Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: notsure on May 28, 2015, 09:24:PM
-
Hi
if you were a jury member and you had been told about Julie Mugfords criminal activity would ypu have thought differently about her testimony and did the jury have a right to know
-
Hi
if you were a jury member and you had been told about Julie Mugfords criminal activity would ypu have thought differently about her testimony and did the jury have a right to know
Emotionally I'd LOVE to say that of course the jury had a right to know, but as any past crimes the defendant may have committed aren't revealed to the jury, I suppose it must work both ways.
-
From what I remember I think they were aware of some of her involvement for example the break in to the caravan park - but they were not aware of the official document which gave her immunity as she was a witness - I think that might have influenced them.
I am not sure she was a convincing witness as reportedly she was in tears most of the time under the defences questioning.
-
Hi
if you were a jury member and you had been told about Julie Mugfords criminal activity would ypu have thought differently about her testimony and did the jury have a right to know
No because the way the jury found out about them was because she admitted to them. The most important thing to look at is her claims with respect to the case. To evaluate whether her claims make sense, whether the claims are something that would be made up, whether the claims have support...
Jeremy calling her the night of the murders was a big mistake.
Jeremy calling her before he called police was an even bigger mistake.
Jeremy lying and claiming he called police before her and thus being caught in a lie is an even bigger mistake still.
Why would he be calling her at all let alone before police? This supports that he called her to tell her he killed them like she claims he did. This is the kind of thing jurors look at.
He also called her around 6AM (well prior to police going inside and finding the bodies) telling her not to go to work because he was going to need her to speak to police to help him. This is supportive also of her story.
In looking at her story in great detail one finds she provides a lot of detail that is difficult to make up and not likely to be made up. Furthermore, if she wanted to get him in trouble by pretending he killed them she would not make up a hit man account. She knew he had no alibi so had no reason to make up a hitman doing it.
The most important thing though is that the physical evidence corroborated her story and so did the fact that Jeremy called police.
The easiest way to prove her a liar would be if the physical evidence established Sheila were responsible. But the evidence proves she wasn't responsible but rather was murdered and framed thus supporting Julie's account that Jeremy admitted he had them all murdered and framed Sheila. That he called police to report it means he had to be responsible for the murders because he had no innocent way to find out.
Julie's testimony was credible based on the totality of the circumstances.
Jeremy's claims are evaluated on the same basis- by looking at his claims not by saying simply that since he had a criminal past it means nothing he says should be believed no matter what. The problem with his claims is most were not credible. For instance, his claim the gun was often put away without the scope and moderator attached is not credible, he removed the scope himself because it would inhibit his ability to shoot people at close quarters. His claim he got the gun out to shoot rabbits and left it and spare bullets out is not credible. In fact, he left out too many bullets for his story to be true. His claim he received a call from Neivll is not credible, apart from the fact Sheila didn't do anything so there is no reason why Nevill would call to say she had, Nevill would not have needed to call Jeremy to help disarm her even if she did grab a gun. Worse though, Jeremy removed the phone from the master bedroom so there was no phone to use to call Jeremy with. The murders started in the master bedroom. The killer entered and fired 4 shots into Nevill and 6 into June. There was no phone to use before the shots were fired. After the shots were fired Nevill's voicebox was severed and he could not speak. A call to Jeremy was impossible.
All of this plays into whether to believe Julie. The evidence convicts Jeremy independent of Julie's testimony but her testimony and the evidence complement one another. That is extremely powerful when it comes to how a jury looks at things.
-
It would have made a Hell of a difference if the jury had known the full story--------and I mean full !!
-
Hi
if you were a jury member and you had been told about Julie Mugfords criminal activity would ypu have thought differently about her testimony and did the jury have a right to know
They did know.
-
Its normally unprecedented that the jury are told of previous offences. I suppose it was the defense team that sanctioned it. Normally previous offences are read out after the verdict, so this is very rare. ;D
-
I would have had more of a problem with her supposedly knowing JB to be guilty, lying on her statements, viewing the bodies which must have been harrowing and then carrying on sleeping with him and going away with him and never having long conversations with him about his guilt and what exactly happened on the night.
-
I would have had more of a problem with her supposedly knowing JB to be guilty, lying on her statements, viewing the bodies which must have been harrowing and then carrying on sleeping with him and going away with him and never having long conversations with him about his guilt and what exactly happened on the night.
