Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 30, 2015, 05:08:PM
-
Supporters are all over the place with this issue.
I am not sure what they expect to find.
-
Well well - you are wound up about this . There is no point in the poll because none of us know and you wont listen anyway . For the last time - It was EP who said the boxes were not indexed not me .Their letter is on the forum.
Jeremy was not the person who told me he had info that was previously held under PII .
I do not know when he got the boxes and I do not know if or when they discovered items were referred to but not present.
So as none of us know the answers because we are not on the campaign team then I think the poll is a waste of time.
You may be right that the whole thing is a deflecting time wasting distraction - but then again it may not be. :)
By the way please stop using my name with false information.
-
The boxes being indexed or not, how does that make any difference ?
All documents have either been given to the defence or not. Indexing is neither here or there.
Well you confirmed what CAL said, that Bamber had all documents. Then made an about turn saying something about indexing.
-
Yes I do find it distasteful that Bamber and his followers are still going after the police.
What's wrong with the millions of documents in Bambers cell, with his lawyers, online and submitted at trials and appeals ? Oh yes, they all show guilt.
He's been trying for 30 years to tarnish the polices reputation. One failure resulted in his dirty protest.
-
The boxes being indexed or not, how does that make any difference ?
All documents have either been given to the defence or not. Indexing is neither here or there.
Well you confirmed what CAL said, that Bamber had all documents. Then made an about turn saying something about indexing.
You are entirely missing the point -that is one of the excuses EP gave for not releasing the information.
And all I said was that Jeremy had received the boxes held under PII - nothing more nothing less - I am not psychic how would I know if he had received them all - and if they were not indexed how would he know either ?
So if you are going to refer to the indexing you should refer to EP not me . Were they telling the truth ? Who knows.
-
Yes I do find it distasteful that Bamber and his followers are still going after the police.
What's wrong with the millions of documents in Bambers cell, with his lawyers, online and submitted at trials and appeals ? Oh yes, they all show guilt.
He's been trying for 30 years to tarnish the polices reputation. One failure resulted in his dirty protest.
well that's fine then - don't fret about it (:
-
Are they made of ticky tacky? ;D ;D
-
Are they made of ticky tacky? ;D ;D
Do they all look just the same? ;D
-
Are they made of ticky tacky? ;D ;D
just got it :)
Are we showing our age girls?
I will tell you what I know about the boxes - I feel like I am banging my head against them trying to explain things to Adam.
-
Do they all look just the same? ;D
They're probably full of book beetles by now!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Are they made of ticky tacky? ;D ;D
Whattt
-
Whattt
Inferior quality materials ;D
-
Inferior quality materials ;D
There's a blue one and a green one ......
-
Whattt
It's a song about council estates - I grew up on one.
-
You must have heard this before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdN3CY0BPE
-
It's a song about council estates - I grew up on one.
Oh!
Me too!
You must have heard this before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdN3CY0BPE
No :o
-
Oh!
Me too!
No :o
You've never lived!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Supporters are all over the place with this issue.
I am not sure what they expect to find.
I believe the reality of the situation may be this. All the files on the Jeremy Bamber case have been released however all the files held under Jeremy Bamber are one month after the murders and there is infact a Shelia Bamber case file where she is claimed to be responsible. Jeremy Supporters will probably use such documents as proof of innocence but fail to consider the possibility that the police had been fooled into believing it was Shelia.
-
I believe the reality of the situation may be this. All the files on the Jeremy Bamber case have been released however all the files held under Jeremy Bamber are one month after the murders and there is infact a Shelia Bamber case file where she is claimed to be responsible. Jeremy Supporters will probably use such documents as proof of innocence but fail to consider the possibility that the police had been fooled into believing it was Shelia.
I think that's a fair assumption.
-
does anyone know anything about the report by Renshaw they refer to in the request? About the blood on the silencer?
Also any reason why 77 photos should be withheld of rooms ( not people)?
