidence that puts Bamber at the scene when any one of the five victims was shot, let alone five victims?
Scandalous...
-
It beggars belief that the prosecution managed to convict Bamber as the killer, without any evidence to place him at the scene, at the time of the shootings...
Nobofy should be convicted based purely on what so and so, believes - where is the evidence that puts Bamber at the scene when any one of the five victims was shot, let alone five victims?
Scandalous...
Shame on the prosecuting authorities, and the British Criminal Justice System...
Free Jeremy Bambet, now...
-
It beggars belief that the prosecution managed to convict Bamber as the killer, without any evidence to place him at the scene, at the time of the shootings...
Nobofy should be convictrd based purely on what so and so, believes - where is the evidence that puts Bamber at the scene when any one of the five victims was shot, let alone five victims?
Scandalous...
That is correct Mike no physical or forensic evidence at all. Not a trace of him was there. Some point to the "contradictions" in his statement (it is very obvious of course that they fail to see any contradiction in anybody else's testimony ie those who said he was guilty) and say because of these contradictions that he must be guilty. But let it be known that even if a man confesses to a particular crime the court has a duty to still give that man a fair trial even if he opposes himself. This was not done. In my humble opinion they prosecution failed to prove Bamber guilty through actual physical and forensic evidence. It is to these things that we must look. Not to any testimonies of interested parties, such as those who either have a grievance, or who have a vested interest in seeing him go to prison.
What I see in this case is collusion between different parties, who each had a vested interest in wanting him to be found guilty.
-
i cant argue with that.
-
Did anyone know that Sheilas' birth mother was due to ring Sheila at WHF on the evening of the 6th of August ?
-
i knew was i dident know it was her birth mother.
-
It beggars belief that the prosecution managed to convict Bamber as the killer, without any evidence to place him at the scene, at the time of the shootings...
Nobofy should be convictrd based purely on what so and so, believes - where is the evidence that puts Bamber at the scene when any one of the five victims was shot, let alone five victims?
Scandalous...
Its called slick detective work. Only two people were in the frame and all the forensics clears Sheila leaving only one person capable of carrying out the dastardly deed...Jeremy Bamber.
You will never change the facts no matter how much you obfuscate.
DS Jones must be having a rather well deserved chuckle to himself right now!
-
Yes-------I'll bet he's chuckling,,,, at all the mugs who believed him and believed in him !
-
That is correct Mike no physical or forensic evidence at all. Not a trace of him was there. Some point to the "contradictions" in his statement (it is very obvious of course that they fail to see any contradiction in anybody else's testimony ie those who said he was guilty) and say because of these contradictions that he must be guilty. But let it be known that even if a man confesses to a particular crime the court has a duty to still give that man a fair trial even if he opposes himself. This was not done. In my humble opinion they prosecution failed to prove Bamber guilty through actual physical and forensic evidence. It is to these things that we must look. Not to any testimonies of interested parties, such as those who either have a grievance, or who have a vested interest in seeing him go to prison.
What I see in this case is collusion between different parties, who each had a vested interest in wanting him to be found guilty.
The only collusion is among Jeremy supporters to distort to avoid the truth.
The truth is that it is impossible for SHeila to have killed eveyrone without getitng GSR and blood on her clothing. It is also impossible for her to have killed herself without getting GSR on her gown and even mor eimpossible for her to have killed herself then while dead to have put the moderator away, played with the bible in her blood and then finally lied down in a different position than she killed herself in.
The only perosn who could have killed them all including Sheila is Jeremy who told Julie his plans to do such, claimed he was responsible after the fact and proved he knew about it by notifying police.
Nevill's call blaming SHeila was clearly made up just like his story he left the gun sitting out with the bullets. He placed those bullet sin the kitchen after the murders but left too many thus proving it was staging.
He used gloves and changed his clothes and washed up before calling police. Sheila had neither a reaosn to do so nor the ability to hide clothing and gloves let alone to change her clothes after she was dead.
Sheila didn't even know how to use the gun that is why you ran away. Posting it all again under a new name won't somehow suddenly give it any credence.
-
Absolutely and all the bullshit in the world about Sheila being shot a second time by police doesn't fool anyone. Everything we know about the shootings, the photos, the distribution of the shells/bullets, the skirmish in the kitchen etc etc all points to Jeremy Bamber.
Jeremy phones Julie at 3am and has a chat while he claims that it had all kicked off at the farm. Over twenty minutes later he decides to telephone the police pretending that his father had aked him to do so half an hour earlier. What a load of bull. :D
-
Its called slick detective work. Only two people were in the frame and all the forensics clears Sheila leaving only one person capable of carrying out the dastardly deed...Jeremy Bamber.