That she admitted to these things helps suggest her contemporaneous honesty though. When people try weaseling their way out completely then it makes you wonder. She didn't simply say she was scared of him killing her so felt she had better lie. She admitted she wanted to help him and over time the guilt built up. She didn't make up lies though, at first she more or less simply refused to tell police everything she knew.
Consider the difference if Mike simply didn't tell us everything he knows as opposed to all the fairytales he tells. They are both deceptive but one makes it hard to believe anything he claims at all.
-
That she admitted to these things helps suggest her contemporaneous honesty though. When people try weaseling their way out completely then it makes you wonder. She didn't simply say she was scared of him killing her so felt she had better lie. She admitted she wanted to help him and over time the guilt built up. She didn't make up lies though, at first she more or less simply refused to tell police everything she knew.
Consider the difference if Mike simply didn't tell us everything he knows as opposed to all the fairytales he tells. They are both deceptive but one makes it hard to believe anything he claims at all.
Really?
I suspect there is some element of truth behind her statements. JM never showed any emotion what so ever after the crime. Nor did we see any emotion at the funerals. She appeared absent form reality in my opinion. But, I can understand if she loved Jeremy she would shield him to the bitter end, but she did not do this, did she? JM was bitter, jealous not only of Jeremy's relationship with Brett, but with other women. She hung on, yet she claimed she knew, therefore if this was true she is an accessory and not a witness.
I feel for her, in a way, for she so scorned she went to far and we will never know how much influence Sjones had on her. We don't know what was said to her during her interviews we only ever hear her statements. "I have been asked" Well, I would like to see the questions put to her. It has also been said that she was difficult to cross examine...for she cried/sobbed throughout the trial.
JM was never in any danger was she from Jeremy? Throughout his statements he never once said anything bad about her. In fact the following year he sent her a valentine card...Why?
-
That she admitted to these things helps suggest her contemporaneous honesty though. When people try weaseling their way out completely then it makes you wonder. She didn't simply say she was scared of him killing her so felt she had better lie. She admitted she wanted to help him and over time the guilt built up. She didn't make up lies though, at first she more or less simply refused to tell police everything she knew
Why would she want to help him if she 'knew' he had carried out five murders? Of people she knew and whose bodies she identified? I had a bid problem with this then and now. I just can't believe it
-
Why would she want to help him if she 'knew' he had carried out five murders? Of people she knew and whose bodies she identified? I had a bid problem with this then and now. I just can't believe it
She didn't think he had because he told her that he hired a hit man. It does beggar belief that she agreed to identify the bodies - maybe it just didn't seem real and it was something she needed to do?
-
Why would she want to help him if she 'knew' he had carried out five murders? Of people she knew and whose bodies she identified? I had a bid problem with this then and now. I just can't believe it
Because she wanted to marry him. Some girlfriends actually think it is cool having a dangerous boyfriend and will stand by a killer for that reason. Others act like a mother, sibling or other relative who decides to protect a family member who has committed murder or other crimes. Some mother turn their kids in others will lie as much as it takes to help their children and there are even instances of mothers helping dispose of bodies.
Julie didn't like the victims much, she didn't have a strong connection tot hem so it didn't disturb her much. If he had killed her mother then her reaction would have been far different. It took time for things to set in and part of her waking up process featured them breaking up. She wanted to protect him when she loved him and it was necessary to protect him so they could be together. After the break up she no longer had a reason to keep protecting him.
It is not a coincidence that after people are on the outs with one another that they rat others out by spreading their secrets and the skeletons in their closet- not just former romantic partners but this is true of platonic friends as well.
-
Because she wanted to marry him. Some girlfriends actually think it is cool having a dangerous boyfriend and will stand by a killer for that reason. Others act like a mother, sibling or other relative who decides to protect a family member who has committed murder or other crimes. Some mother turn their kids in others will lie as much as it takes to help their children and there are even instances of mothers helping dispose of bodies.
Julie didn't like the victims much, she didn't have a strong connection tot hem so it didn't disturb her much. If he had killed her mother then her reaction would have been far different. It took time for things to set in and part of her waking up process featured them breaking up. She wanted to protect him when she loved him and it was necessary to protect him so they could be together. After the break up she no longer had a reason to keep protecting him.
It is not a coincidence that after people are on the outs with one another that they rat others out by spreading their secrets and the skeletons in their closet- not just former romantic partners but this is true of platonic friends as well.
