Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Anglolawyer on November 05, 2015, 08:39:AM
-
My take on this case is provisionally pro-guilt. 'Provisionally' because there is a lot of material I haven't seen. I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence and to see a complete and reliably-sourced set of the crime scene photos.
My principal reasons for favouring guilt are Mugford's evidence, which I see as credible, even though she had ample reason to lie, the unexplained delay in calling the police and the failure to call 999. Mugford makes better sense if she was involved in the murders as an accomplice. That reconciles the peculiar duality of her behaviour and her account. For instance, the temazapam story in which, knowing why he wanted to test it on himself she allowed him to do so. In my opinion, she very likely sourced the temazapam specifically at his request but slightly modified the story for the benefit of the cops.
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
Her involvement also better explains her hesitancy in coming forward. She took an enormous gamble in doing that. The police might have decided to go after her too or she might have faced liability for malicious prosecution. I don't think being jilted was enough to explain her actions.
Anyway, if she made up her account, she sure did a bad job of keeping herself out of it. Even taken at face value she was admitting very serious offences involving concealment and assistance following the crime. It is remarkable that she was not prosecuted for those but, maybe not, as it was in nobody's interests to pursue the question of her involvement - not Bamber's and not the cops'.
Whether Bamber received a fair trial is a separate and important question on which I have not formed a strong opinion due to not reading enough about it. I've read the 2002 appeal which describes and then dismisses a litany of errors and inadequacies in the conduct of the case. There are substantial concerns about the provenance of 'the' moderator, the state of Sheila's body when found and so on. It beggars belief that the scene was cleared of blood stained carpet and wallpaper the next day and the cretinous fumbling of Essex police, even to the extent of being unable to write down the time correctly, is truly staggering.
Nonetheless, through all that fog of blundering incompetence and perhaps worse, the theory that seems to fit best is that he did it with her knowledge and assistance as far as the alibi is concerned. That's where I am with this one.
-
My take on this case is provisionally pro-guilt. 'Provisionally' because there is a lot of material I haven't seen. I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence and to see a complete and reliably-sourced set of the crime scene photos.
My principal reasons for favouring guilt are Mugford's evidence, which I see as credible, even though she had ample reason to lie, the unexplained delay in calling the police and the failure to call 999. Mugford makes better sense if she was involved in the murders as an accomplice. That reconciles the peculiar duality of her behaviour and her account. For instance, the temazapam story in which, knowing why he wanted to test it on himself she allowed him to do so. In my opinion, she very likely sourced the temazapam specifically at his request but slightly modified the story for the benefit of the cops.
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
Her involvement also better explains her hesitancy in coming forward. She took an enormous gamble in doing that. The police might have decided to go after her too or she might have faced liability for malicious prosecution. I don't think being jilted was enough to explain her actions.
Anyway, if she made up her account, she sure did a bad job of keeping herself out of it. Even taken at face value she was admitting very serious offences involving concealment and assistance following the crime. It is remarkable that she was not prosecuted for those but, maybe not, as it was in nobody's interests to pursue the question of her involvement - not Bamber's and not the cops'.
Whether Bamber received a fair trial is a separate and important question on which I have not formed a strong opinion due to not reading enough about it. I've read the 2002 appeal which describes and then dismisses a litany of errors and inadequacies in the conduct of the case. There are substantial concerns about the provenance of 'the' moderator, the state of Sheila's body when found and so on. It beggars belief that the scene was cleared of blood stained carpet and wallpaper the next day and the cretinous fumbling of Essex police, even to the extent of being unable to write down the time correctly, is truly staggering.
Nonetheless, through all that fog of blundering incompetence and perhaps worse, the theory that seems to fit best is that he did it with her knowledge and assistance as far as the alibi is concerned. That's where I am with this one.
Thank you Anglolawyer, I agree with your thoughts about Julie Mugford.
Imo Julie Mugford was far more involved than is usually recognised and her statement and her behaviour reinforces this. :)
-
ive allways wondered weather she wanted to give evedence or was coerced with threat of being chardged as an acomplice wich if her story is true she clearly was.
-
My take on this case is provisionally pro-guilt. 'Provisionally' because there is a lot of material I haven't seen. I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence and to see a complete and reliably-sourced set of the crime scene photos.
My principal reasons for favouring guilt are Mugford's evidence, which I see as credible, even though she had ample reason to lie, the unexplained delay in calling the police and the failure to call 999. Mugford makes better sense if she was involved in the murders as an accomplice. That reconciles the peculiar duality of her behaviour and her account. For instance, the temazapam story in which, knowing why he wanted to test it on himself she allowed him to do so. In my opinion, she very likely sourced the temazapam specifically at his request but slightly modified the story for the benefit of the cops.
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
Her involvement also better explains her hesitancy in coming forward. She took an enormous gamble in doing that. The police might have decided to go after her too or she might have faced liability for malicious prosecution. I don't think being jilted was enough to explain her actions.
Anyway, if she made up her account, she sure did a bad job of keeping herself out of it. Even taken at face value she was admitting very serious offences involving concealment and assistance following the crime. It is remarkable that she was not prosecuted for those but, maybe not, as it was in nobody's interests to pursue the question of her involvement - not Bamber's and not the cops'.
Whether Bamber received a fair trial is a separate and important question on which I have not formed a strong opinion due to not reading enough about it. I've read the 2002 appeal which describes and then dismisses a litany of errors and inadequacies in the conduct of the case. There are substantial concerns about the provenance of 'the' moderator, the state of Sheila's body when found and so on. It beggars belief that the scene was cleared of blood stained carpet and wallpaper the next day and the cretinous fumbling of Essex police, even to the extent of being unable to write down the time correctly, is truly staggering.
Nonetheless, through all that fog of blundering incompetence and perhaps worse, the theory that seems to fit best is that he did it with her knowledge and assistance as far as the alibi is concerned. That's where I am with this one.
Good post AL - we certainly think along the same lines!
-
JM was just purely " dragged along " with those who were in the majority. Had she not been " dumped " it would have been an entirely different story. My guess is that she knows to this day that Jeremy isn't guilty but remains in a difficult position as regards those who pushed for his conviction.
-
Good post AL - we certainly think along the same lines!
Thanks for this and the other comments.
I wanted to add that Mugford and Bamber were in a Mexican stand off by the beginning of September. He might be arrested at any point and decide to drag her down with him, his erratic and inappropriate behaviour becoming perhaps alarming (such as offering to sell intimate photographs of Sheila to the NotW). In that scenario it would be curtains for her. She certainly could not say 'oh, I was meaning to tell you what really happened but I just hadn't got round to it'.
In one of her interviews she can be heard to say something like 'I was not afraid of Jeremy, but he became afraid of me and then I became afraid of him'. That puts it very well. IMO she had to go to the police to save herself. He (allegedly) threatened her that he would take her with him if she grassed. I find that credible too. She royally stitched him up with the avid and credulous assistance of DS Jones et al, the CPS and the DPP.
-
well if she thought they had evedence to convict jeremy anyway she had no chioce but to ethere give evedence or risk being charged as an acomplice.
-
Thanks for this and the other comments.
I wanted to add that Mugford and Bamber were in a Mexican stand off by the beginning of September. He might be arrested at any point and decide to drag her down with him, his erratic and inappropriate behaviour becoming perhaps alarming (such as offering to sell intimate photographs of Sheila to the NotW). In that scenario it would be curtains for her. She certainly could not say 'oh, I was meaning to tell you what really happened but I just hadn't got round to it'.
In one of her interviews she can be heard to say something like 'I was not afraid of Jeremy, but he became afraid of me and then I became afraid of him'. That puts it very well. IMO she had to go to the police to save herself. He (allegedly) threatened her that he would take her with him if she grassed. I find that credible too. She royally stitched him up with the avid and credulous assistance of DS Jones et al, the CPS and the DPP.
I don't think Jeremy was completely honest with her though. When she went to the police, she told them the hit man story. I think Jeremy told her this just in case she did double cross him - on checking the story, they would see that it didn't hold up and Julie would be discredited. He didn't tell her key things about the crime either - leaving out the most important cock-up - the two shots to Sheila.
If Julie was part of the plan, he must be dying to say something, but if he did - he'd have to confess. Stuck between a rock and a hard place!
-
JM would have been well informed of her own fate if she hadn't " played ball "
Pity the jury hadn't known !
-
As the law stands,jury members have to go through a CRB check. What about others ?
-
I don't think Jeremy was completely honest with her though. When she went to the police, she told them the hit man story. I think Jeremy told her this just in case she did double cross him - on checking the story, they would see that it didn't hold up and Julie would be discredited. He didn't tell her key things about the crime either - leaving out the most important cock-up - the two shots to Sheila.
If Julie was part of the plan, he must be dying to say something, but if he did - he'd have to confess. Stuck between a rock and a hard place!
Yes, have always thought it strange that he has never really attacked her. He did comment to a journalist that 'she shouldn't have done that' and his eyes filled with tears, seemed incongruous.
She saw him so close to Brett and must have feared for her position and 'share' so she shopped him to save herself and punish him, she may as well have killed him, IMO she was as bad as him.
-
I don't think Jeremy was completely honest with her though. When she went to the police, she told them the hit man story. I think Jeremy told her this just in case she did double cross him - on checking the story, they would see that it didn't hold up and Julie would be discredited. He didn't tell her key things about the crime either - leaving out the most important cock-up - the two shots to Sheila.
If Julie was part of the plan, he must be dying to say something, but if he did - he'd have to confess. Stuck between a rock and a hard place!
That's a neat idea, that he palmed her off with the hit man story in order to be able to repudiate her if she betrayed him. And you are right, probably, that he is obliged by his own condition to maintain a life of silence about her. Maybe he will crack in the end when he has nothing more to lose.
-
Yes, have always thought it strange that he has never really attacked her. He did comment to a journalist that 'she shouldn't have done that' and his eyes filled with tears, seemed incongruous.
She saw him so close to Brett and must have feared for her position and 'share' so she shopped him to save herself and punish him, she may as well have killed him, IMO she was as bad as him.
Nah.... difference is she didn't murder anyone let alone two children.
-
That's a neat idea, that he palmed her off with the hit man story in order to be able to repudiate her if she betrayed him. And you are right, probably, that he is obliged by his own condition to maintain a life of silence about her. Maybe he will crack in the end when he has nothing more to lose.
Problem for Jerry is if he shops Julie he seals his own fate.
-
yes she did if shes telling the truth shes as guilty as bamber.
-
Problem for Jerry is if he shops Julie he seals his own fate.
For what reason would he " shop " Julie and for why ?
-
Yes, have always thought it strange that he has never really attacked her. He did comment to a journalist that 'she shouldn't have done that' and his eyes filled with tears, seemed incongruous.
She saw him so close to Brett and must have feared for her position and 'share' so she shopped him to save herself and punish him, she may as well have killed him, IMO she was as bad as him.
I used to have a boyfriend who could cry at will - so it could just be that or maybe they were tears of frustration and anger at not being able to say "She is as much to blame"? There did seem to be resentment in respect to his friendship with Brett - she sounds VERY immature in her thinking as far as relationships go but they both did.
-
For what reason would he " shop " Julie and for why ?
If he suddenly realised he is never getting out - simply for satisfaction!
-
Problem for Jerry is if he shops Julie he seals his own fate.
Unless he finally accepts his fate.
-
he does need to shes guilty be her own admission.
-
he does need to shes guilty be her own admission.
What admission? ???
-
Problem for Jerry is if he shops Julie he seals his own fate.
Yes, that was the awful problem he gave himself. The pro-innocent view (in which Julie is simply a liar) has the good point that Jeremy did not really need her. It's not as if her taking a call at 3.00 a.m. (or whenever it was) would prove he had not committed the murders and then cycled home like crazy afterwards. By including her in his plans he only made it more likely he would be caught and he tied himself to her needlessly.
Against that, she had become his partner in crime and some kind of bond may have developed. On her account, she must have been very devoted indeed to prop him up in that performance at the funeral in the full glare of the media I have even encountered the wonderful suggestion that the whole thing was her idea, which I am disinclined to believe but which enriches the irony muchly.
-
she was given imunity anyway wasnt she.
-
she was given imunity anyway wasnt she.
She wasn't given immunity as far as the murders were concerned, they just didn't bring charges against her for the caravan park robbery or the cheque book fraud.
-
well as far as i can see her own statements are an admission of guilt it just depends if the cps will proscute.
-
well as far as i can see her own statements are an admission of guilt it just depends if the cps will proscute.
After 30+ years the chances are slim to none and might well encounter obstacles of one kind or another anyway. Who knows, maybe Julie has some dope on the cops too?
-
If he suddenly realised he is never getting out - simply for satisfaction!
I think he's already realised that in view of the antiquated system that prevents those who are innocent be allowed a voice.I'm sure that up and coming new lawyers etc would like to see a change in the system particularly as regards the prosecution which from the outset is a foregone conclusion that there'll be a charge of sorts which in many cases result in wrongful convictions and subsequently MOJ's.
At least Jeremy can read and write,but what of the ones who are innocent and can't do either ? He's worked damned hard over the years putting reams of paperwork in some semblance of order,looking for anything at all that will give him his proof of innocence and I admire his fight to get justice .
Unless anyone has been up against the " establishment " of a closed shop,then they have no idea what it's like being on the receiving end of bureaucracy.
-
After 30+ years the chances are slim to none and might well encounter obstacles of one kind or another anyway. Who knows, maybe Julie has some dope on the cops too?
of course if for any reason they did proscute her she would be between a rock and a hard place the only way she could be found innocent would be by retracting her statement leaving her open to a perjury charge.
-
of course if for any reason they did proscute her she would be between a rock and a hard place the only way she could be found innocent would be by retracting her statement leaving her open to a perjury charge.
Well, while I am no expert, I would expect her to have a good shot at having any prosecution struck out as an abuse. There is no justification for the delay, firstly. Its not like the cops have just come into possession of evidence they have been lacking all along despite the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, she gave her statements without being cautioned. She may also have testified without being properly advised about the right not to incriminate herself and on the strength of an understanding or even an explicit agreement with the DPP that she would face no charges. There is also the question whether she could receive a fair trial now, the case having been subjected to intense and widespread scrutiny over many years. A prosecution of her might also open a can of worms regarding the safety of Bamber's conviction as it might reveal undisclosed connivance between her and the cops which, had the jury known of it, might have affected the outcome.
For all these, and perhaps other, reasons I doubt very much whether we shall ever see her hauled back to court.
-
of course if for any reason they did proscute her she would be between a rock and a hard place the only way she could be found innocent would be by retracting her statement leaving her open to a perjury charge.
Nugs I firmly believe that the reason some have held back, those who know Jeremy to be innocent,is the knowledge of what would happen once the ball started to roll.This is why there appears to be a stalemate going on regarding the refusal by EP to hand over those original notes once and for all.
I was reading about a guy who's now dead and buried and had been pardoned after 53 years of fighting for his innocence. Is everyone waiting for Jeremy to have a massive coronary ??
-
Well, while I am no expert, I would expect her to have a good shot at having any prosecution struck out as an abuse. There is no justification for the delay, firstly. Its not like the cops have just come into possession of evidence they have been lacking all along despite the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, she gave her statements without being cautioned. She may also have testified without being properly advised about the right not to incriminate herself and on the strength of an understanding or even an explicit agreement with the DPP that she would face no charges. There is also the question whether she could receive a fair trial now, the case having been subjected to intense and widespread scrutiny over many years. A prosecution of her might also open a can of worms regarding the safety of Bamber's conviction as it might reveal undisclosed connivance between her and the cops which, had the jury known of it, might have affected the outcome.
it might do if there was pressure for it to reach court even if it was thrown out on a techicalty i think it should at least maybe be tried.
For all these, and perhaps other, reasons I doubt very much whether we shall ever see her hauled back to court.
-
well as far as i can see her own statements are an admission of guilt it just depends if the cps will proscute.
What has she actually admitted to? She has NEVER admitted to being part of the murders, just that he had discussed his plan to kill the family but she didn't believe he would go through with it and that after, she was basically in shock - but eventually came good. What can you prosecute from that?
-
by her own amission she is an acesary to murder no ifs no butts planing to drug the victems so they could be more easly killed shes bang to rights.
an acomplice before the fact not after meaning eqaul guilt to the person who did the deed.
-
What has she actually admitted to? She has NEVER admitted to being part of the murders, just that he had discussed his plan to kill the family but she didn't believe he would go through with it and that after, she was basically in shock - but eventually came good. What can you prosecute from that?
She may not have explicitly admitted to anything but her initial statement exposed her to prosecution for assisting an offender under s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
-
I think he's already realised that in view of the antiquated system that prevents those who are innocent be allowed a voice.I'm sure that up and coming new lawyers etc would like to see a change in the system particularly as regards the prosecution which from the outset is a foregone conclusion that there'll be a charge of sorts which in many cases result in wrongful convictions and subsequently MOJ's.
At least Jeremy can read and write,but what of the ones who are innocent and can't do either ? He's worked damned hard over the years putting reams of paperwork in some semblance of order,looking for anything at all that will give him his proof of innocence and I admire his fight to get justice .
Unless anyone has been up against the " establishment " of a closed shop,then they have no idea what it's like being on the receiving end of bureaucracy.
Hi Lookout
One of the problems which has always bothered me is Julie Mugford and her statement. I found myself almost thinking she committed the crime because of her subsequent behaviour but we know for a fact she couldn't have done it because apart from anything she has a perfect alibi.
I came to believe she may have a personality disorder as her behaviour is not 'normal', how could she have stayed with JB after the crime knowing what she knew, how did she dare to stay with him? I have been a 20 year old girl and have had two daughters who have both been that age quite recently, they were far from shrinking violets but they could never have behaved the way she did, all the excuses in the world don't make me see it any differently and the nail for me was the weekend she spent with Jeremy at Colin's home after the twins were dead In a way her behaviour has also sealed my belief that JB is almost definitely guilty otherwise none of her behaviour makes any sense but of course this is nly my opinion and I am not accusing JM of anything.
-
her cliam that she dident belive he was going to do it would be vaguely beliveble if she hadent kept silent after it happend.
-
her cliam that she dident belive he was going to do it would be vaguely beliveble if she hadent kept silent after it happend.
Exactly nugs. It's been an evolving thought process for me from JB totally innocent and it is the only answer which makes any sense imo
-
Yes, that was the awful problem he gave himself. The pro-innocent view (in which Julie is simply a liar) has the good point that Jeremy did not really need her. It's not as if her taking a call at 3.00 a.m. (or whenever it was) would prove he had not committed the murders and then cycled home like crazy afterwards. By including her in his plans he only made it more likely he would be caught and he tied himself to her needlessly.
Against that, she had become his partner in crime and some kind of bond may have developed. On her account, she must have been very devoted indeed to prop him up in that performance at the funeral in the full glare of the media I have even encountered the wonderful suggestion that the whole thing was her idea, which I am disinclined to believe but which enriches the irony muchly.
I wouldn't discount the question as to who's idea it was, there is no reason why it had to be his, depends who was the 'main man' in that relationship........ We don't know who suggested the caravan park break in, she was possibly the brains behind the cheque fraud.....