You will never change the facts no matter how much you obfuscate.
DS Jones must be having a rather well deserved chuckle to himself right now!
No but you can misinterpret the facts, especially if a part of those facts are missing.
-
Jeremy phones Julie at 3am and has a chat while he claims that it had all kicked off at the farm.
Julie initially told Ds Jones that she received a call from Jeremy at about 3:30am, telling her that there was something wrong at home and he didn't know what to do. She said he sounded odd. She then stated she told Jeremy to go to bed and Jeremy said words to the effect of "I love you lots. Bye honey."
. . . telephone the police pretending that his father had asked him to do so half an hour earlier.
That's incorrect. According to Pc West's log and evidence, Jeremy told him that he had received a call from his father, but not when that call had occurred.
-
If the jury had been told that Julie Mugford had been groomed on over 32 separate occasions prior to her giving testimony at trial, they would surely have rejected anything she had to say, which was anything, and everything, depending upon the phase of the police investigation. There can be little doubt that dodgy Stan put words into Mugfords gob, in the same way DCS Mick Ainsley tried to put words into Ann Eatons Gob about the blood in the silencer not smelling like menstrual blood if asked whilst testifying...
-
If the jury had been told that Julie Mugford had been groomed on over 32 separate occasions prior to her giving testimony at trial, they would surely have rejected anything she had to say, which was anything, and everything, depending upon the phase of the police investigation. There can be little doubt that dodgy Stan put words into Mugfords gob, in the same way DCS Mick Ainsley tried to put words into Ann Eatons Gob about the blood in the silencer not smelling like menstrual blood if asked whilst testifying...
32 statements of JM. Another thing in this case that intrigues me. What more could she have to say? Of course we can only speculate can't we. ::)
-
If the jury had been told that Julie Mugford had been groomed on over 32 separate occasions prior to her giving testimony at trial, they would surely have rejected anything she had to say, which was anything, and everything, depending upon the phase of the police investigation. There can be little doubt that dodgy Stan put words into Mugfords gob, in the same way DCS Mick Ainsley tried to put words into Ann Eatons Gob about the blood in the silencer not smelling like menstrual blood if asked whilst testifying...
32 diffrent interviews sound a hell of a lot sounds to me like they needed her change her statments with the evedence.
-
Reading through some of the older threads,there's one entitled " Bambers real father speaks out ",in which a poster by the ID of Ceedees knew Jeremy before and also years after the tragedies. This poster obviously visited,wrote and e-mailed him regularly,and interestingly also stated that he/she has much of his and his familys' belongings for him to collect once he's out of prison ?.
-
lookout Aunt Agatha has all his belongings and was his long term girl friend until he disposed of her. Maybe she and your poster are one of the same.
-
lookout Aunt Agatha has all his belongings and was his long term girl friend until he disposed of her. Maybe she and your poster are one of the same.
That is correct.
-
Aha,I wondered about that. Thankyou both. All her posts are very sincere I must add.
-
Lookout I have always had tremendous admiration for her because she has refused to talk about her relationship with Jeremy and has always remained very loyal to him in spite of what happened between them. It has been said that the Campaign Team were responsible for the breakdown in their relationship whether this is true or not I don't know.
-
Hi Susan,I'd always considered her to be a genuine person. I'm afraid there aren't many in the Campaign team who I'd class as truly loyal or genuine,as I'm sure Jeremy will come to realise,if he already hasn't. It's someone like AA who will be a boon to him in the coming years as she seems to know how his mind thinks as well as his overall outlook on the future,as it's going to be tough for him.
-
lookout you could be right think AA was with Jeremy way back at the beginning and he will probably be a different person now than when she knew him.
-
Institutionalisation is very difficult to overcome,and there has to be heaps of patience and understanding involved. Counselling offer such services of course,but it's going to be a long,hard road.
-
32 statements of JM. Another thing in this case that intrigues me. What more could she have to say? Of course we can only speculate can't we. ::)
32 interviews not statements and for the record I seem to recall 33 total when I counted. Not all interviews resulted in statements. The statements were only when she told the something that they wanted documented in a statement. Some of these interviews were to make her review and sign the typed up versions of her statement At least 2 of the interviews were before she started telling everything she knew. Some where when they went to her house to search it. If you narrow it down to just ones where they spoke with her to ask her additional quesitons and for additional information there are not nearly as many and it is common to have to go back to a witness when you have developed additional information and want clariification with respect to a point or several points.