Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: lookout on December 27, 2014, 12:54:PM
-
What exactly was it which confirmed Jeremys' innocence ?
There MUST have been some indication to have given " Taff " the outright conclusion in which he came to. Afterall,it was a massive case in 1985 and not one to have been taken lightly in any way.
-
thats what ive often wondered it might be he just dident like the relatives.
-
Just the half of it nugs.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5379.0.html
-
The main thing being that he knew Sheila was still alive as did the firearms team. Jeremy was outside.
-
The main thing being that he knew Sheila was still alive as did the firearms team. Jeremy was outside.
Was that when there were 'conversation inside the house '? ;D
-
Was that when there were 'conversation inside the house '? ;D
6 audio-tapes seems such a waste if they were all blank don't you think ?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
JM had everyone fooled. All except " Taff " Jones who told SJ that she was telling lies,to which SJ replied, quote," she told the truth about the break-in at the caravan park,and also the bank fraud ",unquote. Ah,said " Taff ",to make lies appear credible,you have to throw in a couple of truths " !!
She did that alright.
What a way to land a poor innocent guy in jail for 30 years for ! No wonder the Jones's parted company. "Taff " wanted no truck with anyone who worked that way.
-
JM had everyone fooled. All except " Taff " Jones who told SJ that she was telling lies,to which SJ replied, quote," she told the truth about the break-in at the caravan park,and also the bank fraud ",unquote. Ah,said " Taff ",to make lies appear credible,you have to throw in a couple of truths " !!
She did that alright.
What a way to land a poor innocent guy in jail for 30 years for ! No wonder the Jones's parted company. "Taff " wanted no truck with anyone who worked that way.
He could see a liar for what it was and saw straight through the relatives game.
-
Taff believed in Bamber's innocence up until the day of his premature death. Being head of the investigation the other officers fell fell into line, although people like Stan Jones disagreed.
The relatives believed it was Jeremy. But Taff dismissed them. Taff could not have been very convincing as the relatives did not give up.
Robert Boutflour went to Essex Police HQ at Chelmsford. Telling Peter Simpson his concerns. Peter Simpson agreed straight away to look at the case again. Sending CID over to assist the police. Headed by Jim Kinelly.
Despite Taff's belief Jeremy was innocent, he did the first interviews with Bamber. After some light probing Bamber did not confess. 'Julie must be telling lies' Taff said to Stan !
Peter Simpson got everyone together and asked every police officer in the room who they thought was responsible. Everyone said Bamber. Except Taff, although he had no evidence to change anyone's mind.
Taff was still allowed to continue interviewing Bamber.
Eventually Clarke and Stan Jones took over interviewing tasks. Taff being quietly removed from the case. The way he had tried to quietly remove Stan.
The ousting seems above board. Outside individuals being brought into the case and everyone following the evidence. Taff may have been the corrupt one. Refusing to change stance, perhaps worried about his golf, repercussions from above and the chance Bamber would walk. As well as being too proud to admit his early mistake.
-
Stan Jones interviewed Julie. Not Taff.
-
Taff believed in Bamber's innocence up until the day of his premature death. Being head of the investigation the other officers fell fell into line, although people like Stan Jones disagreed.
The relatives believed it was Jeremy. But Taff dismissed them. Taff could not have been very convincing as the relatives did not give up.
Robert Boutflour went to Essex Police HQ at Chelmsford. Telling Peter Simpson his concerns. Peter Simpson agreed straight away to look at the case again. Sending CID over to assist the police. Headed by Jim Kinelly.
Despite Taff's belief Jeremy was innocent, he did the first interviews with Bamber. After some light probing Bamber did not confess. 'Julie must be telling lies' Taff said to Stan !
Peter Simpson got everyone together and asked every police officer in the room who they thought was responsible. Everyone said Bamber. Except Taff, although he had no evidence to change anyone's mind.
Taff was still allowed to continue interviewing Bamber.
Eventually Clarke and Stan Jones took over interviewing tasks. Taff being quietly removed from the case. The way he had tried to quietly remove Stan.
The ousting seems above board. Outside individuals being brought into the case and everyone following the evidence. Taff may have been the corrupt one. Refusing to change stance, perhaps worried about his golf, repercussions from above and the chance Bamber would walk. As well as being too proud to admit his early mistake.
