Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: shonapugs on April 22, 2011, 12:11:AM
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
No, there's no evidence that Nevill called the police.
I'll agree with Mike to an extent on the second question. There should have been more of Sheila's fingerprints found on the gun simply because her fingers were on it in one of the photos. I think most fingerprints on the gun became too smudged to identify rather than there not being any on there.
Jeremy was arrested after Julie Mugford made her statement but the police clearly didn't think they had enough to go on just from her statement because they bailed Jeremy and allowed him to go abroad. I think that without the silencer evidence, they would not have been able to rely on Julie Mugford's testimony alone.
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
This is what I have been saying for weeks. And I will keep saying it. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. It implies the following. (1) Julie Mugford had been thoroughly sounded out about the killings beforehand and was totally committed to the scheme her self. (2) He didn't do it.
If you examine (1) it implies that Julie Mugford either then bottled it in the aftermath of the crime, or, simply turned on Bamber after they split. But there is another problem with (1). It still doesn't explain Bamber's subsequent disinterest in Julie Mugford leading up to the split, given her knowledge of his plans / the crime. Therefore (2) is the more credible explanation.
-
I'm certainly not going to try to make sense of it, and clear it up in your mind, as i don't think anyone can, we can all put a spin on things to suit our angle of approach.
If i could be arsed, i could show similar behaviour from partners of murderers, and i could also show spurned lovers becoming vindictive. :)
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
Good post Mike. Concerning JM's statement. If she made a statement to police about JB being the murderer and then changed her mind, she would not only be prosecuted for the other crimes that she had committed, but she would also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. And may I also suggest that if she now confessed to have lied about the whole thing then she would most certainly be brought back to England and would face the full force of the law. For her crime would be so much the more serious and she would certainly go to prison for it. Just think of how that would destroy her life now.
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
No, there's no evidence that Nevill called the police.
I'll agree with Mike to an extent on the second question. There should have been more of Sheila's fingerprints found on the gun simply because her fingers were on it in one of the photos. I think most fingerprints on the gun became too smudged to identify rather than there not being any on there.
Jeremy was arrested after Julie Mugford made her statement but the police clearly didn't think they had enough to go on just from her statement because they bailed Jeremy and allowed him to go abroad. I think that without the silencer evidence, they would not have been able to rely on Julie Mugford's testimony alone.
As far as I can remember JB never said that RB had called the police? But rather said when the police asked why RB had called him rather than the police, JB answered that he did not know and that it may have been that RB was not one for involving police.
-
I'm certainly not going to try to make sense of it, and clear it up in your mind, as i don't think anyone can, we can all put a spin on things to suit our angle of approach.
If i could be arsed, i could show similar behaviour from partners of murderers, and i could also show spurned lovers becoming vindictive. :)
Ok, I know that it is my angle of approach. But I invite every poster to follow that angle. Imagine yourself as the greedy murderer who's after the inheritance. Tired of dealing with the dysfunctional, interfering family who are obstructing your plans.
It's August 6th and 'tonight's the night'. You are about to carry out a abhorrent, brutally violent crime and there is no cast iron guarantee that you wont somehow be caught... but you think you've covered all bases and angles to ensure that there's as good as a cast iron guarantee that you wont get caught......
EXCEPT..... you haven't actually covered all bases / angles. You've been telling your girlfriend about your murderous intentions and previous aborted schemes.
Now... would there be a nagging doubt in your head that what you are about to carry out... might bring the world crashing down upon you?
If your whole motivation is to enjoy the inheritance, why take the risk? How are you going to enjoy the inheritance if your girlfriend decides to grass you up? What's the point in carrying out the killings if you might not enjoy the inheritance afterwards?
It (mugford's knowledge) defeats the object.
Let's say you go ahead anyway... "I should have been an actor" etc.....
Now you are tied in to keeping your girlfriend sweet. because you know damn well what is going to happen if you don't. And even that reasoning itself implies that the girlfriend you are actually trying to keep sweet has absolutely no conscience whatsoever. If all you have to do to silence her about 5 murders including 2 children is keep her sweet, then what does that tell you about her?
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
Good post Mike. Concerning JM's statement. If she made a statement to police about JB being the murderer and then changed her mind, she would not only be prosecuted for the other crimes that she had committed, but she would also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. And may I also suggest that if she now confessed to have lied about the whole thing then she would most certainly be brought back to England and would face the full force of the law. For her crime would be so much the more serious and she would certainly go to prison for it. Just think of how that would destroy her life now.