I do not buy it, under any circumstances
-
Because she wanted to marry him. Some girlfriends actually think it is cool having a dangerous boyfriend and will stand by a killer for that reason. Others act like a mother, sibling or other relative who decides to protect a family member who has committed murder or other crimes. Some mother turn their kids in others will lie as much as it takes to help their children and there are even instances of mothers helping dispose of bodies.
Julie didn't like the victims much, she didn't have a strong connection tot hem so it didn't disturb her much. If he had killed her mother then her reaction would have been far different. It took time for things to set in and part of her waking up process featured them breaking up. She wanted to protect him when she loved him and it was necessary to protect him so they could be together. After the break up she no longer had a reason to keep protecting him.
It is not a coincidence that after people are on the outs with one another that they rat others out by spreading their secrets and the skeletons in their closet- not just former romantic partners but this is true of platonic friends as well.
I agree for the most part but I don't think she disliked the twins or Sheila. I can believe that she went along with the murders because she was besotted with him and it certainly isn't unique for women (and some men) to go along with their partner in similar circumstances.
-
Hi
if you were a jury member and you had been told about Julie Mugfords criminal activity would ypu have thought differently about her testimony and did the jury have a right to know
The jury were aware of Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud.
The defence focused on it as they agreed her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
-
The jury were not aware of Jeremy trying to sell pictures of Sheila to The Sun.
They were not aware he illegally grew and sold drugs. And smuggled drugs from Amsterdam after the massacre.
Carol Ann Lees book says Jeremy also boasted about smuggling heroin. This and the stolen Cartier watches in New Zealand were not mentioned to the jury.
-
Its normally unprecedented that the jury are told of previous offences. I suppose it was the defense team that sanctioned it. Normally previous offences are read out after the verdict, so this is very rare. ;D
Since Julie mentioned such in her statements they were able to be discussed in court. That also mentioned Jeremy's crime at the Caravan site though so was a double edged sword.
-
The caravan site break in was mentioned to the jury.
This relates to the massacre in several ways -
It was a crime against his family.
It highlighted his thirst for money.
It was shortly before the massacre.
It would have made relationships within the family worse.
It would have increased the financial debt and money owed to Neville and June.
It showed Jeremy was willing to commit a crime and stage the scene.
He trusted Julie enough to involve her in helping him commit a crime against his family. So why not tell her about his crime to his family ?
-
The jury were not aware of Jeremy trying to sell pictures of Sheila to The Sun.
They were not aware he illegally grew and sold drugs. And smuggled drugs from Amsterdam after the massacre.
Carol Ann Lees book says Jeremy also boasted about smuggling heroin. This and the stolen Cartier watches in New Zealand were not mentioned to the jury.
OH ADAM YOU MUST STOP SUPPORTING JULIE :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the
family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned
Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White
House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone
Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a
mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)
Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)
Page 3 of 8
7:00pm to 10:40pm D.S. Jones and D.I. Miller interviewed Juilie together.
11:00pm to 02:00am D.C.I. Jones interviewed Julie.
The taped record and written record of Julie Mugford’s interviews on 7th September 1985
remain undisclosed.
Brett Collins, Mathew MacDonald, Christine Bacon and I were all arrested on the
8th September with:-
“Suspicion of being concerned with the murder of June and Nevill Bamber, Sheila, Daniel and
Nicholas Caffell.”
So, there is every reason to suspect that Julie was taken into custody for the same reason.
Whilst in Police Custody, Julie confessed to cultivating and selling cannabis, burglary, a bank
fraud, and to possession of drugs. Other documents from the City of London Police detail
that she admitted smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada. The majority of the
offences she confessed to were not connected with me in any way. She admitted to using
cocaine in her 10th September 1985 statement, when she and Ms Rimmington had gone
back to a hotel with two men they had just met.
Around the same time, Ms Rimmington stated that Julie had told her she’d broken up with
me and “you don’t know the half of it.” Liz said “that Julie was lucky you’ve broken up” as
she went on to tell Julie that she had been sleeping me with her behind Julie’s back.
Julie says she told Ms Rimmington “that Jeremy had told her he’d paid a hit man to kill the
family.” Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the
1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.
Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she
and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8 th September for
seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for
withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for
their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta
-
I am just stating what the jury were aware and not aware of. Which is what the thread was about.
Jeremy is lucky that several things were not mentioned to the jury.
-
I am well aware of events.
There is a thread on why Julie waited a month. Lots of reasons.