Adam, for once all of the above makes sense to me. I VERY much doubt that any of it is yours but it DOES follow human psychology as I understand it.
It is HUGELY possible that Taff was mistaken but instead of giving him room to come to that conclusion he was ganged up on and bullied into changing his mind and he dug his heels in. There are the usual elements of dislike, distrust, greed, envy and class issues all being played out by various people. Adam, you of all people should understand that when people feel as if they're being backed into a corner they come out fighting, so unless you habitually wear waterproofs, best beware of fire fighters, eh.
-
Stan Jones interviewed Julie. Not Taff.
Nevertheless he told them that she was a liar and that he didn't believe her. I'm sure Wilkes must have that bit in his book?
-
Adam, for once all of the above makes sense to me. I VERY much doubt that any of it is yours but it DOES follow human psychology as I understand it.
It is HUGELY possible that Taff was mistaken but instead of giving him room to come to that conclusion he was ganged up on and bullied into changing his mind and he dug his heels in. There are the usual elements of dislike, distrust, greed, envy and class issues all being played out by various people. Adam, you of all people should understand that when people feel as if they're being backed into a corner they come out fighting, so unless you habitually wear waterproofs, best beware of fire fighters, eh.
Which is exactly what I thought! ;D
-
Adam, for once all of the above makes sense to me. I VERY much doubt that any of it is yours but it DOES follow human psychology as I understand it.
It is HUGELY possible that Taff was mistaken but instead of giving him room to come to that conclusion he was ganged up on and bullied into changing his mind and he dug his heels in. There are the usual elements of dislike, distrust, greed, envy and class issues all being played out by various people. Adam, you of all people should understand that when people feel as if they're being backed into a corner they come out fighting, so unless you habitually wear waterproofs, best beware of fire fighters, eh.
Or you could look at it another way if you are thinking of human psychology. That once someone else took over the investigation they all fell in line again?
-
Adam, for once all of the above makes sense to me. I VERY much doubt that any of it is yours but it DOES follow human psychology as I understand it.
It is HUGELY possible that Taff was mistaken but instead of giving him room to come to that conclusion he was ganged up on and bullied into changing his mind and he dug his heels in. There are the usual elements of dislike, distrust, greed, envy and class issues all being played out by various people. Adam, you of all people should understand that when people feel as if they're being backed into a corner they come out fighting, so unless you habitually wear waterproofs, best beware of fire fighters, eh.
Adam sounds like a different person than he normally does. I think he has in many posts in this thread.
There could be a number of reasons for that.
-
Adam, for once all of the above makes sense to me. I VERY much doubt that any of it is yours but it DOES follow human psychology as I understand it.
It is HUGELY possible that Taff was mistaken but instead of giving him room to come to that conclusion he was ganged up on and bullied into changing his mind and he dug his heels in. There are the usual elements of dislike, distrust, greed, envy and class issues all being played out by various people. Adam, you of all people should understand that when people feel as if they're being backed into a corner they come out fighting, so unless you habitually wear waterproofs, best beware of fire fighters, eh.
He wasn't bullied into changing his mind. He could stick with his opinion for the next twenty years if he wanted to.
Everyone else connected to the case believed if was Bamber. Both people above and below Taff. So Taff Jones could no longer head the investigation.
The police were not critical of Taff after securing the conviction. They just said it was unfortunate they were mistaken early on.
-
Or you could look at it another way if you are thinking of human psychology. That once someone else took over the investigation they all fell in line again?
Which would depend largely on that "someone's" charisma and how good they made others feel about themselves. They would have needed it in spades to generate a lasting loyalty.
-
Nevertheless he told them that she was a liar and that he didn't believe her. I'm sure Wilkes must have that bit in his book?
Have you got a source that Taff Jones said Julie is a liar.
Taff automatically said Julie must be lying after Bamber did not confess in the first few minutes of his first interview. Apart from that I have not read anything.
-
He wasn't bullied into changing his mind. He could stick with his opinion for the next twenty years if he wanted to.
Everyone else connected to the case believed if was Bamber. So Taff Jones could no longer head the investigation.