She knows that too. That is the reason she has always kept to the same story.
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
Good post Mike. Concerning JM's statement. If she made a statement to police about JB being the murderer and then changed her mind, she would not only be prosecuted for the other crimes that she had committed, but she would also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. And may I also suggest that if she now confessed to have lied about the whole thing then she would most certainly be brought back to England and would face the full force of the law. For her crime would be so much the more serious and she would certainly go to prison for it. Just think of how that would destroy her life now.
She did not name Jeremy as the killer, she named Macdonald.
And the cheque fraud would not have resulted in a conviction, the banks prefer to get the money back in installments, with a telling off from the police.
Only crime my Mrs has ever committed is cheque fraud. She did this in Scotland with a friend (about 1991), got a caution the same as what JM would have got, and had to pay the money back.....she now works in finance!!
-
I'm certainly not going to try to make sense of it, and clear it up in your mind, as i don't think anyone can, we can all put a spin on things to suit our angle of approach.
If i could be arsed, i could show similar behaviour from partners of murderers, and i could also show spurned lovers becoming vindictive. :)
Ok, I know that it is my angle of approach. But I invite every poster to follow that angle. Imagine yourself as the greedy murderer who's after the inheritance. Tired of dealing with the dysfunctional, interfering family who are obstructing your plans.
It's August 6th and 'tonight's the night'. You are about to carry out a abhorrent, brutally violent crime and there is no cast iron guarantee that you wont somehow be caught... but you think you've covered all bases and angles to ensure that there's as good as a cast iron guarantee that you wont get caught......
EXCEPT..... you haven't actually covered all bases / angles. You've been telling your girlfriend about your murderous intentions and previous aborted schemes.
Now... would there be a nagging doubt in your head that what you are about to carry out... might bring the world crashing down upon you?
If your whole motivation is to enjoy the inheritance, why take the risk? How are you going to enjoy the inheritance if your girlfriend decides to grass you up? What's the point in carrying out the killings if you might not enjoy the inheritance afterwards?
It (mugford's knowledge) defeats the object.
Let's say you go ahead anyway... "I should have been an actor" etc.....
Now you are tied in to keeping your girlfriend sweet. because you know damn well what is going to happen if you don't. And even that reasoning itself implies that the girlfriend you are actually trying to keep sweet has absolutely no conscience whatsoever. If all you have to do to silence her about 5 murders including 2 children is keep her sweet, then what does that tell you about her?
Its so difficult to give an opinion on what JB/JM would/wouldn't do.
We don't know the relationship, and can only guess, and i think we do enough guessing as it is.
JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
-
and I'll shut up. Is there any proof that Ralph called the police (why didn't he ask for an ambulance?), why wasn't the gun smothered in Sheila's prints? And why was JM's evidence taken so seriously?
-------------------
Ep found loads of prints on the gun, but only two lots that were clearly identifiable. Also, bear this in mind, in one of the crime scene pictures, you can see Sheila's right hand is placed / resting on the ammunition magazine of the gun, in the area where there are also three venting holes - well, lo and behold, EP did not find Sheila's fingerprints there, despite there being photographic evidence that her fingers had been resting upon the gun in that position. Similarly, in another crime scene photograph which was taken by EP it shows the fingers of her right hand resting upon the wooden butt of the anshulz rifle, but again, none of her fingerprints were actually found on that part of the gun which corresponds to where her right had had been placed? Work it out for yourself - since although crime scene photographs exited to prove that Sheila's fingers and her right hand was in contact with different parts of the gun, EP did not find any of her fingerprints there in either of these locations...
Let us look at this matter from a different perspective...
On the penultimate week-end before the shootings, a relative (Anthony Pargeter) admitted in a witness statement that he made to EP, going to the gun cupboard at whf and to picking up the anshulz rifle, telescopic site and silencer fitted, and examining it - yet none of his fingerprints were found upon the gun...
I think these three examples, help to demonstrate that just because no clear fingerprints were found or identified upon the gun, that it does not mean that nobody else, handled it, or that Sheila did not handle it more extensively than it appears she could have done, simply by reference to the presence or absence of clear fingerprints?