-
She may not have explicitly admitted to anything but her initial statement exposed her to prosecution for assisting an offender under s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4
In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.
-
I wouldn't discount the question as to who's idea it was, there is no reason why it had to be his, depends who was the 'main man' in that relationship........ We don't know who suggested the caravan park break in, she was possibly the brains behind the cheque fraud.....
She admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea Maggie.
-
In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.
She assisted by backing up his story about the phone calls, while knowing the truth, thereby corroborating his false account of events.
-
In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.
knowing that a murder is going to be comited and failing to inform the police is a crime anyway.
-
Thanks for this and the other comments.
I wanted to add that Mugford and Bamber were in a Mexican stand off by the beginning of September. He might be arrested at any point and decide to drag her down with him, his erratic and inappropriate behaviour becoming perhaps alarming (such as offering to sell intimate photographs of Sheila to the NotW). In that scenario it would be curtains for her. She certainly could not say 'oh, I was meaning to tell you what really happened but I just hadn't got round to it'.
In one of her interviews she can be heard to say something like 'I was not afraid of Jeremy, but he became afraid of me and then I became afraid of him'. That puts it very well. IMO she had to go to the police to save herself. He (allegedly) threatened her that he would take her with him if she grassed. I find that credible too. She royally stitched him up with the avid and credulous assistance of DS Jones et al, the CPS and the DPP.
AL, WOW!!! Can't believe it!!! I and many others have said exactly that. It's good to have verified the correctness of our thinking. :)
-
Hi Lookout
One of the problems which has always bothered me is Julie Mugford and her statement. I found myself almost thinking she committed the crime because of her subsequent behaviour but we know for a fact she couldn't have done it because apart from anything she has a perfect alibi.
I came to believe she may have a personality disorder as her behaviour is not 'normal', how could she have stayed with JB after the crime knowing what she knew, how did she dare to stay with him? I have been a 20 year old girl and have had two daughters who have both been that age quite recently, they were far from shrinking violets but they could never have behaved the way she did, all the excuses in the world don't make me see it any differently and the nail for me was the weekend she spent with Jeremy at Colin's home after the twins were dead In a way her behaviour has also sealed my belief that JB is almost definitely guilty otherwise none of her behaviour makes any sense but of course this is nly my opinion and I am not accusing JM of anything.
Maggie I'd have put JM's behaviour down to the fact that he was wholly innocent and she knew that. This was pure spite at its worst but I don't believe that she'd realised that the case would go as far as it did and it was too late to retract what she'd already said. Some people can live with that.
-
Hello Anglolawyer.
excellent post and my thoughts exactly.
-
knowing that a murder is going to be comited and failing to inform the police is a crime anyway.
But she hasn't admitted to KNOWING that it WOULD be committed.
-
Nobody in their right mind,and no matter how deep the feelings for a person are,could befriend a murderer let alone sleep with him knowing that he murdered 5 people. JM may have been called all manner of things but I draw the line when it comes to her having believed that he carried out the murders and this is why I say that she knows he's innocent.
JM was heavily influenced by others,especially the law.
-
Nobody in their right mind,and no matter how deep the feelings for a person are,could befriend a murderer let alone sleep with him knowing that he murdered 5 people. JM may have been called all manner of things but I draw the line when it comes to her having believed that he carried out the murders and this is why I say that she knows he's innocent.
JM was heavily influenced by others,especially the law.
Lots of people would do exactly that if they thought it worth their while.
-
The " pay-off " was surreptitiously thrown in as a sweetner too. What young lady would have refused such a payment ?
What we don't know is if it was discussed pre-trial to give more clout to EP.
-
Lots of people would do exactly that if they thought it worth their while.
But how long before trial would she have known ?
-
She assisted by backing up his story about the phone calls, while knowing the truth, thereby corroborating his false account of events.
That's fair enough but she did eventually go to the police and assisted them - without her they may have had no case. I think Nugs is talking about pre-murders though, not post.
-
But how long before trial would she have known ?
Well, given that Jeremy told her immediately after - she knew from then.
-
I agree lookout and furthermore i dont believe jb would have let her get away with it if she was an accomplish. If the evidence was that stacked against him and his lawyers knew that he would have told them about her involvement.
One thing i read recently was that you had to meet jb to know hes guilty and thats sort of stuck with me so maybe its his personality thats not allowing me to see his guilt.
i was reading his interviews yesterday and i couldnt make my mind up if he was just being cocky or just amazed at being in that position . I felt i could hear him sighing as if to say for gods sake you surely cant believe that i killed them can you. On the otherhand he didnt seem to be trying very hard in those interviews to make them believe him and i found that odd. If he was tryig to protect himself he should have said no comment but it seeseemed he was quite happy to answer all tbe questions which imo was the wrong thi g to do if guilty.
-
That's fair enough but she did eventually go to the police and assisted them - without her they may have had no case. I think Nugs is talking about pre-murders though, not post.
Ah, OK.
Imagine for a moment that the cops had not been so stupid and had actually done some real detective wrk such that, by the time Julie stepped forward, they already had enough on JB not to need her. In that scenario, I suspect her experience may have bee radically different and that she may have found herself in the dock beside him. As you say, without her, they had no case. Even with her and a highly favourable summing up they only got home by 10-2. They needed her alright. She was a very, very lucky person who stared into the abyss and withdrew just in time.
-
Well, given that Jeremy told her immediately after - she knew from then.
I meant about it having been worthwhile-cashwise.
-
Bribery and corruption. JM wasn't going to say no to having her slate wiped clean at the offer of a few thousand is she ? This was more her train of thought more than the case itself I bet.
-
Also anglolawyer , it u can get your hands on the trial transcripts i would like to see them too. Please !!!
-
Ah, OK.
Imagine for a moment that the cops had not been so stupid and had actually done some real detective wrk such that, by the time Julie stepped forward, they already had enough on JB not to need her. In that scenario, I suspect her experience may have bee radically different and that she may have found herself in the dock beside him. As you say, without her, they had no case. Even with her and a highly favourable summing up they only got home by 10-2. They needed her alright. She was a very, very lucky person who stared into the abyss and withdrew just in time.
I agree - they 'could' have both ended up in the same boat!
-
I agree lookout and furthermore i dont believe jb would have let her get away with it if she was an accomplish. If the evidence was that stacked against him and his lawyers knew that he would have told them about her involvement.
One thing i read recently was that you had to meet jb to know hes guilty and thats sort of stuck with me so maybe its his personality thats not allowing me to see his guilt.
i was reading his interviews yesterday and i couldnt make my mind up if he was just being cocky or just amazed at being in that position . I felt i could hear him sighing as if to say for gods sake you surely cant believe that i killed them can you. On the otherhand he didnt seem to be trying very hard in those interviews to make them believe him and i found that odd. If he was tryig to protect himself he should have said no comment but it seeseemed he was quite happy to answer all tbe questions which imo was the wrong thi g to do if guilty.
The thing is,Notsure,Jeremy was brought up in an era when there were no such things as " rights " so therefore when he gave his interviews he was " matter of fact " in all he said without the need to go off on a tangent shouting and stamping his feet about his rights etc. There was no need to put emphasis on anything when he was telling the truth. He's remained diplomatic at all times and this is his way and probably the way his father was as a magistrate. I would think that Jeremy has thought a lot of how his father would have reacted in the same situation and because he doesn't display any outbursts or outpourings of " poor me " is what people can't understand.
" Cockiness " can also indicate that he's sure of himself,which I can understand and not the cheekiness that it's being mistaken for.
The reason his answers just flowed off his tongue was that he was being truthful and didn't know any different other than to answer with the truth.
If he knew then as he obviously knows now he wouldn't have uttered a word knowing how it can and is twisted. I feel damn sorry for him as what could be worse than knowing that you're telling the truth and nobody's listening.
-
Maggie I'd have put JM's behaviour down to the fact that he was wholly innocent and she knew that. This was pure spite at its worst but I don't believe that she'd realised that the case would go as far as it did and it was too late to retract what she'd already said. Some people can live with that.
I would have agreed with you at one time Lookout but Julie has always bothered me, if she was capable of doing such a dreadful thing as to take a man's life away from him she was a very nasty individual.
Why has JB never spoken out about her and accused her of doing such a thing? It's like a gap in his behaviour that you wouldn't expect, he was furious with Colin for believing he was guilty but still not a word against Julie... why? All I have heard is him saying she shouldn't have done that which is a strange comment against someone who has lied and sent him to prison for life.
I believe he didn't accuse Julie because to prove it he would have had to admit his own guilt when he obviously copes by believing sometime, somewhere, somehow he will find a way of getting out of prison. If he admits he did it he's there til he dies and he will have lost the struggle which probably keeps him going and his life would be in danger as a child killer, while he denies it he is probably safe enough.
-
I would have agreed with you at one time Lookout but Julie has always bothered me, if she was capable of doing such a dreadful thing as to take a man's life away from him she was a very nasty individual.
Why has JB never spoken out about her and accused her of doing such a thing? It's like a gap in his behaviour that you wouldn't expect, he was furious with Colin for believing he was guilty but still not a word against Julie... why? All I have heard is him saying she shouldn't have done that which is a strange comment against someone who has lied and sent him to prison for life.
I believe he didn't accuse Julie because to prove it he would have had to admit his own guilt when he obviously copes by believing sometime, somewhere, somehow he will find a way of getting out of prison. If he admits he did it he's there til he dies and he will have lost the struggle which probably keeps him going and his life would be in danger as a child killer, while he denies it he is probably safe enough.
Maggie great post one with which I agree Jeremy was unable to say much about Julie without incriminating himself he had very little to say about her which I found rather strange.
-
There was something in his interviews when asked if he still loved julie and he replied no comment. Also about conracting her.
we dont know what he said about her really do we. Its strange
-
I would have agreed with you at one time Lookout but Julie has always bothered me, if she was capable of doing such a dreadful thing as to take a man's life away from him she was a very nasty individual.
Why has JB never spoken out about her and accused her of doing such a thing? It's like a gap in his behaviour that you wouldn't expect, he was furious with Colin for believing he was guilty but still not a word against Julie... why? All I have heard is him saying she shouldn't have done that which is a strange comment against someone who has lied and sent him to prison for life.
I believe he didn't accuse Julie because to prove it he would have had to admit his own guilt when he obviously copes by believing sometime, somewhere, somehow he will find a way of getting out of prison. If he admits he did it he's there til he dies and he will have lost the struggle which probably keeps him going and his life would be in danger as a child killer, while he denies it he is probably safe enough.
I, too, find it odd that he's said nothing, Maggie. He's slagged off just about everyone else involved but barely a WORD about his erstwhile lover who put the final and most damaging nail in his coffin. I feel perfectly certain it wasn't because he was a gentleman. Could it have been that by dropping her in it, he'd have had to reveal his own part in it?
-
Maggie great post one with which I agree Jeremy was unable to say much about Julie without incriminating himself he had very little to say about her which I found rather strange.
Cheers, suse I know you have come to this way of thinking as well. :)
-
I would have agreed with you at one time Lookout but Julie has always bothered me, if she was capable of doing such a dreadful thing as to take a man's life away from him she was a very nasty individual.
Why has JB never spoken out about her and accused her of doing such a thing? It's like a gap in his behaviour that you wouldn't expect, he was furious with Colin for believing he was guilty but still not a word against Julie... why? All I have heard is him saying she shouldn't have done that which is a strange comment against someone who has lied and sent him to prison for life.
I believe he didn't accuse Julie because to prove it he would have had to admit his own guilt when he obviously copes by believing sometime, somewhere, somehow he will find a way of getting out of prison. If he admits he did it he's there til he dies and he will have lost the struggle which probably keeps him going and his life would be in danger as a child killer, while he denies it he is probably safe enough.
Maggie,I think Jeremy would have brought down Julie if there'd been any truth in the remarks which he's supposed to have said,as well as her for " having known ".It wouldn't have been a question of him dobbing her in,nobody can be as loyal as that,nor as stupid as to take the wrap for someone else's crime.
Julie knows that it wasn't him and Jeremy would have pleaded with her to admit that she'd have known he was totally innocent. " She shouldn't have done that " would have referred to what was in her statement ( that we know about ) because she was angry and wanted to hurt him. She'd have been coerced into dishing the dirt in order to receive her bounty. There was no admission on her part and there certainly hasn't been on Jeremy's,nor will there be.
I'd say it's just as well that she's miles away. Although this isn't going to go away.
-
Maggie,I think Jeremy would have brought down Julie if there'd been any truth in the remarks which he's supposed to have said,as well as her for " having known ".It wouldn't have been a question of him dobbing her in,nobody can be as loyal as that,nor as stupid as to take the wrap for someone else's crime.
Julie knows that it wasn't him and Jeremy would have pleaded with her to admit that she'd have known he was totally innocent. " She shouldn't have done that " would have referred to what was in her statement ( that we know about ) because she was angry and wanted to hurt him. She'd have been coerced into dishing the dirt in order to receive her bounty. There was no admission on her part and there certainly hasn't been on Jeremy's,nor will there be.
I'd say it's just as well that she's miles away. Although this isn't going to go away.
But why has he never pleaded with her, why no denouncement and continual attack on her because she did put him in jail, there is little doubt about this. I cannot understand his attitude to JM, if she has lied and stolen his life from him. :-\
-
Maggie,I think Jeremy would have brought down Julie if there'd been any truth in the remarks which he's supposed to have said,as well as her for " having known ".It wouldn't have been a question of him dobbing her in,nobody can be as loyal as that,nor as stupid as to take the wrap for someone else's crime.
Julie knows that it wasn't him and Jeremy would have pleaded with her to admit that she'd have known he was totally innocent. " She shouldn't have done that " would have referred to what was in her statement ( that we know about ) because she was angry and wanted to hurt him. She'd have been coerced into dishing the dirt in order to receive her bounty. There was no admission on her part and there certainly hasn't been on Jeremy's,nor will there be.
I'd say it's just as well that she's miles away. Although this isn't going to go away.
You make him sound as if he's in rehearsal for the Papal Crown. A saint he ain't.
-
I, too, find it odd that he's said nothing, Maggie. He's slagged off just about everyone else involved but barely a WORD about his erstwhile lover who put the final and most damaging nail in his coffin. I feel perfectly certain it wasn't because he was a gentleman. Could it have been that by dropping her in it, he'd have had to reveal his own part in it?
I'm afraid that may be the case, Jane.
Hate saying all this but after 3 years thinking and trying to find answers this is the only conclusion I can come to but I may be wrong. :-\
-
I'm afraid that may be the case, Jane.
Hate saying all this but after 3 years thinking and trying to find answers this is the only conclusion I can come to but I may be wrong. :-\
Maggie, I didn't feel too comfortable when I first started to think he was guilty. In the end I guess I ran out of making excuses for him and it was actually a relief. Someone more famous than I once said something along the lines of "When everything else has been stripped away, whatever is left, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, is the truth." I'm convinced that's what I've arrived at.
-
There was something in his interviews when asked if he still loved julie and he replied no comment. Also about conracting her.
we dont know what he said about her really do we. Its strange
It is weird notsure, we all have to reach our own opinions over time and I have certainly veered many times and may do again. Strangely for me at the moment it's Julie Mugford who has caused me to believe in JB's guilt because I believe in hers. :(
-
Maggie, I didn't feel too comfortable when I first started to think he was guilty. In the end I guess I ran out of making excuses for him and it was actually a relief. Someone more famous than I once said something along the lines of "When everything else has been stripped away, whatever is left, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, is the truth." I'm convinced that's what I've arrived at.
As I have just said Jane, strangely it's because I believe JM to be guilty that I believe JB is as well but it's only my opinion, I am not accusing her of anything.
-
My principal reasons for favouring guilt are Mugford's evidence, which I see as credible, even though she had ample reason to lie, the unexplained delay in calling the police and the failure to call 999. Mugford makes better sense if she was involved in the murders as an accomplice. That reconciles the peculiar duality of her behaviour and her account. For instance, the temazapam story in which, knowing why he wanted to test it on himself she allowed him to do so. In my opinion, she very likely sourced the temazapam specifically at his request but slightly modified the story for the benefit of the cops.
Don't forget the fact that he called Julie before police but lied claiming he called police first.
There is nothing to suggest she was lying about providing him with the sleeping pills to use on himself to help him sleep because he was having sleeping problems. His misinterpretation of her doing so to help aid him provided insight into his mind though- he thought she was on his side with respect to the murders even though she told him to stop talking about it.
It started out with him complaining about his family, that escalating to say he wanted to kill them and burn them out of the house and ultimately culminated in his plan to shoot them. He either didn't explain every last detail he planned to her or she didn't fully listen to him because she didn't think he was serious and she missed things. That means she missed out on a chance to provide even more clarity.
The information he provided to her after the murders was limited so only of general use not the kind of details that would explain in full what had happened. So she is useless to some mysteries like about the burns to Nevill. He didn't want her to think he was so cold blooded as to kill the twins so made up the hit man story. This limited the details he could provide without revealing he had actually killed them personally. This makes her of limited use in the killing details she mostly could only say what he told her about before the killings. Saying tonight was the night and calling her afterwards before even calling police is pretty bad but that doesn't answer why he did certain things he did. PERHAPS the hitman story also was insurance to keep her quiet because he told her if she talked the hitman would get her and he figured if she did tell such story to police it would not hurt him. I say perhaps because these ideas might not have figured into his reason for making it up. They simply might be benefits he realized later. He could have made it up simply so she didn't think he was so cold as to kill his nephews personally. He knew that aspect disturbed her.
I tend to think that if he didn't trust her he would not have told her tonight is the night or called after the murders before even calling police so I doubt he was worried too much about her ratting him out to police. For this reason it seems to me that the hitman lie as mainly for her benefit so she could remain comfortable with him and not know he was as cold blooded as he was.
His behavior with Julie is easy to explain. Many men confide in their lovers/souses plenty even confide in their hookers. Jeremy needed someone to confide in and complain to. She knew about his other bad things including drugs and robbing the caravan site so trusted her. Interestingly she is not the only one he complained to about his parents. He did so to farm workers, Colin and others. Extremely interesting is he even told farm workers he would never share his inheritance with Sheila's side of the family. He said such to them not that long before the murders so they recalled it. This shows he was not very disciplined. If he was not disciplined enough to keep quiet to such people little wonder he could not keep quiet to Julie.
Julie's behavior is understandable as well. It is very common for people to not rat out loved ones immediately. Loved ones (whether lovers, other family relations or very close friends simply) always have a dilemma in what to do when faced with knowledge their loved ones have done wrong. They don't want to lose the loved one (a selfish response) and want to help such loved one because they don't want their loved one to suffer. This results in not only people often remaining silent but also being willing to lie or actively help dispose of evidence including bodies.
Breaking up eliminated the strongest motivation for her to protect Jeremy. Still things she told police could have been used against her but she admitted such things anyway and let the chips fall where they may.
Nothing in this case is unique and not seen before.
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
He called her around 3 for 2 reasons: 1) he was excited/wired and needed to tell someone about it. 2) to use her to bolster his alibi by saying, "I really did receive a call from WHF and truly concerned by it as proven by the fact that I called Julie to tell her I was upset because I received a call."