The police were not critical of Taff after securing the conviction. They just said it was unfortunate they were mistaken early on.
You can't be certain of that.
You can't be certain that was the case.
What they SAID was irrelevant to how Taff may have felt.
-
Just to put the record straight on something that always gets on my nerves whenever it's mentioned because I knew it was wrong but couldn't remember where I read it - just found it though .....
Jeremy didn't 'hum and pull out threads from his jumper' during interview - it was just after he was arrested at Dover and was waiting to be taken back to Essex.
(Source, Wilkes's book page 160).
-
Which would depend largely on that "someone's" charisma and how good they made others feel about themselves. They would have needed it in spades to generate a lasting loyalty.
I must suggest though that there are not many leaders. Most just go with the flow so to speak.
-
Have you got a source that Taff Jones said Julie is a liar.
Taff automatically said Julie must be lying after Bamber did not confess in the first few minutes of his first interview. Apart from that I have not read anything.
There you go then. Why ask for a source when you know it already yourself?
-
Just to put the record straight on something that always gets on my nerves whenever it's mentioned because I knew it was wrong but couldn't remember where I read it - just found it though .....
Jeremy didn't 'hum and pull out threads from his jumper' during interview - it was just after he was arrested at Dover and was waiting to be taken back to Essex.
(Source, Wilkes's book page 160).
Something Adam should have known then?
-
I must suggest though that there are not many leaders. Most just go with the flow so to speak.
Whilst in reality that may be so Grahame, in hierarchi groups, without that structure, there'd be anarchy.
-
Something Adam should have known then?
Well, several people have brought this up when discussing Jeremy's witness statement and claimed he hummed and pulled threads out of his jumper during the interview but he did this before being interviewed. Adam say's he has read Wilkes's book so should know it didn't happen in interview but perhaps he is too easily influenced. You can believe Jeremy is guilty but I don't think it's fair to pick up on any little negative (fact or fiction - but especially fiction) you to bolster your argument.
-
Just to put the record straight on something that always gets on my nerves whenever it's mentioned because I knew it was wrong but couldn't remember where I read it - just found it though .....
Jeremy didn't 'hum and pull out threads from his jumper' during interview - it was just after he was arrested at Dover and was waiting to be taken back to Essex.
(Source, Wilkes's book page 160).
Don't know why you brought this up on this thread.
Anyway page 140 - 'He sat slouched in his chair. Staring hard at Stan Jones. Replying to questions in a sing song tone. Y-e-e-s or N-o-o-o.
-
Sitting slouched is confidence. Relaxed.
Sitting bolt upright is what nervous people do at an interview,which isn't usually their normal position.
-
Interestingly Taff Jones still believed Bamber was innocent after the DPP immediately said there was enough evidence to charge Bamber with murder.
-
Don't know you brought this up on this thread.
Anyway page 140 - 'He sat slouched in his chair. Staring hard at Stan Jones. Replying to questions in a sing song tone. Y-e-e-s or N-o-o-o.
People confuse the two episodes and join them together - not just you.
-
Interestingly Taff Jones still believed Bamber was innocent after the DPP immediately said there was enough evidence to charge Bamber with murder.
So did two jurors. One more, and he would have walked. Not such a clear cut case, and there is no "mountain" of circumstantial evidence. The "molehill" there was was quite dodgy in fact.
-
So did two jurors. One more, and he would have walked. Not such a clear cut case, and there is no "mountain" of circumstantial evidence. The "molehill" there was was quite dodgy in fact.
Well Stan Jones says he was not surprised two female jurors voted 'not guilty'. Bamber looked much too smart and was much too nice to be a murderer.
What he said in his testimony was quite damning. Perhaps the two female jurors were looking rather than listening.
-
Well Stan Jones says he was not surprised two female jurors voted 'not guilty'. Bamber looked much too smart and was much too nice to be a murderer.
What he said in his testimony was quite damning. Perhaps the two female jurors were looking rather than listening.
How very condescending - of you and SJ both, I am not surprised though.
How do you know the innocent votes came from females?
-
So did two jurors. One more, and he would have walked. Not such a clear cut case, and there is no "mountain" of circumstantial evidence. The "molehill" there was was quite dodgy in fact.