-
You must have heard this before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdN3CY0BPE
Pete Seeger was always singing the flipping thing. :'(
-
Pete Seeger was always singing the flipping thing. :'(
'COURSE it was!!! I just thought Jonathan Miller but I think he did "Everyone's Gone To The Moon". M knew Peggy, Pete's sister.
-
does anyone know anything about the report by Renshaw they refer to in the request? About the blood on the silencer?
Also any reason why 77 photos should be withheld of rooms ( not people)?
Never heard of Renshaw but I'm sceptical of anything the OS claim.
-
Pete Seeger was always singing the flipping thing. :'(
Wee's ee??
-
'COURSE it was!!! I just thought Jonathan Miller but I think he did "Everyone's Gone To The Moon". M knew Peggy, Pete's sister.
I remember Peggy Seeger as well, bit too old style folksy for me, preferred something with a bit more guts like Bob Dylan but they were very well known back in the day.
Yes, Johnathan Miller well he went to prison, not the moon ;D
-
Wee's ee??
Folk singer very early 60s when you were a twinkle in your Daddy's eye
-
Folk singer very early 60s when you were a twinkle in your Daddy's eye
Caroline was 5 in the early 60's.
-
Caroline was 5 in the early 60's.
Cheeky bugger, no I wasn't! :P :P :P
-
Never heard of Renshaw but I'm sceptical of anything the OS claim.
Apparently he was a home office ballistic expert who worked with Jeremys legal team at one stage .
-
I remember Peggy Seeger as well, bit too old style folksy for me, preferred something with a bit more guts like Bob Dylan but they were very well known back in the day.
Yes, Johnathan Miller well he went to prison, not the moon ;D
Dylan did several of Seeger's pieces in the early days.
-
Cheeky bugger, no I wasn't! :P :P :P
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Apparently he was a home office ballistic expert who worked with Jeremys legal team at one stage .
Oh OK, is that on the OS?
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
Why I otta!! ...... >:( >:( ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I remember Peggy Seeger as well, bit too old style folksy for me, preferred something with a bit more guts like Bob Dylan but they were very well known back in the day.
Yes, Johnathan Miller well he went to prison, not the moon ;D
Do you mean Jonathan King? That vile sex pest sang, 'Everyone's gone to the moon'.
-
Dylan did several of Seeger's pieces in the early days.
True but he was Dylan, my hero. 8)
-
Do you mean Jonathan King? That vile sex pest sang, 'Everyone's gone to the moon'.
Damn Yes! .... Jane's fault haha! Johnathan King!! Apologies to highly civilised and intelligent Johnathan Miller.....
-
Oh OK, is that on the OS?
No his name has cropped up on here. In the past
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.gazette-news.co.uk/news/13790253.Call_for_Bamber_evidence_to_be_released/&ved=0CCAQqQIwAmoVChMIwYS384SiyAIVxVUaCh0vRgJU&usg=AFQjCNEhtdmklZUhRN2uVhySsKDdzURlPw&sig2=u8eVvLl5ouSkT0v_dHvGFg
This is the latest article from the campaign team. A new picture of a smiling Jeremy.
-
'Among the documents are the call logs on the morning of the killings and a file on Bamber's former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who gave evidence against him'.
The call logs ? I thought they already had the documents. They went on about it enough in 2010.
A file on Julie ? You mean there is more than was put on last years 8 minute Youtube video ? Had she stolen a doughnut from Sloppy Joe's ?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.gazette-news.co.uk/news/13790253.Call_for_Bamber_evidence_to_be_released/&ved=0CCAQqQIwAmoVChMIwYS384SiyAIVxVUaCh0vRgJU&usg=AFQjCNEhtdmklZUhRN2uVhySsKDdzURlPw&sig2=u8eVvLl5ouSkT0v_dHvGFg
This is the latest article from the campaign team. A new picture of a smiling Jeremy.
that's rich coming from you - when you have his photo on your posts ::)
-
'Among the documents are the call logs on the morning of the killings and a file on Bamber's former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who gave evidence against him'.