The most recent one said by Julie herself on the 'New video'. All supporters can do is claim she is lying.
-
Hello Adam
how do you know what is in Carol Ann Lee's book are you her Agent. I suspect she reads the forum quite often have you been in contact with her by pm.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=L3tpVdSoH-aGywP5toHYCg&url=http://content.wow.com/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber&ved=0CCYQFjAEOBQ&usg=AFQjCNGxICfpAFlZvE9Vl4Ub8NdglTOvrA&sig2=YMKwDgb7JsGpaLc3jQ--LA
-
Lookout, who did Jeremy boast to about smuggling heroin ? Thank you.
-
Lookout, who did Jeremy boast to about smuggling heroin ? Thank you.
Adam you just quoted that Carol Ann said this in her forth coming book.
-
Adam you just quoted that Carol Ann said this in her forth coming book.
Sorry it was Claire Powell.
-
Sorry it was Claire Powell.
Adam I thought you had some inside information. Thank you for explaining.
-
Be interesting to know more about Jeremy smuggling heroin. That's a serious crime. And would take a lot of courage.
-
Be interesting to know more about Jeremy smuggling heroin. That's a serious crime. And would take a lot of courage.
This sounds more like an exaggeration by CP (there are quite a few in her book) or Jeremy building up his hard man rep.
-
Lookout, who did Jeremy boast to about smuggling heroin ? Thank you.
I haven't the faintest idea. Why should I know that ? It was JM who was a past-master at smuggling in " whatever " from Canada. How she got past customs,God only knows,but she obviously knew how !!
-
I haven't the faintest idea. Why should I know that ? It was JM who was a past-master at smuggling in " whatever " from Canada. How she got past customs,God only knows,but she obviously knew how !!
I thought you said you have read Claire Powell's book.
Or are you just sometimes quoting it when I ask for a source because you know I have not read it. Which is better than saying 'find it yourself'.
-
Well at least their is an official document listing the crimes that Julie was involved in - not a book.
-
What a pity Lookout or no one else can give any further information on Jeremy smuggling heroin.
Does she quote another individual in the claim ? If so then he/she must be the source.
Was it just Jeremy boasting he had done it, or did people go with him.
He was travelling a lot after Gresham's. Maybe he did come across people and ended up smuggling heroin. He certainly wasted no time after the massacre in bringing home some cannabis.
-
What a pity Lookout or no one else can give any further information on Jeremy smuggling heroin.
Does she quote another individual in the claim ? If so then he/she must be the source.
Was it just Jeremy boasting he had done it, or did people go with him.
He was travelling a lot after Gresham's. Maybe he did come across people and ended up smuggling heroin. He certainly wasted no time after the massacre in bringing home some cannabis.
Don't get clever with me pal !!
-
Just asked you a question
Politely.
Claire Powell's book said Jeremy boasted about smuggling heroin.
Be nice to get more information. Then people can make judgements on whether Jeremy's boasts were lies or if he really did smuggle heroin.
-
Just asked you a question
Politely.
Claire Powell's book said Jeremy boasted about smuggling heroin.
Be nice to get more information. Then people can make judgements on whether Jeremy's boasts were lies or if he really did smuggle heroin.
Adam I have never heard of this I have heard of soft drugs being brought over but not hard drugs.
-
Adam I have never heard of this I have heard of soft drugs being brought over but not hard drugs.
It must be in Claire Powell's book. My unbiased source would not lie.
-
Adam I have never heard of this I have heard of soft drugs being brought over but not hard drugs.
Nor me suse, smuggling heroin is a very different thing from cannabis.
-
It must be in Claire Powell's book. My unbiased source would not lie.
Adam did your source tell you where she got this information from it would not be Jeremy or the relatives as this is not the type of activity you advertise.
-
Whatever drugs he was involved in smuggling and selling, he can't have been making too much money because he didn't have much money. Granted he liked to party but he wasn't partying every night so as to be spending boatloads of money and if he was making so much off it then he would not have needed to work at the farm or to kill his family for money.
He had to be a small cog who was not making that much money from it maybe just enough to support his own habit.
-
It must be in Claire Powell's book. My unbiased source would not lie.
But who was the original source ( that would be the person who told Claire Powell ;D ;D ;D)
Were they an honest person?
-
But who was the original source ( that would be the person who told Claire Powell ;D ;D ;D)
Were they an honest person?