It is plainly obvious this is what he had in mind because around 6AM before police had gone inside and found the bodies he told Julie not to go to work because he would need her to speak to police to tell them about his earlier call. As plain as day he was using that call to her to prop up his alibi. This backfired big time not only because if really worried he should not have called her at all but instead to have rushed over to WHF but even worse yet, they were able to figure out he called her before police. If truly concerned you call police not your girlfriend who can't do anything and doesn't even care about the victims. That he was caught in the lie of saying he called police before her only makes it even worse.
Since he woke Julie up she was not fully awake and didn't appreciate everything he said so he could have said more that she failed to hear/recall. Surely he said more than just something is wrong at the farm he claimed he received a call from the farm. But he told her other things he didn't want her to spill to police such as that he had bee up all night and in saying the plan is going well he meant his plan to kill them quite clearly- something he surely didn't want her to tell police. So he wasn't merely using her as a dupe to support his alibi he was excited and needed to tell someone what he had done to share his excitement. He was like a guy who got a hole in one in golf and needed to tell someone.
Julie admits:
1) he long told her he was planning to kill them
2) he told her his plan involved receiving a phone call from WHF
3) that mere hours before the murders he told her tonight was the night it is now or never
4) he called her around 3Am saying the plan was going well
So in Jeremy's mind Julie knew he was going to kill them that night and telling her he was notified there was trouble at the farm and that the plan was going well was his way of telling her they had been killed.
Julie says:
A) she thought he was just blowing off steam in his talk about killing them she didn't think he was serious thus didn't appreciate he was meant it that he was going to kill them that night
B) She was still half asleep and didn't appreciate what he was telling her until after she hung up and thought about what he had said.
This is the issue where she potentially could have been guilty of perverting justice depending upon what she knew and intended.
If he explained to her in detail that he was going to pretend he received a phone call from Nevill and then he would phone her to pretend he called her because Nevill's call worried her and she would need to tell police about it and then she followed through telling them such it would constitute perverting justice or what is called Obstructing Justice in the US.
This is where one has to wonder:
1) Prior to the murders did Jeremy fully explain his plan of a phony call to her or not explain in detail and just say his plan involved receiving a call from WHF like Julie contended?
2) If he did tell her more than Julie contended did she fail to understand everything he was saying about the call or did she understand but later play dumb in order to avoid a charge of perverting Justice?
On her side is the fact that he had to call her back at 6AM to tell her not to go to work. If they had prearranged things then he would not have needed to do that. On the other hand he could have told her during that 6AM call that he made up receiving a call from Nevill and needed her to back it up.
Since she was willing to admit the other crimes she was involved in I tend to think she would have admitted to lying for him about the call if he had asked her to do so. I think part of how she rationalized her actions in her own mind prior to telling police the full story was by telling herself she wasn't lying to police she simply wasn't telling them everything she knew.
Her involvement also better explains her hesitancy in coming forward. She took an enormous gamble in doing that. The police might have decided to go after her too or she might have faced liability for malicious prosecution. I don't think being jilted was enough to explain her actions.
I think the answer is much more simple. She loved him and didn't want to lose him so initially was willing to not tell police everything she knew in order to protect him so they could still be together. As time passed she had mixed emotions about it all. Even as they fought she still loved him and wanted to try to make it a go. She tried to use the fact she knew the truth as leverage but he responded back that the hitman would get her if she talked and police would never believe her anyway he had committed the perfect crime without leaving any evidence.
After they broke up she still loved him so didn't rush out to immediately rat on him. But a major motivation for her not telling police everything evaporated- the motivation of not talking so that they could remain together.
The characterization of her talking to police is in the following manner:
1) She told her friend about how Jeremy was responsible
2) Her friend ran to the police
3) Police then sought her out to ask her about the things the friend told them
4) She spoke to her mother to tryt o figure out what to do and her mother told her to tell the truth and went with her to police
This is hardly a case of her feeling bad and just running to police to do the right thing. It's more a case of police getting the truth in a roundabout way and her deciding to give up the farce then.
Jeremy didn't need her help in carrying out the murders and I doubt she took part in any way in the planning. What she could have left out doing is telling him it was a good idea and encouraging him to carry the murders out. That is realistically the limit of what she might have done. If she had done that I think he would have provided her with more details though than he actually did and he would not have been scared to admit he killed them personally. The story about a hitman seems to have been primarily to quell her unease that he knew she had. That's inconsistent with her encouraging him. Though I don't think she encouraged him there are 2 plausible motives for her supporting his actions:
1) he broke off their engagement because they liked the idea and he didn't want to please them. So she could potentially believe with them dead he would then marry her
2) she could want him to inherit the money so he could then spend it on her.
She didn't seem like the type of person worried about him being rich to spoil her and nothing else to suggest she encouraged him for these reasons I am just listing them for the sake of completeness.
Anyway, if she made up her account, she sure did a bad job of keeping herself out of it. Even taken at face value she was admitting very serious offences involving concealment and assistance following the crime. It is remarkable that she was not prosecuted for those but, maybe not, as it was in nobody's interests to pursue the question of her involvement - not Bamber's and not the cops'.
The crimes she admitted to in her statement were unrelated to the murders and not very serious. With respect to the murders all she admitted to was knowing more than she told police she didn't admit to lying to police. She was very careful to say she didn't lie to police but rather didn't tell them everything she knew. he only potential issue where she could have lied pertained to the phone call. I already highlighted how that would have amounted to perverting justice if she knew he made up the phone call from Nevill and was lying for hi to pretend he received such a call and it worried him. That's realistically the only thing where lying to police to benefit him could come into play.
Whether Bamber received a fair trial is a separate and important question on which I have not formed a strong opinion due to not reading enough about it. I've read the 2002 appeal which describes and then dismisses a litany of errors and inadequacies in the conduct of the case. There are substantial concerns about the provenance of 'the' moderator, the state of Sheila's body when found and so on. It beggars belief that the scene was cleared of blood stained carpet and wallpaper the next day and the cretinous fumbling of Essex police, even to the extent of being unable to write down the time correctly, is truly staggering.
Nonetheless, through all that fog of blundering incompetence and perhaps worse, the theory that seems to fit best is that he did it with her knowledge and assistance as far as the alibi is concerned. That's where I am with this one.
None of the supposed police errors have anything do with legal issues of whether he got a fair trial though. The errors are raised to create general suspicions and then giant leaps are made therefore. many of the errors aren't even errors.
For instance, police moving Sheila's arm to take photos of the blood on her gown that was concealed by her arm and the gun was not an error at all. Removing the gun from her body after this was not an error either. Her body could not remain there forever it had to be moved.
Police account:
1) Sheila's body was on the floor with the gun across her body
2) Photos were taken of her before she was moved
3) Her arm and the gun were moved enough to see the blood on her gown then photos were taken
4) the gun was removed and placed against the wall and photos taken of the rooms revealed the gun in the location where police put it
Allegations by Jeremy supporters:
1) Police planted the gun on her body it was not originally on her body. This allegation features the claim the photo police say was taken last taken first so the gun was against the wall initially.
This is a stupid allegation not only because all the police who saw her noted the gun was on her and also because if true it would be absolute proof that Sheila was murdered. She died instantly from the 2nd shot there is no way for her to have committed suicide with a gun that was found far away from her body.
2) Sheila's body was in the bed but was moved to the floor by police.
This is another stupid allegation. A pool of blood on the floor proves that is where she died. All police who saw her body say it was on the floor and police had no reason to relocate her body to the floor.
3) Sheila's body was slightly moved by police prior to the crime scene photos being taken. This allegation has some variation. Some claim police picked up the gun to check if it was loaded hen put it back on top of her in slightly different position than it had been. Other say they moved her head a little to look her over or her arms. These claims have no support but even if true have no significance at all to the prosecution. If her head was at a slightly different angle or her hands at a slightly different angle is makes no difference it doesn't make it possible for her to have committed suicide.
The only significant issue is the moderator and you will find that most of the claims made about the moderator by Jeremy supporters end up being sheer nonsense. The favorite claim is that police had multiple moderators. The truth is that the police changed the exhibit number of the moderator. Some Jeremy supporters use this to craft wild allegations that make no sense and since they have no evidentiary support could not be made to an Appeals Court. The most wild claims are used simply for propaganda purposes to try to get public support as opposed to being used in legal proceedings.
-
You make him sound as if he's in rehearsal for the Papal Crown. A saint he ain't.
It's not my intention to make him out to be a saint. I'm not in the habit of making anyone a saint for that matter,it's not in my make-up to be like that. Putting people on pedestals isn't my style.
It just so happens to be the way I see his situation.
-
The thing is,Notsure,Jeremy was brought up in an era when there were no such things as " rights " so therefore when he gave his interviews he was " matter of fact " in all he said without the need to go off on a tangent shouting and stamping his feet about his rights etc. There was no need to put emphasis on anything when he was telling the truth. He's remained diplomatic at all times and this is his way and probably the way his father was as a magistrate. I would think that Jeremy has thought a lot of how his father would have reacted in the same situation and because he doesn't display any outbursts or outpourings of " poor me " is what people can't understand.
" Cockiness " can also indicate that he's sure of himself,which I can understand and not the cheekiness that it's being mistaken for.
The reason his answers just flowed off his tongue was that he was being truthful and didn't know any different other than to answer with the truth.
If he knew then as he obviously knows now he wouldn't have uttered a word knowing how it can and is twisted. I feel damn sorry for him as what could be worse than knowing that you're telling the truth and nobody's listening.
It's not my intention to make him out to be a saint. I'm not in the habit of making anyone a saint for that matter,it's not in my make-up to be like that. Putting people on pedestals isn't my style.
It just so happens to be the way I see his situation.
It may not be your intention, Lookout, but it's how your posts read. You are unforgiving of everyone involved, BUT Jeremy, and for him you appear to pull out every excuse in the book.
-
She may not have explicitly admitted to anything but her initial statement exposed her to prosecution for assisting an offender under s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4
As you well know this is not a law that requires people who believe/know someone is guilty to tell police all the information they possess. It simply makes it illegal to provide a false alibi, to help destroy evidence or to otherwise lie to cover for the person. This provision is essentially the same as perverting justice. It doesn't expand liability to situations beyond those covered by perverting justice.
The only issue where she potentially could have lied to protect Jeremy is regarding the phone call. If she knew Jeremy didn't receive a call from Nevill and agreed to lie saying he called her to say he received a call from Nevill and it worried him then telling police he said he received a call from Nevill and it worried him would amount to lying to aid him escape liability. Similarly if he told her over the phone that he killed them all and she made up that he told her he was worried because something was wrong at the farm then that is lying to help him escape liability. This is the only thing she initially spoke to police about where they could try to nail her.
Naturally her account is that he told her he received a call from Nevill she didn't know he made it up at the time he spoke to police. The only one who could contradict her is Jeremy and he would have to admit his own guilt to contradict her so it will never happen.
-
But why has he never pleaded with her, why no denouncement and continual attack on her because she did put him in jail, there is little doubt about this. I cannot understand his attitude to JM, if she has lied and stolen his life from him. :-\
There wouldn't have been any point on his part to have verbally attacked her it could well have worsened his case more so. He probably couldn't understand why she'd said what she did,without cause.
He didn't imagine in his wildest dreams that he would have been blamed and imprisoned for as long as he has,or even at all.
Has Julie put it in writing that he's guilty ?
-
It may not be your intention, Lookout, but it's how your posts read. You are unforgiving of everyone involved, BUT Jeremy, and for him you appear to pull out every excuse in the book.
They're bound to look like excuses to you and everyone else who sees him guilty,so surely I too am with in my right to support him when I know he's innocent and am entitled to my say ?
-
Your so-called facts are also excuses as far as I'm concerned with heaps of nit-picking thrown in for good measure but I don't pass remarks or pull you up with every post you make.
-
As you well know this is not a law that requires people who believe/know someone is guilty to tell police all the information they possess. It simply makes it illegal to provide a false alibi, to help destroy evidence or to otherwise lie to cover for the person. This provision is essentially the same as perverting justice. It doesn't expand liability to situations beyond those covered by perverting justice.
The only issue where she potentially could have lied to protect Jeremy is regarding the phone call. If she knew Jeremy didn't receive a call from Nevill and agreed to lie saying he called her to say he received a call from Nevill and it worried him then telling police he said he received a call from Nevill and it worried him would amount to lying to aid him escape liability. Similarly if he told her over the phone that he killed them all and she made up that he told her he was worried because something was wrong at the farm then that is lying to help him escape liability. This is the only thing she initially spoke to police about where they could try to nail her.
Naturally her account is that he told her he received a call from Nevill she didn't know he made it up at the time he spoke to police. The only one who could contradict her is Jeremy and he would have to admit his own guilt to contradict her so it will never happen.
On page 2 of her 08 Aug statement she says (truthfully) they spoke on the evening of 06 Aug and said (untruthfully) he made no mention of his family other than that he had had dinner with them. She committed the offence right there. Further, on the same page of her statement, she refers to the call in the early hours of 07 Aug and failed to mention that he said 'everything's going well'. IOW she had clear and relevant information concerning his involvement which she concealed by lying.
-
There wouldn't have been any point on his part to have verbally attacked her it could well have worsened his case more so. He probably couldn't understand why she'd said what she did,without cause.
He didn't imagine in his wildest dreams that he would have been blamed and imprisoned for as long as he has,or even at all.
Has Julie put it in writing that he's guilty ?
There is no need, as things stand now, for Julie to have any further involvement with the Bamber case. Why would she wish to draw attention to her past when there are probably very few who are aware of what she was doing 30 years ago in another country. Saying absolutely nothing would be the intelligent thing to do, not just for her own sake, but for that of her husband and children but her family who still live here.
-
There is nothing to suggest she was lying about providing him with the sleeping pills to use on himself to help him sleep because he was having sleeping problems. His misinterpretation of her doing so to help aid him provided insight into his mind though- he thought she was on his side with respect to the murders even though she told him to stop talking about it.
He had an earlier plan to kill the family and it involved giving them sleeping pills; so are you saying that Julie gets sleeping pills from her doctor saying she had trouble sleeping but gives them to Jeremy, all without even thinking about his suggested plan? If they were to aid Jeremy with troubled sleeping patterns, why didn't he just get his own pills? Too much of a coincidence and I don't believe it.
-
Scipio i havent read the whole of your post but just a point i would make is that JB did say on more than several occasions he couldnt remenber the sequence of phone calls and that he was confused about it but the police kept askibg him over and over,
i was confused by the time id finished reading it. Its all very well to say he lied to the police but the questioning on this subject was very intense. You can hear that he was tired and days later they were still asking him the same question , im not sure how any of us would react to that intense questioning.
to give an example a politician this week was explaining her reaction when her son died of cot death but the police were asking her questions and she said her mind went blank. Shd couldn't remember telephone numbers of her family and was nearly paralysed with shock. I would imagine there was some shock in jeremy dont u agree.
-
There is no need, as things stand now, for Julie to have any further involvement with the Bamber case. Why would she wish to draw attention to her past when there are probably very few who are aware of what she was doing 30 years ago in another country. Saying absolutely nothing would be the intelligent thing to do, not just for her own sake, but for that of her husband and children but her family who still live here.
Julie is well aware of what's going on presently and has done over the years,so out of decency and even closure for herself and family,to do the decent thing would have been to tell the world that he's guilty and be done with. Afterall indirectly it's she who's holding things up and who could put an end to this once and for all.
I've heard that she won't commit herself one way or the other.
-
He had an earlier plan to kill the family and it involved giving them sleeping pills; so are you saying that Julie gets sleeping pills from her doctor saying she had trouble sleeping but gives them to Jeremy, all without even thinking about his suggested plan? If they were to aid Jeremy with troubled sleeping patterns, why didn't he just get his own pills? Too much of a coincidence and I don't believe it.
It also occurs to me that, whilst it's extremely unlikely to find evidence of her lying re the sleeping pills, there was no chance of her visiting her doctor to get sleeping pill for someone who was capable of getting their own FROM THEIR OWN DOCTOR, she was hardly going to ask her doctor for sleeping pills for her boyfriend to kill his family, however, it DOESN'T mean it wasn't in her mind.
-
They're bound to look like excuses to you and everyone else who sees him guilty,so surely I too am with in my right to support him when I know he's innocent and am entitled to my say ?
I can see what you are saying Lookout and I have said the same. I have changed my mind but that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. I may change my mind again but at the moment I do believe Julie Mugford was involved so therefore JB has to have been.
-
Julie is well aware of what's going on presently and has done over the years,so out of decency and even closure for herself and family,to do the decent thing would have been to tell the world that he's guilty and be done with. Afterall indirectly it's she who's holding things up and who could put an end to this once and for all.
I've heard that she won't commit herself one way or the other.
Lookout, you know I have neither love nor liking for Julie, but why on earth you think she should put herself through, once again telling the world he's guilty when she's ALREADY stood up in court and said it 30 years ago, is beyond me. She has no need to further commit herself. He was found guilty.
-
I can see what you are saying Lookout and I have said the same. I have changed my mind but that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. I may change my mind again but I do believe Julie Mugford was involved so therefore JB has to have been.
That's fine by me Maggie. I don't believe that Julie was involved at all as she had no idea whatsoever what was to happen. There had to be someone to take the blame and Jeremy drew the short straw. :(
-
Scipio i havent read the whole of your post but just a point i would make is that JB did say on more than several occasions he couldnt remenber the sequence of phone calls and that he was confused about it but the police kept askibg him over and over,
i was confused by the time id finished reading it. Its all very well to say he lied to the police but the questioning on this subject was very intense. You can hear that he was tired and days later they were still asking him the same question , im not sure how any of us would react to that intense questioning.
to give an example a politician this week was explaining her reaction when her son died of cot death but the police were asking her questions and she said her mind went blank. Shd couldn't remember telephone numbers of her family and was nearly paralysed with shock. I would imagine there was some shock in jeremy dont u agree.
I always said the same notsure and if he was innocent yes he would have been in complete shock.
I agree, shock does affect us in all kinds of ways from laughing inappropriately when you are expected to cry to going out clubbing etc. That's why I don't believe the way he did or didn't grieve proved anything.
I just cannot believe the whole of EP framed him, why would they?
I could believe that after they had changed sides once and taken Taff off the case a few discovered something which may have proved his innocence and they destroyed it and kept quiet because to have to admit again they had made a mistake would probably put jobs in jeopardy but it's a long shot.
The more I think about Sheila the harder it is to believe she could have managed that gun. She could have picked up a loaded gun and fired it quite easily but once the bullets ran out she would be more likely to throw it down and bang her head against the wall than to reload the magazine etc.imo. :-\
-
I always said the same notsure and if he was innocent yes he would have been in complete shock.
I agree, shock does affect us in all kinds of ways from laughing inappropriately when you are expected to cry to going out clubbing etc. That's why I don't believe the way he did or didn't grieve proved anything.
I just cannot believe the whole of EP framed him, why would they?