Another example, involves the fact that according to police records, three different police officers handled the gun at the scene by removing it from Sheila's body at different times, namely (1) PS Woodcock, (2) DI Cook, and (3) PI Montgomery - and yet none of their fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
In addition, according to the evidence, DC Hammersley seized the rifle at the scene (DRH/15) yet none of his fingerprints were found to be present upon the gun?
I could give other examples, but what purpose would it serve?
Why would Ralph call for an ambulance if nobody had actually been shot by the time he called Jeremy? Lets get the facts right, Jeremy has never said that when his dad called him that morning, that Ralph said anyone had actually been shot, JB only told the police that his dad had said, either "She has got the gun" or "He has got the gun", and that this person had gone crazy. Where in those words does it say that anyone had been shot and wounded, or killed by that stage? If JB had been forgiven that impression then the police would have called out an ambulance from the outset when JB contacted the police at 3:36am, surely?
JM's evidence was jot taken so seriously at the beginning of September 1985, because the police could see that sher may have been motivated to say things against Jeremy, because of a lovers tiff, and the fact that sh e realized by that stage that Jeremy did not intend to stay faithful to her, or want much to do with her after the deaths of his family. Ask yourself this question - why would Jeremy not mean to have much to do with JM after the deaths, if he had told her that he had been planning to kill them for up to a year beforehand? It would be the last thing Jeremy would have been doing if what JM was saying had any truth at all attached to it?
Good post Mike. Concerning JM's statement. If she made a statement to police about JB being the murderer and then changed her mind, she would not only be prosecuted for the other crimes that she had committed, but she would also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. And may I also suggest that if she now confessed to have lied about the whole thing then she would most certainly be brought back to England and would face the full force of the law. For her crime would be so much the more serious and she would certainly go to prison for it. Just think of how that would destroy her life now.
She did not name Jeremy as the killer, she named Macdonald.
And the cheque fraud would not have resulted in a conviction, the banks prefer to get the money back in installments, with a telling off from the police.
Only crime my Mrs has ever committed is cheque fraud. She did this in Scotland with a friend (about 1991), got a caution the same as what JM would have got, and had to pay the money back.....she now works in finance!!
That's Scottish law for you. :) On the other hand I knew someone who committed a cheque fraud and was prosecuted and put on probation for a year and had to pay the money back. There are any number of ways a court can deal with it. Your missus was very lucky indeed to escape having a police record.
-
JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
He could have dug a whole and shouted his secret down that. :)
-
JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
He could have dug a whole and shouted his secret down that. :)
:)
But you understand my point Grahame?
We can interpret things to suit our angle of approach.
As i've said before, i'm the guilty until proved innocent approach, and i can interpret the JB/JM relationship both ways.
-
Rochford shields and graham so spot on this morning sometimes I think this case will go down in history as the biggest cock up by the police ever no wonder file one is hidden away
-
JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
He could have dug a whole and shouted his secret down that. :)
:)
But you understand my point Grahame?
We can interpret things to suit our angle of approach.
As i've said before, i'm the guilty until proved innocent approach, and i can interpret the JB/JM relationship both ways.
Yes Paul I can see both sides in this case and the reasons both sides give. But the way British law works once you have been found guilty in a court of law with a jury of 12 people it is 10 times more difficult to prove your innocence. Quite simply because of the way the law is scructured. Once upon a time there was no right of appeal and unfortunately the courts still think in those terms because of the faith they put in the justice system today.
-
JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
He could have dug a whole and shouted his secret down that. :)
:)
But you understand my point Grahame?
We can interpret things to suit our angle of approach.
As i've said before, i'm the guilty until proved innocent approach, and i can interpret the JB/JM relationship both ways.
Yes Paul I can see both sides in this case and the reasons both sides give. But the way British law works once you have been found guilty in a court of law with a jury of 12 people it is 10 times more difficult to prove your innocence. Quite simply because of the way the law is scructured. Once upon a time there was no right of appeal and unfortunately the courts still think in those terms because of the faith they put in the justice system today.
So its a pointless discussion really.
There's 2 ways of looking at the JM/JB relationship, depending on your angle. The jury chose to believe JM, no doubt considering other factors involved with the case, such as its unlikely SC did the killings.
So the long and the short of it is, is there any new evidence to show SC did pull the trigger? I haven't seen any, so i'm assuming he'll not get an appeal this time?