"He (Jeremy) also liked to boast that he had been involved in heroin smuggling during his time abroad"
It is in Claire Powell's book but that's all it says.
-
Does she give sources she spoke to for other information?
-
Does she give sources she spoke to for other information?
None, a bit annoying really!!
-
Claire Powell said she'd spoken to all participants ( including Jeremy ) in her book.
-
Claire Powell said she'd spoken to all participants ( including Jeremy ) in her book.
She says that she has spoke to all the 'leading' participants but she doesn't say where she got the heroin comment from, just that Jeremy liked to boast about selling it.
-
She says that she has spoke to all the 'leading' participants but she doesn't say where she got the heroin comment from, just that Jeremy liked to boast about selling it.
Probably the rellies. ;D ;D ;D Or even JM ( meaning herself )
-
Heroin would have been as rare as hens teeth back then. With an astronomical price.
-
Heroin would have been as rare as hens teeth back then. With an astronomical price.
Are you kidding?? :o :o :o
-
Are you kidding?? :o :o :o
I'm surmising it was,yes.
-
I'm surmising it was,yes.
It wasn't rare - or expensive. Coke was the expensive drug - still is, not that I'm a junkie or anything ;D ;D ;D
-
It wasn't rare - or expensive. Coke was the expensive drug - still is, not that I'm a junkie or anything ;D ;D ;D
Oh right.Well it just shows how well up I am on drugs-------not. ::)
-
Oh right.Well it just shows how well up I am on drugs-------not. ::)
the only drugs education I got in the 70s was my mum saying "if someone hands you a tablet that is purple and shaped like a heart don't take it"
That was it - the total of my drugs education.
-
the only drugs education I got in the 70s was my mum saying "if someone hands you a tablet that is purple and shaped like a heart don't take it"
That was it - the total of my drugs education.
I remember the purple hearts. Takes me all my time to take a paracetamol.
-
the only drugs education I got in the 70s was my mum saying "if someone hands you a tablet that is purple and shaped like a heart don't take it"
That was it - the total of my drugs education.
;D Purple Hearts, they were the thing back then. ;D
-
Hello All , On paper perhaps nothing they don't have a bearing on the events I find law both unfair and never delivered.
-
Jeremy either did smuggle heroin. Which shows he had a lot of courage, was stupid and greedy.
Or he did not smuggle heroin but boasted to people he had. Which means he lied and wanted to give himself more gravitas. It also backs up Julies claim that Jeremy liked to say things that would shock people.
Or Claire Powell's book made up the claim. But as Lookout said she interviewed everyone, including Jeremy. So no need to make anything up.
-
Neville was licensed to grow opium. Why would Jeremy risk smuggling heroin? More likely he'd pinch a few poppies.
-
Forget about Jeremy's other pre massacre crimes, smuggling heroin would top them all.
Being caught smuggling heroin can result in 20 years to the death penalty in some countries.
It seems Jeremy may have been prepared to risk everything in his pursuit for money.
-
Propagandist. I doubt anyone's listening to your desperation.
-
Just stating facts.
Smuggling heroin can result in 20 years to the death penalty. Which is just as bad as the punishment in 1985 for killing his family. However the rewards for killing his family were much higher.
-
But, was the jury aware that Jeremy had given Julie the "heave- ho" ? After thinking that she was inline for a share of the "goodies" and then jilted !............... woman scorned
-
Of course it was scorn.All the hallmarks were there,the hurt,the anger,then the revenge. Though she was crafty enough to put her own house in order first before the tale-telling started on Jeremy.
-
The jury were fully aware when Julie and Jeremy spilt up.
It is inconclusive over who jilted who. However Jeremy claimed Julie was telling horrific lies because he apparently jilted her. He could think of no other reason.
This has been discussed before.
On the issue of heroin smuggling. If he had got away with it, he would know that sooner or later he would get caught. And that the punishment was very severe. Carrying out the massacre was a safer bet and had a much bigger reward.
-
But, was the jury aware that Jeremy had given Julie the "heave- ho" ? After thinking that she was inline for a share of the "goodies" and then jilted !............... woman scorned
Yes, because the defence used the 'jilted girlfriend' argument as a reason for her testimony.
-
Julie told the EP that Jeremy had hired a "hit man". But, after finding that that was a load of "codswollap" these simple minded thickos decided to accept her statement that JM said he was going to kill them himself (tonights the night).
Jeremy gave himself a proxy. There are lots of reasons why.