I could believe that after they had changed sides once and taken Taff off the case a few discovered something which may have proved his innocence and they destroyed it and kept quiet because to have to admit again they had made a mistake would probably put jobs in jeopardy but it's a long shot.
The more I think about Sheila the harder it is to believe she could have managed that gun. She could have picked up a loaded gun and fired it quite easily but once the bullets ran out she would be more likely to throw it down and bang her head against the wall than to reload the magazine etc.imo. :-\
Neither am I prepared to believe that the whole EP force, numerous civil servants and untold private individuals combined to frame an innocent man. I think Mike listed 29(?) names involved. The longer his list becomes, the more convinced I am of Jeremy's guilt.
-
That's fine by me Maggie. I don't believe that Julie was involved at all as she had no idea whatsoever what was to happen. There had to be someone to take the blame and Jeremy drew the short straw. :(
Maybe, am not saying I am definitely right it's just my way of seeing things, I may be wrong and it worries me because if I am then I have made a big mistake.
I don't trust the police, I know they look after their own but I believe Julie knew exactly what she was doing, she was far from innocent imo.
-
On page 2 of her 08 Aug statement she says (truthfully) they spoke on the evening of 06 Aug and said (untruthfully) he made no mention of his family other than that he had had dinner with them. She committed the offence right there. Further, on the same page of her statement, she refers to the call in the early hours of 07 Aug and failed to mention that he said 'everything's going well'. IOW she had clear and relevant information concerning his involvement which she concealed by lying.
You purport to be a lawyer. You should be able to research the material elements of the crime you posted. Failing to disclose everything you know is not sufficient to constitute an act anymore than it can constitute an act under the perverting justice statute. Failing to tell everything you know is omitting evidence not making an affirmative untrue statement with the intent of the lie throwing police off.
The classic example of an affirmative statement that is a lie to throw police off is to provide a false alibi so police think someone can't have had the opportunity to commit a crime.
Not even simple lying will do. A lie must be material. It must be calculated to impede the investigation. A false alibi impedes the investigation by getting police to think that someone can't have done it.
A classic act beyond simply speaking that constitutes impeding an investigation is helping hide or dispose of evidence.
The only potential lie that she could have told police that could have impeded the investigation and thus actively played a role in misleading police concerns the claim he receive a phone call from Nevill and was worried about it. If she knew he received no such phone call and was simply making up that he was worried after receiving such call then she impeded justice by intentionally supporting the fiction he received a call from Nevill and was worried. That would be a material lie intended to throw police off by trying to get them to believe Jeremy was at his home receiving a call from Nevill and thus could not have been at the scene doing the killings.
The prosecution would need to prove that she knew the call was made up and that she knew he wasn't worried about receiving a call and agreed to lie for him about such in order to bolster his fictional alibi. Her testimony is the complete opposite of this though and Jeremy says he really did receive a call from Nevill and really was worried so obviously doesn't claim he told her to support a lie.
Aside from the fact that the lie you allege she told is not material and can't be the basis of a charge you haven't even articulated a lie.
In her September statement she reiterated that he didn't talk about his family beyond saying he had a crappy day on the tractor. What she omitted is that he told her "tonight is the night". She had no legal duty to tell police he said this to her. Failing to do so was an omission.
When one is under no legal duty to tell police anything but decides anyway to tell a lie that is aimed at
fooling the police or is under a legal duty to answer a question honestly but lies in order to fool police - like providing a false alibi- that is a statement that is made to impede justice.
Failing to tell police everything you know is not impeding justice as the term is used in the criminal statutes. A law that required people to inform police of all incriminatory evidence they knew about regarding any and all crimes or such person is guilty of a crime would create an affirmative duty to tell police everything you know but there is no such a statute. That was the legal scheme in the Soviet Union where you had to worry about family and friends turning you in the government over anything and the West considered such a horror thus would never enact such a scheme.
-
Julie is well aware of what's going on presently and has done over the years,so out of decency and even closure for herself and family,to do the decent thing would have been to tell the world that he's guilty and be done with. Afterall indirectly it's she who's holding things up and who could put an end to this once and for all.
I've heard that she won't commit herself one way or the other.
I think she would keep her head down as low as possible if she was involved because if she starts saying he's definitely guilty and she can prove it once and for all and she does, he may decide to chuck in the towel and tell her part in it all, then she really would be in the sinking sand.
-
He had an earlier plan to kill the family and it involved giving them sleeping pills; so are you saying that Julie gets sleeping pills from her doctor saying she had trouble sleeping but gives them to Jeremy, all without even thinking about his suggested plan? If they were to aid Jeremy with troubled sleeping patterns, why didn't he just get his own pills? Too much of a coincidence and I don't believe it.
Julie had the sleeping pills she didn't rush out to a doctor to get some after he told her about his plan. Nor did she turn them over to him as soon as he told her about his plan. He complained about sleeping problems so she gave him pills to take for himself.
There is no evidence to suggest that she gave him the pills so he could use them to knock out the family then set the place on fire.
-
Scipio i havent read the whole of your post but just a point i would make is that JB did say on more than several occasions he couldnt remenber the sequence of phone calls and that he was confused about it but the police kept askibg him over and over,
i was confused by the time id finished reading it. Its all very well to say he lied to the police but the questioning on this subject was very intense. You can hear that he was tired and days later they were still asking him the same question , im not sure how any of us would react to that intense questioning.
to give an example a politician this week was explaining her reaction when her son died of cot death but the police were asking her questions and she said her mind went blank. Shd couldn't remember telephone numbers of her family and was nearly paralysed with shock. I would imagine there was some shock in jeremy dont u agree.
Jeremy's changing stance on the phone call timings:
1) Told police at the scene he called police right away then called Julie
2) Put in his written statement that he called police right away then called Julie
3) In September told Taff Jones he called Julie then police
4) In September when DS Jones confronted Jeremy about his change to claiming he called Julie first he said he wanted to read his written statement to refresh his memory. he planned to read it then repeat what he had written. Police refused to show him and told him to go by his memory. He claimed he could not remember anymore so he deferred to whatever was in his written statement.
5) Testified at trial that he called police then called Julie.
So he only said he was confused in September after he screwed up and admitted the truth. He spun that as him not admitting the truth but rather just being confused and deferred to his prior lie.
Though he said in September 1985 that he could not remember anymore what had happened and as a result deferred to his written statement, in October 1986 he testified that he remembered calling Julie after calling police.
So his testimony at trial was the lie that he called Julie after police. We know this is a lie because:
1) he phoned Julie before 3:30
2) he was on the phone with police until after 3:30
Since he got off the phone with police after 3:30 and called Julie before 3:30 this means he had to have phoned Julie before calling the police.
You can try spinning this however you like but from the position of a lawyer trying to defend Jeremy it is horrible. A lawyer defending Jeremy would much prefer he admitted he called Julie before police instead of being caught in a lie. It is damning enough that he called Julie before he called police. That already is horrible but to lie about it demonstrates he knows it is horrible so decided to lie.
-
Julie had the sleeping pills she didn't rush out to a doctor to get some after he told her about his plan. Nor did she turn them over to him as soon as he told her about his plan. He complained about sleeping problems so she gave him pills to take for himself.
There is no evidence to suggest that she gave him the pills so he could use them to knock out the family then set the place on fire.
And there is one to show she didn't. She knew the plan and she still gave him the pills. Only she said he had sleeping problems.
-
There were enough sleeping pills at WHF to choke a goat.If Jeremy had had designs on dropping some in the family drinks he could have helped himself from there rather than get them on prescription.
-
Why not find out what the " quantity " of pills were that were removed from WHF by EP. Oooops,they won't tell anybody anything,will they ? They could only have been June's.
-
There were enough sleeping pills at WHF to choke a goat.If Jeremy had had designs on dropping some in the family drinks he could have helped himself from there rather than get them on prescription.
He didn't get them on prescription, he got them off Julie.
-
Why not find out what the " quantity " of pills were that were removed from WHF by EP. Oooops,they won't tell anybody anything,will they ? They could only have been June's.
You don't even know that they took ANY pills from WHF but I guess that;s something else people can claim is hidden under PII.
-
There were enough sleeping pills at WHF to choke a goat.If Jeremy had had designs on dropping some in the family drinks he could have helped himself from there rather than get them on prescription.
Without going through their medicine cabinet, Lookout, we have no way of knowing that.
-
Why not find out what the " quantity " of pills were that were removed from WHF by EP. Oooops,they won't tell anybody anything,will they ? They could only have been June's.
If Nevill suffered with back pain, there were likely to have been pain killers.
-
Jeremy's changing stance on the phone call timings:
1) Told police at the scene he called police right away then called Julie
2) Put in his written statement that he called police right away then called Julie
3) In September told Taff Jones he called Julie then police
4) In September when DS Jones confronted Jeremy about his change to claiming he called Julie first he said he wanted to read his written statement to refresh his memory. he planned to read it then repeat what he had written. Police refused to show him and told him to go by his memory. He claimed he could not remember anymore so he deferred to whatever was in his written statement.
5) Testified at trial that he called police then called Julie.
So he only said he was confused in September after he screwed up and admitted the truth. He spun that as him not admitting the truth but rather just being confused and deferred to his prior lie.
Though he said in September 1985 that he could not remember anymore what had happened and as a result deferred to his written statement, in October 1986 he testified that he remembered calling Julie after calling police.
So his testimony at trial was the lie that he called Julie after police. We know this is a lie because:
1) he phoned Julie before 3:30
2) he was on the phone with police until after 3:30
Since he got off the phone with police after 3:30 and called Julie before 3:30 this means he had to have phoned Julie before calling the police.
You can try spinning this however you like but from the position of a lawyer trying to defend Jeremy it is horrible. A lawyer defending Jeremy would much prefer he admitted he called Julie before police instead of being caught in a lie. It is damning enough that he called Julie before he called police. That already is horrible but to lie about it demonstrates he knows it is horrible so decided to lie.
For me the phone calls and the way he has chopped and changed really speaks volumes.
-
More on Assisting an Offender:
Assisting an Offender - section 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967
The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:
*the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence;
*the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence;
*the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and
*the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
It is an offence triable only on indictment unless the principal offence is an either way offence, in which case the offence of assisting a principal offender is also triable either way. The maximum sentence for the offence varies from three to ten years' imprisonment, depending on the punishment applicable to the principal offence: s.4(3).
Proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions: s.4(4). Consent may be granted after charge but must be before committal proceedings (indictable offences) or mode of trial (either way offences). Consent must be obtained before proceedings are started by way of summons. It is not an offence to attempt to commit an offence under section 4.
Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of assisting an offender include:
*hiding a principal offender;
*otherwise assisting a principal offender to avoid arrest;
*assisting a principal offender to abscond from bail;
*lying to the police to protect principal offenders from investigation and prosecution;
*hiding the weapon used in an assault/robbery;
*washing clothes worn by a principal offender to obstruct any potential forensic examination.
There may be an overlap between the offence of assisting an offender and obstructing a constable, wasting police time, concealing arrestable offences (s.5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967) and perverting the course of justice .
The courts have made it clear that assisting an offender is a serious offence and, if the statutory offence of assisting an offender can be charged, it should normally be preferred over common law offences.
However, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice should be considered when:
*the assisting is aimed at preventing or hindering the trial process (as opposed to the arrest or apprehension of an accused);
*the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers for the statutory offence are considered inadequate;
*admissible evidence of the principle offence is lacking
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a26
-
You don't even know that they took ANY pills from WHF but I guess that;s something else people can claim is hidden under PII.
Not to defend lookout's claims that WHF was a glorified medicine storage closet, but she is correct about it being said that there sleeping pills at WHF. Julie's claims were that Jeremy contemplated using his mother's sleeping pills:
(http://s28.postimg.org/mlt2y5fd9/juliea.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/gmyry95ux/julieb.jpg)
(http://s4.postimg.org/chkhmwqrh/juliec.jpg)
Her timing of things are as follows:
1) Between July and September 1984, prior to her moving Jeremy had told her he would like to kill everyone so he could inherit all their property and thought about using June's sleeping pills to knock them out, to shoot them and burn the place down.
2) In October she was prescribed sleeping pills because she couldn't sleep. The weekend after she got them she brought them with her to Goldhanger and complained to Jeremy about how they were big and hard to swallow and didn't help and how she was unhappy with the doctor.
3) She left them at Goldhanger and Jeremy decided to taste them to see if he could use them and told her they were no good and when he told her they were no good he said the pills she brought him to use on the family was no good so this showed he was under the impression she brought them for him to use on the family though she didn't.
She said in retrospect she should have realized by this he was actually serious about his desire to kill them but she said she didn't want to believe that at the time so closed her eyes to it as a warning sign.
-
You don't even know that they took ANY pills from WHF but I guess that;s something else people can claim is hidden under PII.
I think that's in Wilkes's book.
-
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
I'm not sure I understand this. If Julie was a co-conspirator why would Jeremy have to use the code "there's something wrong at the Farm" when we know from his behaviour subsequently he was cock-a-hoop at how the nocturnal events had proceeded?
-
You purport to be a lawyer. You should be able to research the material elements of the crime you posted. Failing to disclose everything you know is not sufficient to constitute an act anymore than it can constitute an act under the perverting justice statute. Failing to tell everything you know is omitting evidence not making an affirmative untrue statement with the intent of the lie throwing police off.
The classic example of an affirmative statement that is a lie to throw police off is to provide a false alibi so police think someone can't have had the opportunity to commit a crime.
Not even simple lying will do. A lie must be material. It must be calculated to impede the investigation. A false alibi impedes the investigation by getting police to think that someone can't have done it.
A classic act beyond simply speaking that constitutes impeding an investigation is helping hide or dispose of evidence.
The only potential lie that she could have told police that could have impeded the investigation and thus actively played a role in misleading police concerns the claim he receive a phone call from Nevill and was worried about it. If she knew he received no such phone call and was simply making up that he was worried after receiving such call then she impeded justice by intentionally supporting the fiction he received a call from Nevill and was worried. That would be a material lie intended to throw police off by trying to get them to believe Jeremy was at his home receiving a call from Nevill and thus could not have been at the scene doing the killings.
The prosecution would need to prove that she knew the call was made up and that she knew he wasn't worried about receiving a call and agreed to lie for him about such in order to bolster his fictional alibi. Her testimony is the complete opposite of this though and Jeremy says he really did receive a call from Nevill and really was worried so obciously doesn't claim he told her to support a lie.
Aside from the fact that the lie you allege she told is not material and can't be the basis of a charge you haven't even articulated a lie.
In her September statement she reiterated that he didn't talk about his family beyond saying he had a crappy day on the tractor. What she omitted is that he told her "tonight is the night". She had no legal duty to tell police he said this to her. Failing to do so was an omission.
When one is under no legal duty to tell police anything but decides anyway to tell a lie that is aimed at
fooling the police or is under a legal duty to answer a question honestly but lies in order to fool police - like providing a false alibi- that is a statement that is made to impede justice.
Failing to tell police everything you know is not impeding justice as the term is used in the criminal statutes. A law that required people to provide police to inform police of all incriminatory evidence they knew about regarding any and all crimes or such person is guilty of a crime would create an affirmative duty ti tell police everything you know but there is no such a statute. That was the law scheme in the Soviet Union and the West considered it a horror and would never enact such a scheme.
I see the force of your argument. I shall ruminate awhile.
-
Ah, OK.
Imagine for a moment that the cops had not been so stupid and had actually done some real detective wrk such that, by the time Julie stepped forward, they already had enough on JB not to need her. In that scenario, I suspect her experience may have bee radically different and that she may have found herself in the dock beside him. As you say, without her, they had no case. Even with her and a highly favourable summing up they only got home by 10-2. They needed her alright. She was a very, very lucky person who stared into the abyss and withdrew just in time.
I'm not sure I accept this either. Julie's evidence was doubted by Mr. Justice Drake. It was always Robert Boutflour's case in my opinion,fomented by his contacts in the higher echelons of society and underpinned by the dubious silencer.
-
Julie had the sleeping pills she didn't rush out to a doctor to get some after he told her about his plan. Nor did she turn them over to him as soon as he told her about his plan. He complained about sleeping problems so she gave him pills to take for himself.
There is no evidence to suggest that she gave him the pills so he could use them to knock out the family then set the place on fire.
No but didn't she dismiss that idea not on any grounds of principle but because the house was underinsured?
-
Ah, OK.
Imagine for a moment that the cops had not been so stupid and had actually done some real detective wrk such that, by the time Julie stepped forward, they already had enough on JB not to need her. In that scenario, I suspect her experience may have bee radically different and that she may have found herself in the dock beside him. As you say, without her, they had no case. Even with her and a highly favourable summing up they only got home by 10-2. They needed her alright. She was a very, very lucky person who stared into the abyss and withdrew just in time.
If the items were submitted to the lab faster lab and everything had come out in full before Julie spilled everything to police what could they have done to her?
The main evidence absent her:
1) The attack commenced in the master bedroom against Nevill and June with Nevill shot 4 times and June 6 then proceeded to the kitchen where Nevill was beaten until unconscious, the killer reloaded and then fired 4 more times killing him. The killer fully reloaded then went back upstairs killing the boys and Sheila.
2) Sheila was murdered
3) There is no physical evidence to support Sheila beating or killing anyone else before being murdered, she must have been murdered by the same person as the rest
4) Since Sheila didn't do it Jeremy must have made up receiving a call from Nevill and be responsible.
5) There were too many bullets left in the kitchen for Jeremy's story to be true of leaving a box of bullets in the kitchen and such being used in commission of the murders. This proves he staged the bullets as opposes to his story being true.
These are the main things. How is Julie implicated?
They might be suspicious of whether she had been in on the planning of the murders but had nothing to prove any such suspicions to be correct.
-
I'm not sure I understand this. If Julie was a co-conspirator why would Jeremy have to use the code "there's something wrong at the Farm" when we know from his behaviour subsequently he was cock-a-hoop at how the nocturnal events had proceeded?
What I am suggesting really happened is this: that Bamber and Mugford agreed what she would say he told her when he called her. And what they agreed she would say is in her witness statement 'there is something wrong at the farm', which makes perfect sense in the assumed conspiracy.
When she later, in Sep '85, came to say what he really said, she claimed it was this:
'everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm'.
The point I am making is that there is something wrong with this version in that, given what he had told her in his earlier call (the crime will have to be tonight or never) and given he had been talking about killing his parents for months, she must have taken 'everything is going well' to mean the murders have been/are being carried out as planned. 'There is something wrong at the farm' does not fit. And I am suggesting this discordance is an instance of the effect of her true position (as an accomplice to murder) on what she told the police.
-
What I am suggesting really happened is this: that Bamber and Mugford agreed what she would say he told her when he called her. And what they agreed she would say is in her witness statement 'there is something wrong at the farm', which makes perfect sense in the assumed conspiracy.
When she later, in Sep '85, came to say what he really said, she claimed it was this:
'everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm'.
The point I am making is that there is something wrong with this version in that, given what he had told her in his earlier call (the crime will have to be tonight or never) and given he had been talking about killing his parents for months, she must have taken 'everything is going well' to mean the murders have been/are being carried out as planned. 'There is something wrong at the farm' does not fit. And I am suggesting this discordance is an instance of the effect of her true position (as an accomplice to murder) on what she told the police.