Why do you think Taff Jones believed Bamber innocent ?
Everyone else in EP connected to the case, both senior or junior to him believed Bamber was responsible.
-
Why do you think Taff Jones believed Bamber innocent ?
Everyone else in EP connected to the case, both senior or junior to him believed Bamber was responsible.
Not from get go.
-
Not from get go.
Well very quickly all the officers came to the same opinion. Except Taff.
-
Well very quickly all the officers came to the same opinion. Except Taff.
We hardly know what they all thought.
-
Well Stan Jones says he was not surprised two female jurors voted 'not guilty'. Bamber looked much too smart and was much too nice to be a murderer.
What he said in his testimony was quite damning. Perhaps the two female jurors were looking rather than listening.
And do you go along with Stan Jones' obvious sexist statement Adam? Do you not think that his statement was derogatory towards women? He might well have said that women are not guided by sound judgment, but rather by emotion, swooning at the sight of an obviously handsome Jeremy rather that judging the evidence for what it was?
Presumably if Jeremy was a woman then he would have been a free man instead, if you apply the same erm..."logical" principles? ::)
-
How very condescending - of you and SJ both, I am not surprised though.
How do you know the innocent votes came from females?
Jones would not know. Neither he nor anyone else would have been allowed to know this, as it would have put the jurors into a compromising position.
Rather it came from Jones' prejudicial mind and may I dare to say from Adam's as well, as he appears to agree with Jones on this? I hope not, as this would point to his attitude towards women in general?
-
There are obviously notes which haven't yet surfaced that " Taff " would have collated as regards " first " impressions of his findings at the scene,which would explain his deductions on 4 murders and a suicide.
-
There are obviously notes which haven't yet surfaced that " Taff " would have collated as regards " first " impressions of his findings at the scene,which would explain his deductions on 4 murders and a suicide.
It is indeed strange that we only have "portions" of his notebook?
-
It is indeed strange that we only have "portions" of his notebook?
Does make you wonder if he discussed the case with his wife? Especially when he was removed from the case.
-
Does make you wonder if he discussed the case with his wife? Especially when he was removed from the case.
I'd read somewhere that the wife didn't believe that Jeremy was guilty.
-
Using the same logic: The male jurors may have thought JM was much too sexy to be a bare faced liar.
-
Of course,lebaleb. JM was one crafty mare. Putting on her great act of crying when the defence were questioning her,that people must have thought " how cruel to put her through that ".Come the prosecution questions-----------------not a tear was shed !! Makes my blood boil.
-
Jones would not know. Neither he nor anyone else would have been allowed to know this, as it would have put the jurors into a compromising position.
Rather it came from Jones' prejudicial mind and may I dare to say from Adam's as well, as he appears to agree with Jones on this? I hope not, as this would point to his attitude towards women in general?
Well two women jurors cried when the verdict was being read out.
It is amazing that two jurors found him not guilty, or were undecided. No one disputed the silencer evidence at trial. Both the defence and prosecution agreeing it was on the rifle. In other words it was impossible for it to be Sheila.
The silencer evidence was brought up years later by Jeremy when he had no where else to go.
-
The police got a lot of stick. And that was after the conviction !
Who was leading the investigation for the first month ? Taff.
-
Well two women jurors cried when the verdict was being read out.
It is amazing that two jurors found him not guilty, or were undecided. No one disputed the silencer evidence at trial. Both the defence and prosecution agreeing it was on the rifle. In other words it was impossible for it to be Sheila.
The silencer evidence was brought up years later by Jeremy when he had no where else to go.
So you agree with me that Jones was prejudicial in his remark to you? And do you agree with him that he wasn't surprised that it was two women who found him not guilty do you?
-
The police got a lot of stick. And that was after the conviction !
Who was leading the investigation for the first month ? Taff.
As far as I am aware the only people giving the police "stick" were the relatives?
-
Well two women jurors cried when the verdict was being read out.
It is amazing that two jurors found him not guilty, or were undecided. No one disputed the silencer evidence at trial. Both the defence and prosecution agreeing it was on the rifle. In other words it was impossible for it to be Sheila.
The silencer evidence was brought up years later by Jeremy when he had no where else to go.
Could as well have been they had a hard time convicting. You are assuming.