The call logs ? I thought they already had the documents. They went on about it enough in 2010.
A file on Julie ? You mean there is more than was put on last years 8 minute Youtube video ?
You know very well there is a confidential file on Julie - there haven been references to it several times on the forum. And they are asking for the original call logs not copies.
-
that's rich coming from you - when you have his photo on your posts ::)
It's a completely different picture.
Do you believe there may be hidden files showing Julie had stolen a doughnut from Sloppy Joe's ?
-
Damn Yes! .... Jane's fault haha! Johnathan King!! Apologies to highly civilised and intelligent Johnathan Miller.....
Ooops, sorreeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
-
You know very well there is a confidential file on Julie - there haven been references to it several times on the forum. And they are asking for the original call logs not copies.
You know very well there isn't a mysterious file on Julie. It is just something made up by supporters.
She must have been the most investigated 21 year old witness in history. There is nothing new about her that would benefit Bamber.
What's the difference between an original and a photocopy ? They both say the same things.
-
You know very well there is a confidential file on Julie - there haven been references to it several times on the forum. And they are asking for the original call logs not copies.
Mist admit Jan that I haven't heard of any 'confidential file' on Julie?
-
Mist admit Jan that I haven't heard of any 'confidential file' on Julie?
Much of Julie is held under PII. her later police interviews cannot be found anywhere online.
Jeremy Supporters are playing with a double edged sword here, Julies files may well raise more doubt on Jeremy's Guilt or they may prove that Julie was more involved ultimately proving Jeremy's guilt.
-
Much of Julie is held under PII. her later police interviews cannot be found anywhere online.
Jeremy Supporters are playing with a double edged sword here, Julies files may well raise more doubt on Jeremy's Guilt or they may prove that Julie was more involved ultimately proving Jeremy's guilt.
Have you got a source ?
Just because her later police interviews are not online, doesn't mean they are hidden away.
No one else's police interviews are online, except Bamber's.
-
This is one of several references to it on the forum and I guess it could be checked out
"Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence. The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence. Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan. For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials"
-
You know very well there is a confidential file on Julie - there haven been references to it several times on the forum. And they are asking for the original call logs not copies.
Never heard this before, don't think I have ever read it on here.
-
See the first post on this thread it ties in with my post above - I cant down load it
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3092.msg118628.html#msg118628
-
Never heard this before, don't think I have ever read it on here.
it has been mentioned since 2012
-
See the first post on this thread it ties in with my post above - I cant down load it
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3092.msg118628.html#msg118628
Cheers Jan, but that just says that the file was confidential, which I would expect it to be, just as any other witness file would be. I found the passage you posted and will provide the link to it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.msg247552.html#msg247552
It looks like it's from the OS and given who posted it I would say that's 100% likely. The person who posted it, isn't much of a JM fan. ;)
-
So in other words no mysterious documents of Julie the police are withholding.
What would Julie's Dickinson report reveal ? She had already been interviewed by the police and cross examined at court. She wasn't going to crack.
The campaign team seem to know what documents the police are holding. How ?
-
The problem the police have is if they say everything has been released, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Which would suggest EP are lying.
So EP have to keep silent.
A good move by the campaign team. But also there only move as the released evidence highlights guilt.
I am surprised other convicted criminals protesting innocence have not tried this. Then again Bamber's campaign for freedom is unprecedented.
Or maybe other criminals have tried this, but it has not been reported.
-
Cheers Jan, but that just says that the file was confidential, which I would expect it to be, just as any other witness file would be. I found the passage you posted and will provide the link to it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.msg247552.html#msg247552
It looks like it's from the OS and given who posted it I would say that's 100% likely. The person who posted it, isn't much of a JM fan. ;)
Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"
-
The problem the police have is if they say everything has been released, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Which would suggest EP are lying.