None of that conversation has ever made sense to me. If one is dragged out of bed at silly o'clock in the morning, it's highly unlikely that the call will be treated in the same way as a call made at a sensible time. Julie doesn't enquire WHY he is calling her or WHY he's dragged her out of bed at that time in the morning. Could that suggest that she was expecting the call, the conversation in which has no flow about it, but does have a code-like sound to it.
-
You purport to be a lawyer. You should be able to research the material elements of the crime you posted. Failing to disclose everything you know is not sufficient to constitute an act anymore than it can constitute an act under the perverting justice statute. Failing to tell everything you know is omitting evidence not making an affirmative untrue statement with the intent of the lie throwing police off.
I disagree with this. First because she did make an untrue statement when she said he had made no further reference to his family during the evening call on 06 Aug. In fact, he had said the crime will have to be 'tonight or never' and she knew what he meant by that. That was a reference to his family. Second, while there may be no duty to speak to the police at all, whether as a witness or a suspect, once you choose to do so, you do have a duty not to mislead deliberately, which is what she did by eliding from her account of the evening call that the crime had to be 'tonight or never' and by refraining from including in her account of the early hours call that he had said 'everything is going well' a statement which completely alters the nature of his message.
The classic example of an affirmative statement that is a lie to throw police off is to provide a false alibi so police think someone can't have had the opportunity to commit a crime.
Not even simple lying will do. A lie must be material. It must be calculated to impede the investigation. A false alibi impedes the investigation by getting police to think that someone can't have done it.
What she said was plainly material. It induced the police to believe he had told her the same story he told PC West.
A classic act beyond simply speaking that constitutes impeding an investigation is helping hide or dispose of evidence.
Agreed. So what?
The only potential lie that she could have told police that could have impeded the investigation and thus actively played a role in misleading police concerns the claim he receive a phone call from Nevill and was worried about it. If she knew he received no such phone call and was simply making up that he was worried after receiving such call then she impeded justice by intentionally supporting the fiction he received a call from Nevill and was worried. That would be a material lie intended to throw police off by trying to get them to believe Jeremy was at his home receiving a call from Nevill and thus could not have been at the scene doing the killings.
On my theory of the crime she knew precisely this - that there had been no call from Nevill. Or do you think she believed, having been told by Jeremy on 06 Aug that he planned to murder his family and then discovered the next day that they had in fact been murdered, that it was all an unfortunate coincidence, that Sheila had indeed chosen that same night to bump everyone off and that Nevill had really called Jeremy in alarm?
The prosecution would need to prove that she knew the call was made up and that she knew he wasn't worried about receiving a call and agreed to lie for him about such in order to bolster his fictional alibi. Her testimony is the complete opposite of this though and Jeremy says he really did receive a call from Nevill and really was worried so obviously doesn't claim he told her to support a lie.
I am not sure my point depends on what the prosecution could or couldn't prove. I am talking about the risk she took by giving them her account. She was hardly in a position to know what they could prove. For all she knew, they might have figured out by an examination of phone records or some such that there had been no call from WHF.
Aside from the fact that the lie you allege she told is not material and can't be the basis of a charge you haven't even articulated a lie.
Why do you say it's not material?
In her September statement she reiterated that he didn't talk about his family beyond saying he had a crappy day on the tractor. What she omitted is that he told her "tonight is the night". She had no legal duty to tell police he said this to her. Failing to do so was an omission.
I disagree for the reason given above.
When one is under no legal duty to tell police anything but decides anyway to tell a lie that is aimed at
fooling the police or is under a legal duty to answer a question honestly but lies in order to fool police - like providing a false alibi- that is a statement that is made to impede justice.
In my opinion, you are wrong to think that the right to tell police nothing means that one is entitled to tell half truths that intentionally mislead.
Failing to tell police everything you know is not impeding justice as the term is used in the criminal statutes. A law that required people to inform police of all incriminatory evidence they knew about regarding any and all crimes or such person is guilty of a crime would create an affirmative duty to tell police everything you know but there is no such a statute. That was the legal scheme in the Soviet Union where you had to worry about family and friends turning you in the government over anything and the West considered such a horror thus would never enact such a scheme.
No, the duty is, when telling the police what you know about a specific crime, not to construct your account in such a way as to assist the offender. That is precisely what she did.
-
None of that conversation has ever made sense to me. If one is dragged out of bed at silly o'clock in the morning, it's highly unlikely that the call will be treated in the same way as a call made at a sensible time. Julie doesn't enquire WHY he is calling her or WHY he's dragged her out of bed at that time in the morning. Could that suggest that she was expecting the call, the conversation in which has no flow about it, but does have a code-like sound to it.
I do think the call is likely to have been pre-arranged. As she was expecting to benefit from the slaughter, becoming in one bound the lady of the manor as it were, it may have been the price she had to pay by providing him with an alibi (sort of).
-
What else could he say other than " there's something wrong at the farm " when at that point he didn't know ?
If he'd said there's been a murder at the farm, without having had prior knowledge then I'd understand.
-
What else could he say other than " there's something wrong at the farm " when at that point he didn't know ?
If he'd said there's been a murder at the farm, without having had prior knowledge then I'd understand.
Oh but he did know because apparently, "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun". He didn't mention Sheila or the gun though did he?
-
Oh but he did know because apparently, "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun". He didn't mention Sheila or the gun though did he?
How do you know ?
-
None of that conversation has ever made sense to me. If one is dragged out of bed at silly o'clock in the morning, it's highly unlikely that the call will be treated in the same way as a call made at a sensible time. Julie doesn't enquire WHY he is calling her or WHY he's dragged her out of bed at that time in the morning. Could that suggest that she was expecting the call, the conversation in which has no flow about it, but does have a code-like sound to it.
She said she didn't want to talk and told him to go back to bed. That certainly sounds to me how someone would react if called in the middle of the night.
-
What else could he say other than " there's something wrong at the farm " when at that point he didn't know ?
If he'd said there's been a murder at the farm, without having had prior knowledge then I'd understand.
Howz about, "Dad says Sheila's gone mad with a gun. What shall I do?" -allegedly what he'd phoned for AND to hear a friendly voice/talk to a friendly ear when his father might be getting killed!!!!!- instead of the somewhat laissez faire words he used.
-
What I am suggesting really happened is this: that Bamber and Mugford agreed what she would say he told her when he called her. And what they agreed she would say is in her witness statement 'there is something wrong at the farm', which makes perfect sense in the assumed conspiracy.
When she later, in Sep '85, came to say what he really said, she claimed it was this:
'everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm'.
The point I am making is that there is something wrong with this version in that, given what he had told her in his earlier call (the crime will have to be tonight or never) and given he had been talking about killing his parents for months, she must have taken 'everything is going well' to mean the murders have been/are being carried out as planned. 'There is something wrong at the farm' does not fit. And I am suggesting this discordance is an instance of the effect of her true position (as an accomplice to murder) on what she told the police.
It makes perfect sense. She was half asleep still and didn't fully appreciate let alone remember what trouble he was telling her about. All she understood from what he was saying was that something was wrong at the farm but she didn't care and just wanted to go back to bed. Later she put 2 and 2 together understanding in saying tonight is the night in his 11PM call meant he was going to kill them and by saying he had not gone to sleep yet and things were going well that it meant his plan to kill then was going well.
-
She said she didn't want to talk and told him to go back to bed. That certainly sounds to me how someone would react if called in the middle of the night.
I don't recall that she said she didn't want to talk to him but I DO recall she told him to go back to bed which I'd say was a VERY mild reaction to his call -along the lines of "OK. Thanks for telling me"- and convinces me even more that if she wasn't expecting THAT call, THAT night, she WAS expecting it.
-
I disagree with this. First because she did make an untrue statement when she said he had made no further reference to his family during the evening call on 06 Aug. In fact, he had said the crime will have to be 'tonight or never' and she knew what he meant by that. That was a reference to his family. Second, while there may be no duty to speak to the police at all, whether as a witness or a suspect, once you choose to do so, you do have a duty not to mislead deliberately, which is what she did by eliding from her account of the evening call that the crime had to be 'tonight or never' and by refraining from including in her account of the early hours call that he had said 'everything is going well' a statement which completely alters the nature of his message.
I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment. You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation. Such re-framing fails miserably. No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew. As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.
Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK. You will be searching for a long time...
-
I don't recall that she said she didn't want to talk to him but I DO recall she told him to go back to bed which I'd say was a VERY mild reaction to his call -along the lines of "OK. Thanks for telling me"- and convinces me even more that if she wasn't expecting THAT call, THAT night, she WAS expecting it.
Is Adam rubbing off on you? You just effectively wrote, "if she wasn't expecting the call then she was expecting it".
-
I do think the call is likely to have been pre-arranged. As she was expecting to benefit from the slaughter, becoming in one bound the lady of the manor as it were, it may have been the price she had to pay by providing him with an alibi (sort of).
I am perfectly certain that she WAS expecting that particular benefit but have been ridiculed for suggesting it by a member who uses the fact that she was doing a second degree as reason for her not wishing to be Jeremy's wife. I believe it was ascertained, in court, that she "had been very much in love with him and was hoping to marry him." I'm convinced that HAD he married her, she'd have said nothing.
-
Oh but he did know because apparently, "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun". He didn't mention Sheila or the gun though did he?
No he didn't and that is what is missing in her statement, surely he should have said, 'there's something wrong at the farm, dad just phoned and said Sheila has got hold of a gun and is acting crazy, don't know whether to phone 999 or just go over' or words to that effect. Because he didn't fill in the details it sounds false, I could never understand if she was lying why she didn't fill in the gaps and make a better job of it. It seems she chose to tell the truth, remember it's always best to tell the truth if you can, and repeated the words they had agreed on.
-
Is Adam rubbing off on you? You just effectively wrote, "if she wasn't expecting the call then she was expecting it".
Who's this Adam person? :)) Ooops, VERY remiss of me to be so unclear. What I meant was, it had been a call that she was expecting AT SOME TIME and when it happened, it wouldn't be a surprise. I think he'd told her enough to start a niggle which which she found increasingly difficult to ignore......................but there were the potential benefits to think about, too.
-
I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment. You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation. Such re-framing fails miserably. No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew. As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.
Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK. You will be searching for a long time...
I can't provide an example. This would probably be charged as perverting the course of justice anyway. The precise charge is not really the point, is it? My argument is that, in telling the story she did, she exposed herself to the risk of prosecution for diverting the enquiry.
I still say that giving a deliberately selective, slanted account knowing and intending that it will mislead with a view to assisting an offender, falls squarely within the section. If I come across a case, I'll post it here. Your idea that a contrived account which itself contains no lies cannot constitute the offence, or some equally serious offence (if that is your argument) is plainly misconceived IMO.
And FWIW, I have about 10 years of criminal practise under my belt from the time when these offences occurred and I still dabble in regulatory crime today.
-
I can't provide an example. This would probably be charged as perverting the course of justice anyway. The precise charge is not really the point, is it? My argument is that, in telling the story she did, she exposed herself to the risk of prosecution for diverting the enquiry.
I still say that giving a deliberately selective, slanted account knowing and intending that it will mislead with a view to assisting an offender, falls squarely within the section. If I come across a case, I'll post it here. Your idea that a contrived account which itself contains no lies cannot constitute the offence, or some equally serious offence (if that is your argument) is plainly misconceived IMO.
And FWIW, I have about 10 years of criminal practise under my belt from the time when these offences occurred and I still dabble in regulatory crime today.
The legal issue is very simple. You are trying to cast Julie not telling police everything incriminating that Jeremy told to her - which is an omission of evidence- as the basis of a charge for "impeding an investigation". You can't find a single example of an indictment for any crimes that cover impeding an investigation on such legal theory because there are none. In order for a lie to suffice as an act intended to interfere with an investigation the government must prove it was a lie- not an omission of evidence but an actual lie that created a false impression that was meant to mislead.
An eyewitness to a crime falsely saying they saw nothing is one thing. An eyewitness lying about what they saw to give a false impression that something different occurred than what actually occurred is a totally different matter. The former can't be a basis for an "obstruction" charge because the the law doesn't impose the legal liability to tell everything you know or face charges for obstruction. The latter does impose liability because you are actively misleading police as opposed to simply not providing them with all information you have.
What you are doing is trying to take Julie's false claims that she knew nothing and say that is a basis for an obstruction charge though it is insufficient to form a basis for the charge under case law and that is why you can't find an example of such.
-
Howz about, "Dad says Sheila's gone mad with a gun. What shall I do?" -allegedly what he'd phoned for AND to hear a friendly voice/talk to a friendly ear when his father might be getting killed!!!!!- instead of the somewhat laissez faire words he used.
It's easy to say something that you would have assumed he should have said when he's already been convicted. You're bound to doubt what he actually said because it doesn't gel nor fit the side of the guilty.
-
The legal issue is very simple. You are trying to cast Julie not telling police everything incriminating that Jeremy told to her - which is an omission of evidence- as the basis of a charge for "impeding an investigation". You can't find a single example of an indictment for any crimes that cover impeding an investigation on such legal theory because there are none. In order for a lie to suffice as an act intended to interfere with an investigation the government must prove it was a lie- not an omission of evidence but an actual lie that created a false impression that was meant to mislead.
An eyewitness to a crime falsely saying they saw nothing is one thing. An eyewitness lying about what they saw to give a false impression that something different occurred than what actually occurred is a totally different matter. The former can't be a basis for an "obstruction" charge because the the law doesn't impose the legal liability to tell everything you know or face charges for obstruction. The latter does impose liability because you are actively misleading police as opposed to simply not providing them with all information you have.
What you are doing is trying to take Julie's false claims that she knew nothing and say that is a basis for an obstruction charge though it is insufficient to form a basis for the charge under case law and that is why you can't find an example of such.
The reason I can't find you an example has more to do with not having access to a criminal law database. If I find an example, I'll post it.
I disagree with your analysis of the law but don't intend to bore everybodys' pants off by repeating myself or getting drawn into a tangential debate. There is enough in Julie's account to raise the distinct possibility that her involvement went much further than she disclosed and the relevance of that is mainly to account for her hesitancy in coming forward. What particular crimes she might have ended up getting charged with is not that important.
-
What I am suggesting really happened is this: that Bamber and Mugford agreed what she would say he told her when he called her. And what they agreed she would say is in her witness statement 'there is something wrong at the farm', which makes perfect sense in the assumed conspiracy.
When she later, in Sep '85, came to say what he really said, she claimed it was this:
'everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm'.
The point I am making is that there is something wrong with this version in that, given what he had told her in his earlier call (the crime will have to be tonight or never) and given he had been talking about killing his parents for months, she must have taken 'everything is going well' to mean the murders have been/are being carried out as planned. 'There is something wrong at the farm' does not fit. And I am suggesting this discordance is an instance of the effect of her true position (as an accomplice to murder) on what she told the police.
Wasn't Julie put on the line by one of her flatmates? Jeremy realized he may have been in danger of being overheard so had to pretend to feign concern.
-
The reason I can't find you an example has more to do with not having access to a criminal law database. If I find an example, I'll post it.
I disagree with your analysis of the law but don't intend to bore everybodys' pants off by repeating myself or getting drawn into a tangential debate. There is enough in Julie's account to raise the distinct possibility that her involvement went much further than she disclosed and the relevance of that is mainly to account for her hesitancy in coming forward. What particular crimes she might have ended up getting charged with is not that important.
It is your legal theory that is flawed.
Fact pattern:
Bob witnesses Jill suddenly run up to Jack screaming at him that he is a cheating bastard, Jill shooting Jack dead and then driving away in a red Honda Civic.
A) Police arrive and Bob tells police he didn't get a good look at the shooter, how the shooter got away or what happened.
B) Police arrive and Bob tells police a black man tried to rob Jack but he refused to give up his wallet so the robber shot him dead then fled on foot
C) Police arrive and Bob tells police a white man shot Jack for some unknown reason then got into a blue Chevy and fled.
In scenario A is Bob guilty of any impeding justice charge on the basis of failing to disclose what he knows? No
Is Bob guilty in scenario B or C? Yes in both he is guilty because he provided false information with the intention of throwing police off the trail of the real killer.
In scenario A police are no worse off for having spoke to Bob than they were prior to speaking to him.
In scenario B and C though police are worse off because they were fed misinformation.
Your legal theory is that in scenario A Bob could also be found guilty because he lied saying he knew nothing when he actually did know something that would be useful to police and held that information back. But this legal theory has no support at all in case law which refuses to hold people liable simply for refusing to provide information they are aware of. In order to support a charge of impeding an investigation on the basis of a lie the lie must consist of disinformation intended to mislead not simply refusing to tell everything you know.
My fact pattern is not overly technical it is very simple so that even laymen can easily understand it.
-
It is your legal theory that is flawed.
Fact pattern:
Bob witnesses Jill suddenly run up to Jack screaming at him that he is a cheating bastard, Jill shooting Jack dead and then driving away in a red Honda Civic.
A) Police arrive and Bob tells police he didn't get a good look at the shooter, how the shooter got away or what happened.
B) Police arrive and Bob tells police a black man tried to rob Jack but he refused to give up his wallet so the robber shot him dead then fled on foot
C) Police arrive and Bob tells police a white man shot Jack for some unknown reason then got into a blue Chevy and fled.
In scenario A is Bob guilty of any impeding justice charge on the basis of failing to disclose what he knows? No
Is Bob guilty in scenario B or C? Yes in both he is guilty because he provided false information with the intention of throwing police off the trail of the real killer.
In scenario A police are no worse off for having spoke to Bob than they were prior to speaking to him.
In scenario B and C though police are worse off because they were fed misinformation.
Your legal theory is that in scenario A Bob could also be found guilty because he lied saying he knew nothing when he actually did know something that would be useful to police and held that information back. But this legal theory has no support at all in case law which refuses to hold people liable simply for refusing to provide information they are aware of. In order to support a charge of impeding an investigation on the basis of a lie the lie must consist of disinformation intended to mislead not simply refusing to tell everything you know.
My fact pattern is not overly technical it is very simple so that even laymen can easily understand it.
He's guilty in all three cases assuming in A he is concealing what he clearly saw. If he doesn't want to incur liability he must tell the truth or shut up completely. Since it's so simple, maybe you should say what distinguishes your three cases. He lies in all three to the advantage of the offender.
-
I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment. You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation. Such re-framing fails miserably. No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew. As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.
Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK. You will be searching for a long time...
We're not having a 'lawyer stand-off' are we? To be fair Scip, you're not a criminal lawyer either.
-
Not to defend lookout's claims that WHF was a glorified medicine storage closet, but she is correct about it being said that there sleeping pills at WHF. Julie's claims were that Jeremy contemplated using his mother's sleeping pills:
(http://s28.postimg.org/mlt2y5fd9/juliea.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/gmyry95ux/julieb.jpg)
(http://s4.postimg.org/chkhmwqrh/juliec.jpg)
Her timing of things are as follows:
1) Between July and September 1984, prior to her moving Jeremy had told her he would like to kill everyone so he could inherit all their property and thought about using June's sleeping pills to knock them out, to shoot them and burn the place down.