-
Could as well have been they had a hard time convicting. You are assuming.
Why do you think two jurors voted 'not guilty' ?
My 'the trial, a brutal highlighting of guilt ? ' highlights how the trial savagely highlighted his guilt. The defence claimed the judges summing up was unfair and Bamber was unconvincing when testifying, saying damaging things. Thread on page 1.
Experts and witnesses said Sheila was a loving mother and attached to her father. Several people testified how Bamber hated his family, which coincided with the fact he was about to inherit a huge amount of money.
No one disputed it was Sheila's blood on the silencer, meaning she must have been shot by someone else. Other forensic evidence showed it was not Sheila. Just as important was the circumstantial evidence.
RB expected a verdict in minutes. It was not that quick, but was still reached quickly for such a long trial. Quite why the verdict was not 12-0 I will never know.
-
So what if Sheilas' blood was found on the silencer.What if it had been Jeremys' ? Would he still have got the blame ?
-
Why do you think two jurors voted 'not guilty' ?
My 'the trial, a brutal highlighting of guilt ? ' highlights how the trial savagely highlighted his guilt. The defence claimed the judges summing up was unfair and Bamber was unconvincing when testifying, saying damaging things. Thread on page 1.
Experts and witnesses said Sheila was a loving mother and attached to her father. Several people testified how Bamber hated his family, which coincided with the fact he was about to inherit a huge amount of money.
No one disputed it was Sheila's blood on the silencer, meaning she must have been shot by someone else. Other forensic evidence showed it was not Sheila. Just as important was the circumstantial evidence.
RB expected a verdict in minutes. It was not that quick, but was still reached quickly for such a long trial. Quite why the verdict was not 12-0 I will never know.
Erm...now let me think.....it is a very difficult question to answer of course....could it be because....erm...they thought he was innocent? ::)
-
Hello Mr. Gee that is what I call logic ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Does Adam do logic I ask myself ;D
-
Hello Mr. Gee that is what I call logic ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Does Adam do logic I ask myself ;D
Hello Susan. I hope you are well? Have you ant snow where you are? :)
-
Hello Mr Gee we only have snow on the surrounding mountains my house overlooks Ben Wyvis and it is pure white looks magnificent Hope you are well :)
-
Erm...now let me think.....it is a very difficult question to answer of course....could it be because....erm...they thought he was innocent? ::)
Well the defence did not dispute the blood silencer evidence.
But if it was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself with the silencer on, how can Bamber not be guilty ?
-
Well the defence did not dispute the blood silencer evidence.
But if it was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself with the silencer on, how can Bamber not be guilty ?
I' afraid you will have to ask that one instead of presuming that they found him innocent just because they were women and had a crush on him.
-
I' afraid you will have to ask that one instead of presuming that they found him innocent just because they were women and had a crush on him.
Well that is what Stan Jones said.
The court, defence, prosecution and judge said the blood inside the silencer was specific to Sheila. Everyone agreed it was on the rifle during the massacre.
The rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself. There were only two suspects.
So it was impossible to vote 'not guilty' as it was impossible for Sheila to shoot herself. There was also a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence. Several motives, an opportunity and no alibi.
Everyone voted 'guilty' quickly. Except two women. Perhaps Stan Jones was right.
-
I' afraid you will have to ask that one instead of presuming that they found him innocent just because they were women and had a crush on him.
Perhaps they thought he was guilty, just not beyond all reasonable doubt.
-
Perhaps they thought he was guilty, just not beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hi Neil. My contention is with the underlying seemingly prejudicial thoughts of Stan Jones when he implied that they voted not guilty because they were women. Thus implying that (1) that the two who voted not guilty were women. In other words he is presuming that they were women and (2) That they voted not guilty because they were women, thus implying that women in general cannot make a sound decision without swooning at the sight of a handsome Bamber?
-
Which makes out that they weren't concentrating on the case,instead were being sidetracked by his " film-star " image.Tut,tut.
It wouldn't have bothered me if he'd been as ugly as sin,I'd have been busy working out quite a few things,plus asking why some of the relatives were shown the door. What a thing to happen in a courtroom,eh ? The shame of it !!
At least Jeremy didn't kick up a fuss.