So EP have to keep silent.
A good move by the campaign team. But also there only move as the released evidence highlights guilt.
I am surprised other convicted criminals protesting innocence have not tried this. Then again Bamber's campaign for freedom is unprecedented.
Or maybe other criminals have tried this, but it has not been reported.
I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files? In their email they said they would not be released.
I don't know why you are so obsessed you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.
-
Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"
I thought you agreed with CAL that Bamber had all documents ?
Oh yes, the mysterious indexing.
-
I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files? In their email they said they would not be released.
I don't know why you are so obsessed you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.
As I said, they won't say this.
Firstly because it is responding and getting into a war of words with a convicted criminal. Giving Bamber more publicity.
Secondly, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Putting the police in a bad light, and giving Bamber more publicity.
-
I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files? In their email they said they would not be released.
I don't know why you are so obsessed you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.
If they were trying to frame him, anything highlighting this will be shredded.
If they are not attempting to frame him, there will be nothing of any note.
So yes, I don't believe there is anything in them.
But Bamber probably has all documentation anyway. The campaign team have nowhere else to go at present.
-
Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"
If they did offer her a deal, I don't think it's unusual. The thing is, Julie didn't come forward until after Liz Rimmington informed the police that she might have information relating to the murders. So, she clearly told both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby that Jeremy was guilty before any deal could have been offered by EP. I think EP had to play down her chequered past to make her a more credible witness and she was a key witness. It would be wrong if they made her lie but she had already told her story to two people (at least) before ever going to the police and neither Susan Battersby or Liz Rimmington have cause to lie. If you get what I mean?
-
If they did offer her a deal, I don't think it's unusual. The thing is, Julie didn't come forward until after Liz Rimmington informed the police that she might have information relating to the murders. So, she clearly told both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby that Jeremy was guilty before any deal could have been offered by EP. I think EP had to play down her chequered past to make her a more credible witness and she was a key witness. It would be wrong if they made her lie but she had already told her story to two people (at least) before ever going to the police and neither Susan Battersby or Liz Rimmington have cause to lie. If you get what I mean?
She told five people. Thread already created.
Julie was in the room when Liz Rimmington phoned Stan Jones.
Yes Liz Rimmington and SB have no reason to lie about what Julie said. And Julie had no reason to lie to them.
-
She told five people. Thread already created.
Julie was in the room when Liz Rimmington phoned Stan Jones.
Yes Liz Rimmington and SB have no reason to lie about what Julie said. And Julie had no reason to lie to them.
I know
-
Being prompted ?
-
Which would all depend on how far in advance JM knew that it would be " worth her while ".
-
Which would all depend on how far in advance JM knew that it would be " worth her while ".
She didn't know 'it would be worth her while' when she told SB or LR. It was only 'worth her while' after the trial and she sold the story.
-
If they did offer her a deal, I don't think it's unusual. The thing is, Julie didn't come forward until after Liz Rimmington informed the police that she might have information relating to the murders. So, she clearly told both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby that Jeremy was guilty before any deal could have been offered by EP. I think EP had to play down her chequered past to make her a more credible witness and she was a key witness. It would be wrong if they made her lie but she had already told her story to two people (at least) before ever going to the police and neither Susan Battersby or Liz Rimmington have cause to lie. If you get what I mean?
Yes I understand that - so lets hope that she was telling the truth and not just an attention seeker that went too far .
-
I think the fact that JM was supposed to have been " telling the truth " is now wearing a bit thin.
-
Yes I understand that - so lets hope that she was telling the truth and not just an attention seeker that went too far .
I think she was telling the truth as far as Jeremy's involvement in the murders was concerned.
-
Yes I understand that - so lets hope that she was telling the truth and not just an attention seeker that went too far .
An attention seeker that went too far ?
Strange way to get attention.
-
An attention seeker that went too far ?
Strange way to get attention.