2) In October she was prescribed sleeping pills because she couldn't sleep. The weekend after she got them she brought them with her to Goldhanger and complained to Jeremy about how they were big and hard to swallow and didn't help and how she was unhappy with the doctor.
3) She left them at Goldhanger and Jeremy decided to taste them to see if he could use them and told her they were no good and when he told her they were no good he said the pills she brought him to use on the family was no good so this showed he was under the impression she brought them for him to use on the family though she didn't.
She said in retrospect she should have realized by this he was actually serious about his desire to kill them but she said she didn't want to believe that at the time so closed her eyes to it as a warning sign.
Yes, that's what she said - you are of course welcome to believe her.
-
Julie wasn't altogether truthful in her testimony but she won't say anything about it despite a request.
I suppose silence is golden.
-
Who's this Adam person? :)) Ooops, VERY remiss of me to be so unclear. What I meant was, it had been a call that she was expecting AT SOME TIME and when it happened, it wouldn't be a surprise. I think he'd told her enough to start a niggle which which she found increasingly difficult to ignore......................but there were the potential benefits to think about, too.
If he told her that he was going to fake a call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and was going crazy and would call her to pretend he was upset by such call and would need her to lie and say he told me he received a call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and was going crazy and sounded upset then everything would have been well planned and went like this:
She would have said he called me sounding very distraught saying Nevill phoned saying Sheila was crazy and had the gun, and that he had called police and was worried about what had happened.
It's obvious they didn't plan it out. Had they planned it out he would have prearranged the above strong account.
Part of why both their accounts reveal he called her before the police is he failed to tell her about his call to police and what he told them. Nor did he think of telling her the lie he had already called police or telling her to say he told her he called police first. After he spoke to her is when he thought up verbatim what to tell the police. I think that is why there was the gap between when he called her and police. he was trying to work out what he would say to them.
What he should have done was really call police first then call Julie to tell her what he told the police and what they told him. He didn't anticipate they would tell him to go to the scene. This only highlights even more that he called Julie first.
Here is how a conversation would go if he called Julie after police:
A) If they prearranged things: The plan is going well they are all dead and I phoned police saying Nevill called me like we discussed. They want me to go meet them at WHF so I will be out for a while and will call later with more information.
B) If nothing were prearranged and he felt it best to pretend he really did receive a call so that she would be most natural with the police: I received a call from Nevill saying I need you to come here and help because Sheila has the gun and is going crazy then the line went dead and I can't get through to the house because the line is busy. I phoned police and they told me to meet them at WHF so I am going there now. I will call you later to let you know what happened.
His failure to mention the police and going there is a dead giveaway that he didn't call her after police. This is one of several reasons why it was stupid to lie and say he called her after the police.
But what he did mention was a mix of pretending he really received a call and telling her he had not gone to sleep yet and the plan was going well. Nothing suggests the call was prearranged in the sense of her understanding he was going to use a call to her to help try to bolster his alibi. She didn't fully appreciate what he was talking about regarding receiving a call from WHF let alone did they talk about him calling her so she could pretend he was worried about receiving such call.
-
The legal issue is very simple. You are trying to cast Julie not telling police everything incriminating that Jeremy told to her - which is an omission of evidence- as the basis of a charge for "impeding an investigation". You can't find a single example of an indictment for any crimes that cover impeding an investigation on such legal theory because there are none. In order for a lie to suffice as an act intended to interfere with an investigation the government must prove it was a lie- not an omission of evidence but an actual lie that created a false impression that was meant to mislead.
An eyewitness to a crime falsely saying they saw nothing is one thing. An eyewitness lying about what they saw to give a false impression that something different occurred than what actually occurred is a totally different matter. The former can't be a basis for an "obstruction" charge because the the law doesn't impose the legal liability to tell everything you know or face charges for obstruction. The latter does impose liability because you are actively misleading police as opposed to simply not providing them with all information you have.
What you are doing is trying to take Julie's false claims that she knew nothing and say that is a basis for an obstruction charge though it is insufficient to form a basis for the charge under case law and that is why you can't find an example of such.
Scipio, I know that you tend to deal ONLY in facts but I feel certain, that on occasions, you've told us what Jeremy has been thinking and the reasons he was thinking particular thoughts, and the things he's said and why he's said them. However, I don't recall, regarding Julie, that you've ever questioned much that she's said, rather, you seem to have excused it, even dealt with it on what would appear to be, a more emotional level?
-
If he told her that he was going to fake a call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and was going crazy and would call her to pretend he was upset by such call and would need her to lie and say he told me he received a call from Nevill saying Sheila had the gun and was going crazy and sounded upset then everything would have been well planned and went like this:
She would have said he called me sounding very distraught saying Nevill phoned saying Sheila was crazy and had the gun, and that he had called police and was worried about what had happened.
It's obvious they didn't plan it out. Had they planned it out he would have prearranged the above strong account.
Part of why both their accounts reveal he called her before the police is he failed to tell her about his call to police and what he told them. Nor did he think of telling her the lie he had already called police or telling her to say he told her he called police first. After he spoke to her is when he thought up verbatim what to tell the police. I think that is why there was the gap between when he called her and police. he was trying to work out what he would say to them.
What he should have done was really call police first then call Julie to tell her what he told the police and what they told him. He didn't anticipate they would tell him to go to the scene. This only highlights even more that he called Julie first.
Here is how a conversation would go if he called Julie after police:
A) If they prearranged things: The plan is going well they are all dead and I phoned police saying Nevill called me like we discussed. They want me to go meet them at WHF so I will be out for a while and will call later with more information.
B) If nothing were prearranged and he felt it best to pretend he really did receive a call so that she would be most natural with the police: I received a call from Nevill saying I need you to come here and help because Sheila has the gun and is going crazy then the line went dead and I can't get through to the house because the line is busy. I phoned police and they told me to meet them at WHF so I am going there now. I will call you later to let you know what happened.
His failure to mention the police and going there is a dead giveaway that he didn't call her after police. This is one of several reasons why it was stupid to lie and say he called her after the police.
But what he did mention was a mix of pretending he really received a call and telling her he had not gone to sleep yet and the plan was going well. Nothing suggests the call was prearranged in the sense of her understanding he was going to use a call to her to help try to bolster his alibi. She didn't fully appreciate what he was talking about regarding receiving a call from WHF let alone did they talk about him calling her so she could pretend he was worried about receiving such call.
I think that there's MUCH that you are seeing through your eyes. YOU may have planned it much more carefully but Jeremy wasn't you. When you tell us "Jeremy wouldn't/would.........." you may well be saying what YOU wouldn't/would.
He wouldn't have needed to go into minute detail. Julie already knew that he'd planned to include a call from WHF in his alibi scenario. He had already discussed doping them with (HER) sleeping pills before setting fire to the house.
However well you reason on her behalf, you will never convince me that that she wasn't aware that a call, such as she received that night, was coming. It may EVEN have come, along with other emotions, as a relief.
-
We're not having a 'lawyer stand-off' are we? To be fair Scip, you're not a criminal lawyer either.
I don't practice criminal law for my firm. I have handled criminal cases though in the past. Some were drug related but most were while I was in the military. The UCMJ is a different set of laws than the civil criminal code but the same big picture legal principles are applied.
We have 51 legal codes. Each state has their own code with slightly different laws and then there is the federal code. With the exception of Louisiana the basis of state law is British Common Law and then any amendments made by the states thereafter by their Constitutions or statutes. The US Constitution and Federal Code is the basis of federal law. The UCMJ is simply part of the federal code and has a Court system equivalent to the civil courts.
A lawyer who tells a client that because he omitted information he was aware of that he should plead guilty to perverting justice or some similar offense is arguably committing malpractice.
There is a legal distinction between:
A) telling police you know nothing when you actually do
and
B) providing misinformation to police with the intent that they follow such misinformation and it impedes their investigation.
As a matter of law the former can't be a basis for a charge of obstruction while the latter as a matter of law is a recognized legal basis for liability.
There are only 2 ways for this to change:
1) passing legislation that expressly expands the reach of the crimes to encompass not telling police incriminating things you know
or
2) judges to decide to reinterpret existing law as encompassing such.
Unless/until one of these things happens a lawyer would be remiss to tell a client they should plead guilty to obstruction for not telling police everything they know.
In the examples I provided the government would need to prove Bob knew he was lying about the color of the car, gender of the offender etc because an honest mistake would defeat liability but I provided a fact pattern where he intentionally lied he didn't make an honest mistake. I made things quite clear cut in order to illustrate the legal concept.
-
I'll go this far with the Bamber-is-innocent brigade:had the Prosecution had an open and shut case they would not have felt the need to court Julie as they did.
-
I agree with you on this point caroline, anyone recieving a call in the middle of the night would be immediately concerned . To say just go back to bed doesnt do it for me. She would have said whats wrong jeremy, whats happened. He would have explained and she would have been up all night worrying about it.
someone is not telling the truth regarding this call.or both of them are.
-
I'll go this far with the Bamber-is-innocent brigade:had the Prosecution had an open and shut case they would not have felt the need to court Julie as they did.
Indeed,Steve.
-
I agree with you on this point caroline, anyone recieving a call in the middle of the night would be immediately concerned . To say just go back to bed doesnt do it for me. She would have said whats wrong jeremy, whats happened. He would have explained and she would have been up all night worrying about it.
someone is not telling the truth regarding this call.or both of them are.
I believe both of them are lying.
-
Scipio, I know that you tend to deal ONLY in facts but I feel certain, that on occasions, you've told us what Jeremy has been thinking and the reasons he was thinking particular thoughts, and the things he's said and why he's said them. However, I don't recall, regarding Julie, that you've ever questioned much that she's said, rather, you seem to have excused it, even dealt with it on what would appear to be, a more emotional level?
I have been highly critical of Julie. I have not excused anything. I simply providing explanations of why she did things I didn't say such explanations excuses her behavior in a moral sense. It is easy to understand why one who loves and would miss someone would not want to lose such person to jail. It is also easy to understand how someone could close their eyes to red flags and choose to believe their loved one would not actually kill someone. These things happen regularly. How many people ignore warning signs before loved ones go on murdering rampages? You even have people complain that their loved ones were shot and killed by police during the course of committing violent acts. They just killed 5 people and then say police should have taken their loved ones alive...
Just because I acknowledge that is how numerous people think that doesn't mean I am justifying it as morally correct.
The legal analysis I provided regarding her potential liability is very straightforward.
1) she clearly didn't participate in carrying out the crime, she was home too far away to have participated even if she could have sneaked away without her roommates hearing she would not have gotten home in time to be called to the phone.
2) There is no evidence to establish she came up with the idea of committing the crime and enlisted Jeremy to carry it out or encouraged hi to do it- solicitation/conspiracy.
3) There is no evidence he enlisted her to assist in the planning and she did some overt act to assist him thus becoming a co-conspirator.
So there is nothing to support her being a principal. He clearly didn't need her help to do anything. Only testimony from Jeremy to some of these things could constitute evidence and then you would have to weigh his credibility among other things like if he can provide any corroboration.
With respect to her being an accomplice after the fact there is nothing to suggest she helped him dispose of evidence that he hid or anything like that.
If someone tells you they are planning a crime and you do nothing to stop it that doesn't make you part of a conspiracy. When you agree to take part and commit an overt act in furtherance of it then you become part of it. If you know but do nothing to stop it then you are morally bankrupt but not legally culpable. If you have some special legal duty like a child's guardian and do nothing to stop someone from abusing your child that is different because you have a special legal duty you owe but in general you have no such legal duty.
Julie omitting the incriminating things she knew doesn't constitute any criminal violation BUT if she spread disinformation in an effort to deceive police that is different. Since she told police so little it provides very limited opportunity to provide disinformation. The only disinformation she potentially could have provided pertains to the calls she received at 3am and 6am. IF she knew he made up receiving a call from WHF either because they discussed it in the past or discussed it during those very phone calls and arranged for her to lie and pretend he told her he received a call and sounded upset then that would constitute providing disinformation because she told police something that didn't actually happen and it was meant to help give police a false impression.
No evidence exists to establish this though. There are only 2 ways to get evidence of such- Julie to admit it or Jeremy to claim it. Unless she wrote down notes or he provided her with written instructions and police had found such the only way to get evidence of such would be to get one of them to assert it.
If she did spread disinformation and refused to confess the ONLY way police would be able to even try to pursue her would be if Jeremy rolled over on her. So she would be motivated to protecting Jeremy so that he would not end up rolling on her.
This is why it is so difficult to flip criminals against one another. The main time you have people flip is when they are going down for a different crime and for leniency they agree to rat someone else out or they are going down for that exact crime because solid evidence implicates them and either:
1) they decide they don't want to take the fall alone because they feel it will be unfair for their partner to get away unscathed
or
2) their partner did the worst things and you don't want to take the fall for those so admit to the lesser things you did and rat the person out for the more substantial things
or
3) you decide to lie and blame someone else for doing things you did and make up that your role was lesser than it actually was
Only when police have decent evidence do you most people flip though. On occasion you get someone who confesses right away and implicates everyone else despite no evidence just because they can't hack lying during the interrogation but this is not the majority of the time. It would be so nice if it were but most people want to see a camera with their image or DNA evidence or the like before they will consider admitting to anything and their lawyers will tell them not to admit a thing or say a word. Their lawyers will advise them to force the government to make a case against them on its own.
Is that morally beneficial? No, but legally that is what the system allows. No one can be legally compelled to give witness against themselves.
-
I'll go this far with the Bamber-is-innocent brigade:had the Prosecution had an open and shut case they would not have felt the need to court Julie as they did.
What courted Julie?
Someone notified them that Julie was withholding information and they questioned her as a result, that is standard procedure.
Upon questioning her they initially didn't believe her. It took a while for them to decide to believe her.
-
I think that there's MUCH that you are seeing through your eyes. YOU may have planned it much more carefully but Jeremy wasn't you. When you tell us "Jeremy wouldn't/would.........." you may well be saying what YOU wouldn't/would.
He wouldn't have needed to go into minute detail. Julie already knew that he'd planned to include a call from WHF in his alibi scenario. He had already discussed doping them with (HER) sleeping pills before setting fire to the house.
However well you reason on her behalf, you will never convince me that that she wasn't aware that a call, such as she received that night, was coming. It may EVEN have come, along with other emotions, as a relief.
What you choose to believe means little.
You can choose to believe she was lying when she said she thought he was just blowing off steam and not serious about killing them to your heart's content. What matters is what can be proven not what you choose to believe.
No one can prove that she knew he was serious.
Similarly choosing to believe that she knew he was going to make up a phone call from Nevill and told her to help him falsely support receiving such call means little. Proving it matters and there is no evidence to prove it.
If Julie had been actively involved then she would have no reason to try to help get Jeremy caught because if he was caught he could end up rolling over on her. The whole reason she didn't mind telling the truth was because they broke up so him going to jail would not end up with them being apart they already were apart and him going to jail would not run the risk of him implicating her in anything serious.
-
What courted Julie?
Someone notified them that Julie was withholding information and they questioned her as a result, that is standard procedure.
Upon questioning her they initially didn't believe her. It took a while for them to decide to believe her.
Taff Jones didn't believe her but DS Jones felt she was telling the truth ever since he listened at the door and heard Jeremy chuckle.
-
I agree with you on this point caroline, anyone recieving a call in the middle of the night would be immediately concerned . To say just go back to bed doesnt do it for me. She would have said whats wrong jeremy, whats happened. He would have explained and she would have been up all night worrying about it.
someone is not telling the truth regarding this call.or both of them are.
She lay in bed after that call unable to resume slumber and rationalized he had just told her that he had murdered his family.
-
Taff Jones didn't believe her but DS Jones felt she was telling the truth ever since he listened at the door and heard Jeremy chuckle.
None of them believed the hit man claims she was telling them. DS Jones believed Jeremy did it personally. It took quite a while before they believed they actually told her such things.
-
Taff Jones didn't believe her but DS Jones felt she was telling the truth ever since he listened at the door and heard Jeremy chuckle.
Pity DS Jones hadn't heard a confession instead then there'd have been no need for the lies that rolled off everyone's tongues after that.
I don't believe he heard a chuckle at all.What he probably heard was a choked cry more like it,but a chuckle sounded better under the circumstances.
God,how I loathe people like that.
-
She lay in bed after that call unable to resume slumber and rationalized he had just told her that he had murdered his family.
-
If you believe that you'll believe anything-----------------silly me,you do anyway. ::)
-
If you believe that you'll believe anything-----------------silly me,you do anyway. ::)
It would help if you would quote the response you are addressing...
-
It would help if you would quote the response you are addressing...
Yours of course.
-
What you choose to believe means little.
You can choose to believe she was lying when she said she thought he was just blowing off steam and not serious about killing them to your heart's content. What matters is what can be proven not what you choose to believe.
No one can prove that she knew he was serious.
Similarly choosing to believe that she knew he was going to make up a phone call from Nevill and told her to help him falsely support receiving such call means little. Proving it matters and there is no evidence to prove it.
If Julie had been actively involved then she would have no reason to try to help get Jeremy caught because if he was caught he could end up rolling over on her. The whole reason she didn't mind telling the truth was because they broke up so him going to jail would not end up with them being apart they already were apart and him going to jail would not run the risk of him implicating her in anything serious.
Hmm, I'm fully aware that proof is required for every point, but I'm not prepared to dismiss a point as being unimportant/not having happened because proof doesn't exist. It wouldn't have been necessary for him to go into minute detail, nor do I think he'd have needed to tell her to falsely support him. He'd have known she would because he'd have been aware of her agenda, ie. MARRIAGE.....................all of which can undoubtedly be dismissed in court. No proof. But nothing just happens out of thin air.
-
What spoony love was this that had engendered such a state of affairs, what confabulations was she to experience henceforth, almost unable to believe that she had fallen in love with this monster,who had slain five as if he were disembarrassing himself of vermin in the granary;how to proceed with the knowledge that she was complicit morally if not in law, compelled to bear witness as she advanced to the mortuary to identify the results of her boyfriend's nocturnal escapade.
-
An officers report re. the shooting in the kitchen ? Where is it ? Apart from it being written in log no.1612. What shooting in the kitchen ?
-
What spoony love was this that had engendered such a state of affairs, what confabulations was she to experience henceforth, almost unable to believe that she had fallen in love with this monster,who had slain five as if he were disembarrassing himself of vermin in the granary;how to proceed with the knowledge that she was complicit morally if not in law, compelled to bear witness as she advanced to the mortuary to identify the results of her boyfriend's nocturnal escapade.
LUST?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
If Julie was involved, I wonder if her current employer or the kids at the School she teaches know who she is.
-
Her own children will be old enough to know.
-
Julie wasn't altogether truthful in her testimony but she won't say anything about it despite a request.
I suppose silence is golden.