-
Which makes out that they weren't concentrating on the case,instead were being sidetracked by his " film-star " image.Tut,tut.
It wouldn't have bothered me if he'd been as ugly as sin,I'd have been busy working out quite a few things,plus asking why some of the relatives were shown the door. What a thing to happen in a courtroom,eh ? The shame of it !!
At least Jeremy didn't kick up a fuss.
No Bamber has kept very quiet on the case. :)
Why do you think two female jurors did not vote guilty ?
Everyone agreed at trial it was Sheila's blood inside the silencer. And the rifle was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.
So it was impossible to vote ' not guilty' on this alone.
-
No Bamber has kept very quiet on the case. :)
Why do you think two female jurors did not vote guilty ?
Everyone agreed at trial it was Sheila's blood inside the silencer. And the rifle was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.
So it was impossible to vote ' not guilty' on this alone.
The jurors had been more or less coerced into to saying it was Sheilas' blood because all but two of them had been brainwashed by the judge putting words into their mouths instead of them working it out for themselves.
-
Hi Neil. My contention is with the underlying seemingly prejudicial thoughts of Stan Jones when he implied that they voted not guilty because they were women. Thus implying that (1) that the two who voted not guilty were women. In other words he is presuming that they were women and (2) That they voted not guilty because they were women, thus implying that women in general cannot make a sound decision without swooning at the sight of a handsome Bamber?
Perhaps the ones who voted not guilty : were the ones who were asking the judge what the family had to benefit by Jeremy being jailed ( being suspicious of the way they gave evidence) . Perhaps they did not believe Julies evidence. Perhaps they realised the Judges summing up of the silencer evidence was flawed and not the same as they had heard from the experts ( true) . Perhaps they felt the silencer should not have been accepted as evidence as it had been removed from the crime scene in non forensic conditions. It has nothing to do with whether they were men or women.
-
Is there any way of revealing which way individual jury members voted? There seems to be a lot of sexist cant behind the "fact" that two females cried when the result was read out. Crying doesn't necessarily mean they thought he was innocent. Crying is simply an emotional response and I imagine the trial had been traumatic. Tears would have been an appropriate response for some even if they'd believed he was guilty. Sadly, there are always those who think "Bang the ******* to rights. Job done." Nothing is ever that simple and to quote DB "Nobody wins".
-
Is there any way of revealing which way individual jury members voted? There seems to be a lot of sexist cant behind the "fact" that two females cried when the result was read out. Crying doesn't necessarily mean they thought he was innocent. Crying is simply an emotional response and I imagine the trial had been traumatic. Tears would have been an appropriate response for some even if they'd believed he was guilty. Sadly, there are always those who think "Bang the ******* to rights. Job done." Nothing is ever that simple and to quote DB "Nobody wins".
No I think for obvious reasons that would be private. It is just another assumption. I am sure the trial was extremely stressful for all the jurors . Very harrowing and also a lot of evidence that was extremely difficult to understand .
-
It's not a trial that I'd have relished at all. Bound to leave its mark-----------if you're human,that is !
-
No I think for obvious reasons that would be private. It is just another assumption. I am sure the trial was extremely stressful for all the jurors . Very harrowing and also a lot of evidence that was extremely difficult to understand .
So Adam's assertion is, like much else he says, spurious, when he claims that two females refused to believe he was guilty.
-
Well two women jurors cried when the verdict was being read out.
It is amazing that two jurors found him not guilty, or were undecided. No one disputed the silencer evidence at trial. Both the defence and prosecution agreeing it was on the rifle. In other words it was impossible for it to be Sheila.
The silencer evidence was brought up years later by Jeremy when he had no where else to go.
If Jeremy is innocent he does not have a clue what went on in the house - so of course he is going to bring up anything that he sees in documents that to him don't look right. What else can he do? Does not mean he is correct , but just because an argument he brings up falls apart does not mean that he is guilty . He has over the years had to learn a lot ( whether guilty or innocent) in order to try and fight his conviction.
-
The dog would have told the story had it been able to speak,as before,and up until the raid team entered,it had been barking its head off------------then suddenly it stopped barking ? Was this because at that point Sheila had also stopped running amok,the dog thinking it had been a game of chase ?