This doesn't change what he told her beforehand. Her WS is very believable. And is backed up by lots of other people. Thread already created.
-
Erm-----------1 WS out of 32 ? Not bad going was it ? What of the other 31 ?
-
Her December 1985 statement had said,I quote," I'd really like to hurt him",unquote .
She didn't do a bad job of it did she ? Out of sheer spite and revenge.
-
Adam, I assume that all these "other people" were there and saw what happened
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6331.msg279608.html#msg279608
-
Erm-----------1 WS out of 32 ? Not bad going was it ? What of the other 31 ?
There aren't 32 witness statements from Julie!
-
31 then.
-
31 then.
Certainly aren't 31 either. ;D
-
Certainly aren't 31 either. ;D
There must be if 32 statements had been made and only 1 presented at the trial. Where's the rest ?
-
There were only three released WS 's released pre trial as far as I know.
The first on was the day after the massacre. The second one weeks later after Julie approached the police. The third was about the 1984 bank fraud.
All of these WS's may have had rough drafts. Which is common practice. People that write books, send emails or write letters may do several drafts.
It was a murder trial so her WS's were not going to be ready for cross examination at the first attempt.
-
There must be if 32 statements had been made and only 1 presented at the trial. Where's the rest ?
They were interviews, recorded in writing.
-
They were interviews, recorded in writing.
Thankyou for that,ngb.
-
Thankyou for that,ngb.
These notes of interview have all been withheld under PII.
-
These notes of interview have all been withheld under PII.
More's the pity.
-
They were interviews, recorded in writing.
That's not what I got from reading the defense fight with the courts and this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,374.0.html
Only some of the meetings resulted in written statements and those statements were provided to the defense. They didn't interrogate her and thus didn't keep any transcripts of her interviews like they did with Jeremy. She was treated like the other witnesses without a formal interrogation where a transcript was made.
What I read suggests the defense wanted all hand written notes any police who spoke to her made so they could see the impressions of the police in response to the interviews but the courts have said there is no duty to turn these over even if they do exist (supposedly a bunch of brianstorming notes made by police that were saved are uncollated and it is not known what exactly in in them beyond they are not materials that were subject to disclosure.
-
That's not what I got from reading the defense fight with the courts and this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,374.0.html
Only some of the meetings resulted in written statements and those statements were provided to the defense. They didn't interrogate her and thus didn't keep any transcripts of her interviews like they did with Jeremy. She was treated like the other witnesses without a formal interrogation where a transcript was made.
What I read suggests the defense wanted all hand written notes any police who spoke to her made so they could see the impressions of the police in response to the interviews but the courts have said there is no duty to turn these over even if they do exist (supposedly a bunch of brianstorming notes made by police that were saved are uncollated and it is not known what exactly in in them beyond they are not materials that were subject to disclosure.
It looks like most of the meetings were for 'additional information' and not full statements.
-
32 witness statements.
Surely at the end, there would be just one. Any other rough drafts binned when no longer needed.
Has anyone got a source about these 32 statements ?
-
It looks like most of the meetings were for 'additional information' and not full statements.
Here is what I get from the notes by transcribing- 8 statements:
1) Interview day of the murders
2) 1st statement (Aug 8)
3) There while they spoke to Jeremy so spoke to her too (Aug 9)
2nd Statement done over the course of 4 days Sept 7-10
4) day one 2nd statement
5) day two 2nd statement
6) day three 2nd statement
7) day four second statement
8) Third statement (Sept 23)
9) Fourth statement and fingerprinted (Oct 14)
10) Go to her home to speak to her and her roommates for clarification of issues (Oct 25)
11) Fifth statement (Nov 18)
12) Speak to Richard and clarify things with her (Nov 25)
13) Spoke to her and Susan to clarify things (Dec 2)
14) Spoke to her and Liz to clarify things (Dec 9)
15) Saw her while visiting other witness (Dec 12)
16) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Dec 13)
17) Reviewed and signed her statements as did her roommates (Dec 17)
18) Speak to her to clarify things (Jan 16)