At this point in her life, I really don't blame her. 30 years ago there was a trial in which the media dubbed her a "star witness." Her testimony was instrumental in getting someone convicted but hers wasn't the ONLY testimony. If you, like Mike, believe that Uncle TC et al -some 30ish in total so far- were liars, WHY pick out this one person who SHOULD(?) in your opinion, put herself out and potentially ruin not just her own life, but that of her innocent husband and children, and those of her family living here?
-
Her own children will be old enough to know.
So that makes it all right, does it? Is there some sort of cut off point at which it doesn't matter?
-
If Julie was involved, I wonder if her current employer or the kids at the School she teaches know who she is.
She was placed in an invidious position at the London primary school,where political correctness ruled courtesy of the Inner London Education Authority. She lasted two further years,having been moved to a different school before deciding wisely in my opinion to move on from where she was not really wanted and resolved to take a trip abroad,whereupon she met her husband-to-be. After all life's tribulations she was determined to make a success of her marriage,which she juggled with career and child-caring responsibilities along with her extensive charity work as she formed contacts and climbed the greasy pole of success, of which it would have been churlish to divest this individual,who made amends for past misdeeds,though of course no solace whatsoever for Colin,also left to start again with what god-given creative talents he possessed,yet possibly not as independent as Julie as he picked up the remnants of his broken life.
-
An officers report re. the shooting in the kitchen ? Where is it ? Apart from it being written in log no.1612. What shooting in the kitchen ?
The shooting of Nevill in the kitchen. This is something else Mike long has lied about. For years Mike was lying claiming this report is hidden by PII. Harters even had a heated debate with him where Harters said he didn't believe Mike had the other action reports but not this one.
Mike claimed it was hidden and pertains to police shooting victims in the kitchen. It turns out Mike had it all along and inadvertently revealed such when he posted a snapshot of part of the report. It pertains to Nevill being shot in the kitchen. The only page he posted though was this:
-
The shooting of Nevill in the kitchen. This is something else Mike long has lied about. For years Mike was lying claiming this report is hidden by PII. Harters even had a heated debate with him where Harters said he didn't believe Mike had the other action reports but not this one.
Mike claimed it was hidden and pertains to police shooting victims in the kitchen. It turns out Mike had it all along and inadvertently revealed such when he posted a snapshot of part of the report. It pertains to Nevill being shot in the kitchen. The only page he posted though was this:
It doesn't look like it says 'Shooting in kitchen' it looks more like 'Heating' but that wouldn't make sense?
-
It doesn't look like it says 'Shooting in kitchen' it looks more like 'Heating' but that wouldn't make sense?
It definitely does look like either "Heating in" -DOESN'T make sense, or possibly "Meating in" which MIGHT make sense. It even more definitely DOESN'T look like "SHOOTING in kitchen."
-
beating?
-
beating?
It doesn't look like a b - can't get past Heating. ;D
-
beating?
Can't make that first letter look like a "B" Jan. Have difficulty in turning it into an "M" but it certainly resembles an "H".
-
The way I read it in a different log the word is shooting.
-
The way I read it in a different log the word is shooting.
But that's not the one we're talking about ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree it looks like Heating but when I tried to zoom in it was less clear if it was a square B . However why in 1986 would they be having a documented meeting about Heating in the kitchen?
-
But that's not the one we're talking about ;D ;D ;D ;D
Same number-1612-----different words.
-
Same number-1612-----different words.
where is that one lookout?
-
where is that one lookout?
It's on a thread called-------Logs-make your own minds up. April 2011.
-
It's on a thread called-------Logs-make your own minds up. April 2011.
I can't wait for the day when you master 'Cut and Paste' ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.msg20701.html#msg20701
-
It doesn't look like it says 'Shooting in kitchen' it looks more like 'Heating' but that wouldn't make sense?
Well they could be talking about heating to try to figure out what could have burned Nevill but since Mike took the photo from up in a tree I gave him the benefit of the doubt that closeup it actually says Shooting like he claims and that the S was faded so hard to see from the distance and the Os look distorted from a distance.
Clearly though any police documents referring shooting in the kitchen would be referring to Nevill being shot in the kitchen.
-
There are more logs than that too. Possibly on the Bambergate thread.
-
In this thread Mike says they wanted to know if the heating was on:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6419.msg283310.html#msg283310
-
Well they could be talking about heating to try to figure out what could have burned Nevill but since Mike took the photo from up in a tree I gave him the benefit of the doubt that closeup it actually says Shooting like he claims and that the S was faded so hard to see from the distance and the Os look distorted from a distance.
Clearly though any police documents referring shooting in the kitchen would be referring to Nevill being shot in the kitchen.
It is defo 'Heating'
-
Well they could be talking about heating to try to figure out what could have burned Nevill but since Mike took the photo from up in a tree I gave him the benefit of the doubt that closeup it actually says Shooting like he claims and that the S was faded so hard to see from the distance and the Os look distorted from a distance.
Clearly though any police documents referring shooting in the kitchen would be referring to Nevill being shot in the kitchen.
But not to Sheila ;D
-
I would have thought the Aga would have been the source of heating the water so probably was on - but surely the subject would have been - cause of burns?
Seems really odd.
-
The " shooting in the kitchen " is on Bambergate Jeapes letter.:
" Show J Bouttell the quilt-----------1611
" Officers report re shooting in the kitchen--------1612
"T/ST Dr Vanezis re infliction of wounds------------1613
-
I would have thought the Aga would have been the source of heating the water so probably was on - but surely the subject would have been - cause of burns?
Seems really odd.
The heating could have relevance or multiple reasons including:
1) heat speeds up rigor
2) the burns to Nevill
3) whether it would be so warm as to sleep on top of covers
Clearly though the heating would have no relevance to an investigation into police shooting someone in the kitchen which is what for many years Mike claimed that this action pertained to...
-
That word has had some alteration-----hoating ? You've got to be joking.It was originally shooting.
What's " heating " got to do with anything ?
-
That word has had some alteration-----hoating ? You've got to be joking.It was originally shooting.
What's " heating " got to do with anything ?
Why would you imagine the word has been altered, and from what?
-
The " shooting in the kitchen " is on Bambergate Jeapes letter.:
" Show J Bouttell the quilt-----------1611
" Officers report re shooting in the kitchen--------1612
"T/ST Dr Vanezis re infliction of wounds------------1613
I find this interesting from what was posted on that Bambergate thread:
-
I find this interesting from what was posted on that Bambergate thread:
That's a very useful find, Scipio.
-
The heating could have relevance or multiple reasons including:
1) heat speeds up rigor
2) the burns to Nevill
3) whether it would be so warm as to sleep on top of covers
Clearly though the heating would have no relevance to an investigation into police shooting someone in the kitchen which is what for many years Mike claimed that this action pertained to...
lets hope the full report is out there then it could be explained fully.
-
I can see where an " o " has been. To our left of the letter "( oT) " you'll see the shadow of an " o " beneath the left cross. I've got a powerful magnifying glass.
Why alter it anyway ?
-
I cant really see what we can say without seeing the report .
-
The shooting of Nevill in the kitchen. This is something else Mike long has lied about. For years Mike was lying claiming this report is hidden by PII. Harters even had a heated debate with him where Harters said he didn't believe Mike had the other action reports but not this one.
Mike claimed it was hidden and pertains to police shooting victims in the kitchen. It turns out Mike had it all along and inadvertently revealed such when he posted a snapshot of part of the report. It pertains to Nevill being shot in the kitchen. The only page he posted though was this:
Please stop name dropping me. I'm not actually all that important. :)
-
That word has had some alteration-----hoating ? You've got to be joking.It was originally shooting.
What's " heating " got to do with anything ?
No it hasn't ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No it hasn't ;D ;D ;D ;D
It certainly has.How easy is it to cross an " o " to make it look like an " a " as the alteration shows-----Hoating. ::)
-
It certainly has.How easy is it to cross an " o " to make it look like an " a " as the alteration shows-----Hoating. ::)
I already referred you to this thread where Mike said it says heating:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6419.msg283310.html#msg283310
Unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it. He has seen it close up and the other documents related to it which he declined to post.
-
I already referred you to this thread where Mike said it says heating:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6419.msg283310.html#msg283310
Unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it. He has seen it close up and the other documents related to it which he declined to post.
And I say it's an alteration of shooting. " Heating's " got nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
It was referring to the shooting in the kitchen,not the heating.
-
In the type-written document of the same number,1612,it CLEARLY states shooting !
-
In the type-written document of the same number,1612,it CLEARLY states shooting !
1) how do you know the type written document wasn't a defense created document? Many of the typed things Mike posts is defense created.
2) how do you know that the action didn't encompass the entire kitchen attack on Nevill and that one of the elements they were looking at was the heating?
The action is from May 1986 so quite clearly not them looking at whether police shot anyone in the kitchen. Their 1986 actions pertained to things raised after Vanezis criticized police and the people preparing the court prosecution wanted more answers.
-
1) how do you know the type written document wasn't a defense created document? Many of the typed things Mike posts is defense created.
2) how do you know that the action didn't encompass the entire kitchen attack on Nevill and that one of the elements they were looking at was the heating?
The action is from May 1986 so quite clearly not them looking at whether police shot anyone in the kitchen. Their 1986 actions pertained to things raised after Vanezis criticized police and the people preparing the court prosecution wanted more answers.
Then why has shooting been altered to " heating " ? Which it clearly had been.
-
Then why has shooting been altered to " heating " ? Which it clearly had been.
It's far from clear that it has been altered. Mike doesn't claim it has been altered and he saw the document closeup whereas all we can see is a snapshot taken with a phone from far away. It seems odd you don't want to ask him since you trust him so much.
-
It certainly has.How easy is it to cross an " o " to make it look like an " a " as the alteration shows-----Hoating. ::)
No it hasn't Lookout, even Mike said it says 'Heating' you can SEE it says 'Heating' and 'Hoating' isn't even a word. ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
No it hasn't Lookout, even Mike said it says 'Heating' you can SEE it says 'Heating' and 'Hoating' isn't even a word. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Why does it show/display heating in doc.1612 ?
-
Why does it show/display heating in doc.1612 ?
Nothing more sinister, I imagine, than good old human fallibility...................or illiteracy.
-
Nothing more sinister, I imagine, than good old human fallibility...................or illiteracy.
Or jiggery-pokery. ;D ;D ;D
-
Or jiggery-pokery. ;D ;D ;D
If you can explain what is the meaning of "hoating" I might be able to understand exactly what sort of jiggery-pokery you believe was happening.
-
If you can explain what is the meaning of "hoating" I might be able to understand exactly what sort of jiggery-pokery you believe was happening.
Everything EP did was an afterthought. They should have followed the old adage of : " You can fool all the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Abe.Lincoln.
-
Everything EP did was an afterthought. They should have followed the old adage of : " You can fool all the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Abe.Lincoln.
Which goes exactly NOWHERE to telling me what you believe "hoating" to mean OR why you thing jiggery-pokery is involved. C'mon, Lookout, even my lappy tells me it isn't a real word.
-
Why does it show/display heating in doc.1612 ?
I don't know what document you are talking about but the cover of the one WE are referring to says HEATING.
-
Which goes exactly NOWHERE to telling me what you believe "hoating" to mean OR why you thing jiggery-pokery is involved. C'mon, Lookout, even my lappy tells me it isn't a real word.
Of course t isn'r and it hasn't been altered.
-
Of course t isn'r and it hasn't been altered.
Durrrh!!!!!!! Lookout's accused EP of many things, but accusing them of employing jiggery-pokery by turning "heating" into "hoating" is stretching credibility WAY beyond the limits ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
Durrrh!!!!!!! Lookout's accused EP of many things, but accusing them of employing jiggery-pokery by turning "heating" into "hoating" is stretching credibility WAY beyond the limits ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
It's quite warm here tonight - think I'll turn the hoating down! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's quite warm here tonight - think I'll turn the hoating down! ;D ;D ;D ;D
It wouldn't do to get over hoated, would it? ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
[quote author=scipio_usmc link=topic=7114.msg335542#msg335542
i dont believe her version. Just the fact you recieve a phone call in the middle of the night would alert you. Ive hsd a phone call in the middle of the night, several in fact and i can tell you, you immedtiately think god whats happened.
i simply do not believe her.
Pisting what she said scipio only confirms my thoughts on this.
-
[quote author=scipio_usmc link=topic=7114.msg335542#msg335542
i dont believe her version. Just the fact you recieve a phone call in the middle of the night would alert you. Ive hsd a phone call in the middle of the night, several in fact and i can tell you, you immedtiately think god whats happened.
i simply do not believe her.
Pisting what she said scipio only confirms my thoughts on this.
Don't know whose version you don't believe but agree that when one get one of THOSE calls at THAT time of night, one reacts. I, too, have, sadly, received several. Believe me, it was a**e in gear before eyes were open.
-
Don't know whose version you don't believe but agree that when one get one of THOSE calls at THAT time of night, one reacts. I, too, have, sadly, received several. Believe me, it was a**e in gear before eyes were open.
it was julies version i didnt believe, scipio thinks she was too tired to wake up and realised only when she had told him to go back to bed and had 5 minutes to think about it did she becone worried. Load of bull in my opinion.
-
it was julies version i didnt believe, scipio thinks she was too tired to wake up and realised only when she had told him to go back to bed and had 5 minutes to think about it did she becone worried. Load of bull in my opinion.
Well, as none of us was there it means that anything is possible........................but I prefer my version ^-^
-
[quote author=scipio_usmc link=topic=7114.msg335542#msg335542
i dont believe her version. Just the fact you recieve a phone call in the middle of the night would alert you. Ive hsd a phone call in the middle of the night, several in fact and i can tell you, you immedtiately think god whats happened.
i simply do not believe her.
Pisting what she said scipio only confirms my thoughts on this.
But you believe Jeremy and don't question why he didn't call 999 after being told "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun"? :o :o
-
I already referred you to this thread where Mike said it says heating:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6419.msg283310.html#msg283310
Unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it. He has seen it close up and the other documents related to it which he declined to post.
Why are there documents which someone declines to post? One of the reasons I registered here (or tried to register only to find I had already done so) was to enlarge my search for documents. There seem to be many crucial documents missing. I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence but I am sure there is much more. If Mike Tesko happens by this thread and reads this maybe he would explain why there has not been a full upload of all case-related material. Or maybe someone else knows.
-
it was julies version i didnt believe, scipio thinks she was too tired to wake up and realised only when she had told him to go back to bed and had 5 minutes to think about it did she becone worried. Load of bull in my opinion.
could of been becouse she was tired but them excuse could aply to bamber as well.
-
I will try and upload some new material from the 50,000 documents in my possession. These documents came into my possession after the 2002 appeal hearing, and would have been destroyed but for me agreeing to take possession of them. I made sure through agreement with Jeremy, that the documents would belong to me, and that I would provide copies of any of these documents if and when he required them. It was a case of agree to these terms, or it would all have been destroyed either by fire, or thrown away along with the original keepers domestic rubbish. Since then Jeremy says he has a second copy of all the material that I have got, so there was no need for me to copy any more of it to him. I can't believe that Jeremy has got a copy of everything I was given, because he never saw all the material the former keeper had been keeping. Amongst this material, now in my possession are some original hand written, and or, signed documents, which may never have been copied at all whilst it was in storage by the former keeper. Anyway, I will do my best to upload as much of this material as I can...
-
Some documents didn't come to light until 2004. I assume they were also omitted from the trial itself ?
-
My take on this case is provisionally pro-guilt. 'Provisionally' because there is a lot of material I haven't seen. I would particularly like to read transcripts of Bamber's and Mugford's trial evidence and to see a complete and reliably-sourced set of the crime scene photos.
My principal reasons for favouring guilt are Mugford's evidence, which I see as credible, even though she had ample reason to lie, the unexplained delay in calling the police and the failure to call 999. Mugford makes better sense if she was involved in the murders as an accomplice. That reconciles the peculiar duality of her behaviour and her account. For instance, the temazapam story in which, knowing why he wanted to test it on himself she allowed him to do so. In my opinion, she very likely sourced the temazapam specifically at his request but slightly modified the story for the benefit of the cops.
Likewise, the phone call to her at whatever time it was on the morning on 07 Aug is likely to have been a ruse to provide him with some kind of alibi. Her account of it makes no sense at all. She says he said, 'there is something wrong at the farm, everything is going well'. The first part of that is likely what they agreed she would say he said, something ambiguous to give the impression he had not received a clear and distinct message from Neville. Since he had told her earlier 'tonight's the night' 'something wrong at the farm' would mean the plan had backfired or failed in some way, not that an unexpected emergency had arisen there.
Her involvement also better explains her hesitancy in coming forward. She took an enormous gamble in doing that. The police might have decided to go after her too or she might have faced liability for malicious prosecution. I don't think being jilted was enough to explain her actions.
Anyway, if she made up her account, she sure did a bad job of keeping herself out of it. Even taken at face value she was admitting very serious offences involving concealment and assistance following the crime. It is remarkable that she was not prosecuted for those but, maybe not, as it was in nobody's interests to pursue the question of her involvement - not Bamber's and not the cops'.
Whether Bamber received a fair trial is a separate and important question on which I have not formed a strong opinion due to not reading enough about it. I've read the 2002 appeal which describes and then dismisses a litany of errors and inadequacies in the conduct of the case. There are substantial concerns about the provenance of 'the' moderator, the state of Sheila's body when found and so on. It beggars belief that the scene was cleared of blood stained carpet and wallpaper the next day and the cretinous fumbling of Essex police, even to the extent of being unable to write down the time correctly, is truly staggering.
Nonetheless, through all that fog of blundering incompetence and perhaps worse, the theory that seems to fit best is that he did it with her knowledge and assistance as far as the alibi is concerned. That's where I am with this one.
Wilkes's book has a lot of trial transcript. There is also a thread on Bamber's court testimony.
Why would Bamber ring Julie at 3am for an alibi. Then tell the police 'no comment' when they asked him why he telephoned her ? He already had alibi's, ringing the police from his home, arriving after the police with all doors and windows locked.
Bamber saying 'something's wrong at the farm', means just that. There is something wrong, he instigated it and now he's going to assist the police.
Agree Julie doing what she did because she was jilted is a creepy view. Threads created.
There is also a thread on the trial. Don't see what was unfair about it myself. Bamber has had 30 years to nit pick. But nothing really has come up.
Did the police remove carpets the following day ? Thought it was several days later, with Bamber's permission. None of the carpets would have Bamber's blood. He was padded up and not injured.
-
But you believe Jeremy and don't question why he didn't call 999 after being told "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun"? :o :o
yes thats a problem for me caroline and its one of the reasons i cannot be completely sure. I dont have a problem with him not calling 999, i think that would be something u would need to mull over for a few minutes before deciding what to do. I am the sort of person that would be frightened to call the police in case it turned out to be nothing.
Imo julie wanted him to get in trouble then it went too far and she had to save herself from being presecuted .
-
yes thats a problem for me caroline and its one of the reasons i cannot be completely sure. I dont have a problem with him not calling 999, i think that would be something u would need to mull over for a few minutes before deciding what to do. I am the sort of person that would be frightened to call the police in case it turned out to be nothing.
Imo julie wanted him to get in trouble then it went too far and she had to save herself from being presecuted .