Not if she was feeling let down by him it works both ways - she was obviously capable of telling lies ( she had done it before ) and perhaps she wanted attention from her friends so she played the victim.And made up her story to blacken his name , not ever thinking they would go to the police - after all she didn't did she?
Inn a way I am defending her really because I just can not get my head round if she is telling the WHOLE truth why she did not do something sooner.
-
Adam do you believe her story about trying to smother Jeremy?
-
Adam do you believe her story about trying to smother Jeremy?
I don't think she meant 'smother' as in any REAL attempt to suffocate.
-
There was something I read where one of the officers said they were suspicious about Julie earlier on ( in other words they thought she might be involved ) and I do still wonder if they in a roundabout way did to try through her to try and get some information and she started questioning Jeremy.
But of course I don't know for sure - but I still feel her testimony does not add up and I think she could be a drama queen . I have very niggling doubts about her evidence.
-
There was something I read where one of the officers said they were suspicious about Julie earlier on ( in other words they thought she might be involved ) and I do still wonder if they in a roundabout way did to try through her to try and get some information and she started questioning Jeremy.
But of course I don't know for sure - but I still feel her testimony does not add up and I think she could be a drama queen . I have very niggling doubts about her evidence.
If someone did something similar to you (reported you to the police for something you hadn't done and you got convicted), how would you feel about them?
-
If someone did something similar to you (reported you to the police for something you hadn't done and you got convicted), how would you feel about them?
Do you mean that you don't understand his letters to her? And you think he should be slagging her off?
-
Do you mean that you don't understand his letters to her? And you think he should be slagging her off?
I don't think he should be 'slagging her off' but there is no anger and any innocent person in the same position, would feel anger and I know it's not because he doesn't have it in him to be angry (before someone says that.
-
I don't think he should be 'slagging her off' but there is no anger and any innocent person in the same position, would feel anger and I know it's not because he doesn't have it in him to be angry (before someone says that.
No I agree - and as she claims he was dumping her it cant be that he loved her deeply.
He was begging her to tell the truth - but did not seem to be angry .
If he was guilty and she dobbed him in you would still think he would be angry
if he was innocent and she dobbed him in you still think he would be angry
So I wonder what the answer is?
-
I don't think he should be 'slagging her off' but there is no anger and any innocent person in the same position, would feel anger and I know it's not because he doesn't have it in him to be angry (before someone says that.
Yes, I find that lack of anger unnatural. When we take on board how we react here when we're called "LIARS", I guess, in Jeremy's case it can be multiplied a thousand fold.
-
No I agree - and as she claims he was dumping her it cant be that he loved her deeply.
He was begging her to tell the truth - but did not seem to be angry .
If he was guilty and she dobbed him in you would still think he would be angry
if he was innocent and she dobbed him in you still think he would be angry
So I wonder what the answer is?
I don't think he would necessarily be 'openly' angry with her if guilty - if he is trying to make himself seem like a reasonable person. A guilty man, pretending to be innocent doesn't actually know how he should behave because he isn't the thing he's pretending to be - if that makes sense?
-
I don't think he would necessarily be 'openly' angry with her if guilty - if he is trying to make himself seem like a reasonable person. A guilty man, pretending to be innocent doesn't actually know how he should behave because he isn't the thing he's pretending to be - if that makes sense?
well then he has let his mask slip because he is not acting how he thinks we would want him to react . work that one out .
-
I don't think he would necessarily be 'openly' angry with her if guilty - if he is trying to make himself seem like a reasonable person. A guilty man, pretending to be innocent doesn't actually know how he should behave because he isn't the thing he's pretending to be - if that makes sense?
Which is why he failed to act out any urgency re the alleged phone call.
-
well then he has let his mask slip because he is not acting how he thinks we would want him to react . work that one out .
It's not a case of 'want' it's 'should' and that's why SJ saw something wrong with him. He can't can't act how he 'should' act as an innocent man, because he isn't one.