19) Speak to her to clarify things (Feb 3)
20) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Feb 17)
21) Sixth Statement (March 10)
22) Speak to her to clarify things (Apr 15)
23) Speak to her and roommates to clarify things (Apr 23)
24) Seventh statement (May 8)
25) Speak to her to clarify things (May 16)
26) Eighth statement (June 5)
27) Speak to her to clarify things (July 9)
28) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 6)
29) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 20)
30) Speak to her to clarify things while speaking to Richards (Aug 28)
31) Speak to her to clarify things (Sept 10)
32) Speak to her while seeing other witnesses (Sept 15)
33) Discuss trial arrangements (Sept 30)
-
Here is what I get from the notes by transcribing- 8 statements:
1) Interview day of the murders
2) 1st statement (Aug 8)
3) There while they spoke to Jeremy so spoke to her too (Aug 9)
2nd Statement done over the course of 4 days Sept 7-10
4) day one 2nd statement
5) day two 2nd statement
6) day three 2nd statement
7) day four second statement
8) Third statement (Sept 23)
9) Fourth statement and fingerprinted (Oct 14)
10) Go to her home to speak to her and her roommates for clarification of issues (Oct 25)
11) Fifth statement (Nov 18)
12) Speak to Richard and clarify things with her (Nov 25)
13) Spoke to her and Susan to clarify things (Dec 2)
14) Spoke to her and Liz to clarify things (Dec 9)
15) Saw her while visiting other witness (Dec 12)
16) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Dec 13)
17) Reviewed and signed her statements as did her roommates (Dec 17)
18) Speak to her to clarify things (Jan 16)
19) Speak to her to clarify things (Feb 3)
20) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Feb 17)
21) Sixth Statement (March 10)
22) Speak to her to clarify things (Apr 15)
23) Speak to her and roommates to clarify things (Apr 23)
24) Seventh statement (May 8)
25) Speak to her to clarify things (May 16)
26) Eighth statement (June 5)
27) Speak to her to clarify things (July 9)
28) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 6)
29) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 20)
30) Speak to her to clarify things while speaking to Richards (Aug 28)
31) Speak to her to clarify things (Sept 10)
32) Speak to her while seeing other witnesses (Sept 15)
33) Discuss trial arrangements (Sept 30)
Scip, that's a great list and actually really helpful. Also shows that there is nothing strange about the situation at all.
-
Here is what I get from the notes by transcribing- 8 statements:
1) Interview day of the murders
2) 1st statement (Aug 8)
3) There while they spoke to Jeremy so spoke to her too (Aug 9)
2nd Statement done over the course of 4 days Sept 7-10
4) day one 2nd statement
5) day two 2nd statement
6) day three 2nd statement
7) day four second statement
8) Third statement (Sept 23)
9) Fourth statement and fingerprinted (Oct 14)
10) Go to her home to speak to her and her roommates for clarification of issues (Oct 25)
11) Fifth statement (Nov 18)
12) Speak to Richard and clarify things with her (Nov 25)
13) Spoke to her and Susan to clarify things (Dec 2)
14) Spoke to her and Liz to clarify things (Dec 9)
15) Saw her while visiting other witness (Dec 12)
16) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Dec 13)
17) Reviewed and signed her statements as did her roommates (Dec 17)
18) Speak to her to clarify things (Jan 16)
19) Speak to her to clarify things (Feb 3)
20) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Feb 17)
21) Sixth Statement (March 10)
22) Speak to her to clarify things (Apr 15)
23) Speak to her and roommates to clarify things (Apr 23)
24) Seventh statement (May 8)
25) Speak to her to clarify things (May 16)
26) Eighth statement (June 5)
27) Speak to her to clarify things (July 9)
28) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 6)
29) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 20)
30) Speak to her to clarify things while speaking to Richards (Aug 28)
31) Speak to her to clarify things (Sept 10)
32) Speak to her while seeing other witnesses (Sept 15)
33) Discuss trial arrangements (Sept 30)
That's pretty much how I read it.
-
Scip, that's a great list and actually really helpful. Also shows that there is nothing strange about the situation at all.
All I did was reduce the handwriting to print to make it easier to read, actually numbered the instances which total 33 not 32 and numbered the statements- they simply stated "took further statement". In counting them up I get 8.
-
Bambers convictions are unsafe, because the victims were shot and killed by use of a different type of ELEY .22LR ammunition, than that purchased by RAlph Bamber in November 1984, and readily available at the scene (ELEY .22 Subsonic ammunition). The prosecutions case against Bamber is exposed as a dodgy frame up...
-
At trial, Judge Drake in his summing up speech to the jury, told them that they should not concern themselves with involvement of any third party in the killings, but that they had to decide who the killer was between Sheila, or Jeremy. He reminded them that the killer could only be either one of them. But this recent discovery regarding use of a different type of ELEY .22LR ammunition in the shootings, significantly contradict those directions given to the jury by the judge. We can now for the very first time say with absolute confidence that there was a third party involvement in the shootings, a fact which serves to affect the aforementioned direction given to the jury at such a critical point in the trial...
-
All I did was reduce the handwriting to print to make it easier to read, actually numbered the instances which total 33 not 32 and numbered the statements- they simply stated "took further statement". In counting them up I get 8.
I didn't count the number of separate statements but the document is pretty clear - most of the instances are just for additional info.
-
At trial, Judge Drake in his summing up speech to the jury, told them that they should not concern themselves with involvement of any third party in the killings, but that they had to decide who the killer was between Sheila, or Jeremy. He reminded them that the killer could only be either one of them. But this recent discovery regarding use of a different type of ELEY .22LR ammunition in the shootings, significantly contradict those directions given to the jury by the judge. We can now for the very first time say with absolute confidence that there was a third party involvement in the shootings, a fact which serves to affect the aforementioned direction given to the jury at such a critical point in the trial...
A third party involved ?
Did Sheila have an accomplice then ?
-
There is another list here somewhere that is similar - but every "interview" should have had dated written notes .
Jeremy also apparently had a lot of "interviews " before the final statements .
As I said before I think they would be interesting to see . Especially the "clarifications"
-
I know one thing,JM was into cannabis before she met Jeremy,so who was the influence ?
-
I know one thing,JM was into cannabis before she met Jeremy,so who was the influence ?
No, you don't ::)
-
I know one thing,JM was into cannabis before she met Jeremy,so who was the influence ?
And you know this HOW?
-
And you know this HOW?
As admitted by herself in a statement.
-
As admitted by herself in a statement.
Hm, but as she didn't know what Jeremy was doing before she met him, how would she know he wasn't doing the same thing?
-
Hm, but as she didn't know what Jeremy was doing before she met him, how would she know he wasn't doing the same thing?
You tell me.
-
You tell me.
The claim is so totally unbelievable -unless she was clairvoyant- that I doubt it was believed.
-
The claim is so totally unbelievable -unless she was clairvoyant- that I doubt it was believed.
Are you kidding ? This woman happened to have been the star prosecution witness.( she said,tongue-in-cheek )
Truly,this is in one page of 151------176 of " go on,force my hand and hope to believe me " statements,as ( jointly ) written by JM,with SJ breathing down her neck.
-
Are you kidding ? This woman happened to have been the star prosecution witness.( she said,tongue-in-cheek )
Truly,this is in one page of 151------176 of " go on,force my hand and hope to believe me " statements,as ( jointly ) written by JM,with SJ breathing down her neck.
That's as maybe, Lookout, but really, wouldn't one have to be totally brainless NOT to ask how, without the benefit of clairvoyance, it can be claimed that any person knows the actions of another PRIOR to them being acquainted?
-
There is another list here somewhere that is similar - but every "interview" should have had dated written notes .
Jeremy also apparently had a lot of "interviews " before the final statements .
As I said before I think they would be interesting to see . Especially the "clarifications"
Police don't always take notes when asking a few clarification questions of people. Police often do so over the phone these days.
-
Police don't always take notes when asking a few clarification questions of people. Police often do so over the phone these days.
I don't agree - they would have made notes to verify the conversations. And any way I said I would be interested to see both hers and Jeremys .
-
I don't agree - they would have made notes to verify the conversations. And any way I said I would be interested to see both hers and Jeremys .
Noting that they interviewed someone in their pocketbook was sufficient they didn't need to take detailed notes of everything discussed.
-
Noting that they interviewed someone in their pocketbook was sufficient they didn't need to take detailed notes of everything discussed.
Have you been in a british police force? their notebooks are their bibles ( just in case they make "mistakes " or forget things.) So just saying we had a meeting would not be enough . somewhere they would note the details - and I am guessing they are held in the protected file about JM
-
Have you been in a british police force? their notebooks are their bibles ( just in case they make "mistakes " or forget things.) So just saying we had a meeting would not be enough . somewhere they would note the details - and I am guessing they are held in the protected file about JM
Their notebooks often don't provide a great level of detail beyond generalities of dates, times and where they were or who they spoke with. Their pocketbooks were provided to the defense they were not content with that they wanted their work product meaning anything they wrote that gave their impressions of things.