Sorry Notsure, I don't understand your thinking at all.
-
Sorry Notsure, I don't understand your thinking at all.
thats alright i dont understand it much either!
i dont believe jms version of the phone call to her and it makes me wonder if she was in on it thats my guilty stance , however, if im in innocent mode i can appreciate why he didnt call 999 as im not sure i would have done. I might have called jm to ask her what she thought i should do/do you think i should call 999 or just tge local bobby.
If hes guilty she knew a lot more than shes told us but what i dont understand is why he wouldnt have dobbed her in. Why should she get away with it, thats what i would think. Does my thinking becomd any clearer caroline?
-
thats alright i dont understand it much either!
i dont believe jms version of the phone call to her and it makes me wonder if she was in on it thats my guilty stance , however, if im in innocent mode i can appreciate why he didnt call 999 as im not sure i would have done. I might have called jm to ask her what she thought i should do/do you think i should call 999 or just tge local bobby.
If hes guilty she knew a lot more than shes told us but what i dont understand is why he wouldnt have dobbed her in. Why should she get away with it, thats what i would think. Does my thinking becomd any clearer caroline?
He can't drop her in it without admitting guilt. Try to think.
If he had been planning the crime for months, why would he telephone Julie to ask her what to do ?
-
Telephoning the forth furthest away police station was a calculated move.
In a panic, you don't do that.
-
Adam, excuse me i do think thank you, its your inability to see where i am coming from.
if he knew there was a mountain of evidence against him his lawyers would have told him that it was likely he would be found guilty and advised him to plead guilty in which case he would have told police about her involvment for a lighter sentende. Just to say im innocent wasnt going to work if they had thst much evidence against him and he would have known that.
-
thats alright i dont understand it much either!
i dont believe jms version of the phone call to her and it makes me wonder if she was in on it thats my guilty stance , however, if im in innocent mode i can appreciate why he didnt call 999 as im not sure i would have done. I might have called jm to ask her what she thought i should do/do you think i should call 999 or just tge local bobby.
If hes guilty she knew a lot more than shes told us but what i dont understand is why he wouldnt have dobbed her in. Why should she get away with it, thats what i would think. Does my thinking becomd any clearer caroline?
I don't believe her version either but the last thing I would have done if I thought my dad/family were in danger, was call someone else. However, Jeremy denies calling Julie first, he said he called her after - so why would he? It can't have been for advice on what to do because according to him, he called the police first and why didn't her tell her he'd called the police?
He wouldn't dob her in because then he would have to admit to being guilty!!
-
To be fair caroline he did say he was confused about the sequence of the phone calls which is understandable after reading the police interview. I was confused after all that questioning.!
i think he must have said something other than theres something wrong at the farm, it doesnt make any sense.
i dont know what to beieve, i would loveto see the trial transcripts wouldnt you?
-
To be fair caroline he did say he was confused about the sequence of the phone calls which is understandable after reading the police interview. I was confused after all that questioning.!
i think he must have said something other than theres something wrong at the farm, it doesnt make any sense.
i dont know what to beieve, i would loveto see the trial transcripts wouldnt you?
What do think Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy ?
-
Adam, excuse me i do think thank you, its your inability to see where i am coming from.
if he knew there was a mountain of evidence against him his lawyers would have told him that it was likely he would be found guilty and advised him to plead guilty in which case he would have told police about her involvment for a lighter sentende. Just to say im innocent wasnt going to work if they had thst much evidence against him and he would have known that.
He couldn't plead guilty without forfeiting the inheritance.
-
To be fair caroline he did say he was confused about the sequence of the phone calls which is understandable after reading the police interview. I was confused after all that questioning.!
i think he must have said something other than theres something wrong at the farm, it doesnt make any sense.
i dont know what to beieve, i would loveto see the trial transcripts wouldnt you?
He wouldn't have been confused had he just told the truth and didn't try to remember which lie he told first.
-
have you ever been interviewed by the police it can get confusing.
especally if there asking the same qustions over and over agian.
of trying to catch you or through you of balance as they used to do.
-
have you ever been interviewed by the police it can get confusing.
especally if there asking the same qustions over and over agian.
of trying to catch you or through you of balance as they used to do.
I thought Jeremy coped well with the constant questioning,but at that stage the Police had very little to incriminate him. They were obviously hoping he would break down and confess. Whether he telephoned Julie before or after he called the Police was not so important in the scheme of things.
-
have you ever been interviewed by the police it can get confusing.
especally if there asking the same qustions over and over agian.
of trying to catch you or through you of balance as they used to do.
The truth is the truth - it can get confusing if you lie and no, I haven't been interviewed by the police. Liars get caught out - simple!
-
The truth is the truth - it can get confusing if you lie and no, I haven't been interviewed by the police. Liars get caught out - simple!
The same question over and over should be easy if you're telling the truth. You just keep repeating the same answer, the truth! ;D
-
two points - as the calls were supposed to be his planned alibi then he would have made very sure he had got his sequence and timings correct so as not to give cause for suspicion. Secondly when he found out his family were all dead then perhaps he did feel guilty about calling Julie before the police (if he did) and hesitated about his answers .Because after all if he is innocent his delays could have contributed to their deaths - athough even if the police had got their earlier its obvious they would not have gone in
The police are the ones who should have got EVERY timing correct as they were trained to do so and had clocks in front of them.
-
two points - as the calls were supposed to be his planned alibi then he would have made very sure he had got his sequence and timings correct so as not to give cause for suspicion. Secondly when he found out his family were all dead then perhaps he did feel guilty about calling Julie before the police (if he did) and hesitated about his answers .Because after all if he is innocent his delays could have contributed to their deaths - athough even if the police had got their earlier its obvious they would not have gone in
The police are the ones who should have got EVERY timing correct as they were trained to do so and had clocks in front of them.
I don't agree at all - you seem to be expecting him to have committed the perfect crime. He obviousy never thought he would be s suspect because he told Julie he'd thought of everything - that's clearly not the case because he didn't pay attention to detail such as times etc. He make mistakes that's why he got caught.
The police aren't trained not to make mistakes, they are human at the end of the day and we don't know that Jeremy didn't have a clock in front of him. He probably had a watch on given that he didn't go to bed.
-
I don't agree at all - you seem to be expecting him to have committed the perfect crime. He obviousy never thought he would be s suspect because he told Julie he'd thought of everything - that's clearly not the case because he didn't pay attention to detail such as times etc. He make mistakes that's why he got caught.
The police aren't trained not to make mistakes, they are human at the end of the day and we don't know that Jeremy didn't have a clock in front of him. He probably had a watch on given that he didn't go to bed.
I must admit I found it strange that Jeremy would entrust his life,as he termed it,to Julie. A few days ago I watched a programme on Shane Ragland,who told his girlfriend in the pub that he had once killed a man and he was apprehended. It may happen more than we think.
-
two points - as the calls were supposed to be his planned alibi then he would have made very sure he had got his sequence and timings correct so as not to give cause for suspicion. Secondly when he found out his family were all dead then perhaps he did feel guilty about calling Julie before the police (if he did) and hesitated about his answers .Because after all if he is innocent his delays could have contributed to their deaths - athough even if the police had got their earlier its obvious they would not have gone in
The police are the ones who should have got EVERY timing correct as they were trained to do so and had clocks in front of them.
Something has just occurred to me. When Jeremy went to WHF first time after the murders he took away his VHS recorder which for some reason had been set up in the lounge. Wonder why it was there and if he had used it the night of the murders?
-
Something has just occurred to me. When Jeremy went to WHF first time after the murders he took away his VHS recorder which for some reason had been set up in the lounge. Wonder why it was there and if he had used it the night of the murders?
It was Nevill's prize toy,which I suppose legally at the time Jeremy appropriated it he was entitled to do.
-
I must admit I found it strange that Jeremy would entrust his life,as he termed it,to Julie. A few days ago I watched a programme on Shane Ragland,who told his girlfriend in the pub that he had once killed a man and he was apprehended. It may happen more than we think.
Oh I don't think it's unusual.
-
Oh I don't think it's unusual.
Killers quite often talk. Sometimes because they aren't even sure if they are going to carry out their crime, but they are thinking about how they would do it and they tell people how they would do it, some brag afterwards and some confide because it is bothering them.
-
Crime doesn't bother nor affect psychopaths !
-
Crime doesn't bother nor affect psychopaths !
Not ALL killers are psychopaths! However, the ones that are often like to brag and some even like to involve themselves in the case. Jeremy orchestrated events on the first night, guiding the police doen a particular road. Classic!!
-
Not ALL killers are psychopaths! However, the ones that are often like to brag and some even like to involve themselves in the case. Jeremy orchestrated events on the first night, guiding the police doen a particular road. Classic!!
Front row seat to watch his plan unfold and to lead and manipulate.
-
Front row seat to watch his plan unfold and to lead and manipulate.
A front row seat to a performance of a black comedy he'd not only produced but directed, too. Amusing, or what?
-
A front row seat to a performance of a black comedy he'd not only produced but directed, too. Amusing, or what?
How can the murder of 5 people be considered amusing? Its not a comedy or a show.
-
I will try and upload some new material from the 50,000 documents in my possession. These documents came into my possession after the 2002 appeal hearing, and would have been destroyed but for me agreeing to take possession of them. I made sure through agreement with Jeremy, that the documents would belong to me, and that I would provide copies of any of these documents if and when he required them. It was a case of agree to these terms, or it would all have been destroyed either by fire, or thrown away along with the original keepers domestic rubbish. Since then Jeremy says he has a second copy of all the material that I have got, so there was no need for me to copy any more of it to him. I can't believe that Jeremy has got a copy of everything I was given, because he never saw all the material the former keeper had been keeping. Amongst this material, now in my possession are some original hand written, and or, signed documents, which may never have been copied at all whilst it was in storage by the former keeper. Anyway, I will do my best to upload as much of this material as I can...
Thanks for replying. You need a high speed scanner. Do you have the particular transcripts I mentioned (Mugford and Bamber)? It would be very interesting to read those.
-
Thanks for replying. You need a high speed scanner. Do you have the particular transcripts I mentioned (Mugford and Bamber)? It would be very interesting to read those.
I have them somewhere in the pile, might take some time to find them. So far, I have managed to locate the Ferguson, Venezis, Fletcher, Elliot, Howard, Cook, Bird, Knight, etc, I have box's and box's of material the vast majority of which I have not yet read. I have all the original letters from and to the CPS, and Essex police, and all the COLP stuff, the DICKENSON stuff, interviews, statements, action reports, and thousands of enquiries...
-
I have them somewhere in the pile, might take some time to find them. So far, I have managed to locate the Ferguson, Venezis, Fletcher, Elliot, Howard, Cook, Bird, Knight, etc, I have box's and box's of material the vast majority of which I have not yet read. I have all the original letters from and to the CPS, and Essex police, and all the COLP stuff, the DICKENSON stuff, interviews, statements, action reports, and thousands of enquiries...
Is swearing allowed here? In case not ------- hell! How many boxes are we talking about?
-
What a backward country this is. A guy is rotting in jail for 30 years, claiming innocence, and not a small number of people have a keen interest in his case but they can't get to grips with it properly because the papers are not on public view. In another case I am following, that of David Gilroy in Scotland, I read that his family is having difficulty in furthering his cause because they can't afford the trial transcripts at £120 per hour. If we built one fewer aircraft carrier that will have no planes, or omitted just one botched NHS IT procurement, we could have transcripts of everything for the next thousand years probably.
Here is an American case, that of Scott Peterson. Click on the link to see what his supporters have been able to put together. It's awesome
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm
-
Is swearing allowed here? In case not ------- hell! How many boxes are we talking about?
A shed full...
-
A shed full...
I believe you. I mean no criticism of you, but it is not fortunate for Bamber that you lack the resources to get this stuff online. I speak as a provisional pro-guilt person in this particular case, but I have seen what many pairs of eyes can achieve in these cases over time.
May I ask by what means all this stuff ended up with you? Did a firm of solicitors release it to you on Bamber's instructions? I also read somewhere that Bamber has access to the case file in prison. Is that true?
-
I believe you. I mean no criticism of you, but it is not fortunate for Bamber that you lack the resources to get this stuff online. I speak as a provisional pro-guilt person in this particular case, but I have seen what many pairs of eyes can achieve in these cases over time.
May I ask by what means all this stuff ended up with you? Did a firm of solicitors release it to you on Bamber's instructions? I also read somewhere that Bamber has access to the case file in prison. Is that true?
I came into possession of these papers, after the 2002 appeal hearing, which coincided with me re-establishing contact with Jeremy, after a break of several years (a decade of time, I think). I started to recommunicate with him again, as I say in 2002. I believe my records will show that I was actually back in touch with Jeremy before his 2002 appeal, but I did not take possession of all the material until after it had concluded. At that stage, with the appeal done and dusted, his solicitor, arranged for all the case file to be given to a trusted and very good friend of his. I believe this person already had a lot of Jeremy's files since before the actual appeal had taken place, but this hoarde was added to, once the appeal finished. Anyway, I had started to visit, write, and speak to Jeremy, again, and I became aware that he wanted me to give an opinion of the outcome of the appeal, which I understood to be 'DNA', related, linked to an examination of 'the' silencer. I hadn't seen any of this evidence other than what I had read in the newspapers, and seen in TV news reports, up until that point. So, Jeremy arranged for me to meet his 'good friend' on a shared visit at HMP Full Sutton, and shortly after this, although I continued to visit Jeremy, write to him, and speak to him on the telephone at least one evening per week, I was invited to the home of his 'good friend' for an informal chat, where I was introduced to the 'good friends' married partner, who was 'a BT engineer. This routine was repeated several times, over a period of time, until the keeper of all Jeremy's files contacted Jeremy and informed him that they were either moving house, or having the adjoining garage to their home renovated, and they couldn't keep his files any longer in storage. At that time, Jeremy was still in contact with Ewen Smith (solicitor) and although working behind the scenes (unpaid) he had been approached according to Jeremy to see if he would take possession of Jeremy's files, but couldn't. It was during a visit I had with Jeremy after this, that he spoke to me about the possibility of me having the files. This arose, because whilst serving a prison sentence at the same time as Jeremy has been serving his (1989 / 1990), I had entered into an agreement with him to provide support and advice to him about his case, on the basis that we had a contract between us involving book and film rights. This was at a time when very few people liked him, and he did not have legal aid to be properly represented. I was a serving prisoner myself at the time, but promised to devote as much of my time and resources into helping and supporting him for as long as I could, providing we had a contract. Well, back in 1989, we had such a contract. And, for the record, Jeremy even stipulated as one of the terms of our contract that I was only entitled to a maximum total of six hundred and fifty million dollars, in book and film rights. Anyway, that is just background information, leading up to how I came to be in possession of all the files. On that particular visit to see Jeremy in 2002, he asked me if I wanted the opportunity to keep all his files. He explained why, telling me that they could no longer be kept where they were at the moment because the current keeper was either moving house, or renovating a garage and therefore no longer had the space to keep all his material. He told me that his solicitor (Ewen Smith) had no room to store it all, and that the prison service would not let him (at that time) have possession in his cell because there was too much of the stuff, and besides, under health and safety, it would have been a fire risk. So he asked me if I wanted them, adding that if I didn't, he could not think of anybody else to give them to. Well, at that time I didn't have any room myself at home either, so on that first occasion, I told Jeremy that I was sorry, but I couldn't because I had no room, either. However within a couple of weeks, he persuaded me to have the lot, on the basis that all of it was material for 'our' book, and film.
-
He had also said to me at that time, that if I didn't take possession of the files they'd be destroyed, and lost forever...
-
At that stage, I had to arrange transport to collect all the files from Essex and bring them home to Yorkshire. I had to put a floor in our house roof space upon which to store everything. Part of the arrangement we had was that I would provide copies of any document he asked me for, if he needed it, or if I had found anything I thought he should have copies of...
These files were added to, by Jeremy also sending me files obtained under the freedom of information act, and the data protection act. There was also a further meeting arranged with another female visitor of his, who had been keeping some of his documents, so that these could be handed over to me. Furthermore, meetings were arranged for me to meet up with Andrew Hunter, and we exchanged letters, emails, and I was invited to his Oxfordshire home for discussions over tea and biscuits. There was an exchange of copied documents and photographs on these occasions., thus the size of the material kept growing and growing albeit only by a little each time. Then, I think in 2003 I was in direct contact with Ewen Smith at his Birmingham office, I visited him on a weekly basis for a couple of months, and we exchanged copy documents, again these were added to the collection. I have ended up with a small amount (about 50,000 by Jeremy's estimation) in my possession and under my control, as compared to 2 million such documents currently in Jeremy's possession. What I have noted, however, is that in my file, are the original (signed) letters written between his solicitors and the CPS, and personal letters he has received from many of his women pen friends, part of his prison file documents, and things of that nature. There are witness statements, action reports, officers reports, trial transcripts, some photgraphs, etc, etc, etc...
-
As far as I am concerned these files belong to me, but I would not hesitate to upload any material currently in my possession, if it helped Jeremy's cause...
-
There are also hundreds and hundreds of hand written notes, written by myself at different stages of my involvement with the case / files and Jeremy. These notes represent my opinions about a variety of different issues in the case, sometime s my views have been changed because new material has come to light, or I have received some information I did not have or know about before...
-
Thank you, Mike. That is an interesting story.
I think my biggest case to date involved about 50,000 pages of documentation and I have a good idea how much space that takes up (100-120 lever arch files for anyone interested - or 25-30 banker's boxes). 2,000,000 doesn't bear thinking about. For documents in numbers like these, not only is storage a problem but so is collation, because if they get in a jumble you may as well not have them at all.
I am a fanatic about keeping orderly files so I will resist the strong temptation to offer my help, because the interface between your shedload of paper and my brain would cause serious harm to the latter. Still, it's a pity that this logistical problem stands in the way of getting key material out there. Anyhow, I now have a better-informed understanding of why that is.
Did you say £650,000,000?
-
650,000,000 dollars
-
650,000,000 dollars
Oh, is that all? For a moment there I thought you were talking serious money.
-
Speaking of " serious money ",what about the police chief who was given £55,000 of the tax-payers money for " help" with moving house !.Questionable or what ?
-
I don't suppose that confidential file on Julie got slipped in the papers by mistake did it?
-
Sounds like you could do with some help mike.
by the anglolawyer, that stuuf on the other case is awesome as you put it. Why cant we get that on jb
-
What a backward country this is. A guy is rotting in jail for 30 years, claiming innocence, and not a small number of people have a keen interest in his case but they can't get to grips with it properly because the papers are not on public view. In another case I am following, that of David Gilroy in Scotland, I read that his family is having difficulty in furthering his cause because they can't afford the trial transcripts at £120 per hour. If we built one fewer aircraft carrier that will have no planes, or omitted just one botched NHS IT procurement, we could have transcripts of everything for the next thousand years probably.
Here is an American case, that of Scott Peterson. Click on the link to see what his supporters have been able to put together. It's awesome
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm
That link is not working for me Anglolawyer,but going off Wikipedia the guy is scum and deserves to be in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
-
That link is not working for me Anglolawyer,but going off Wikipedia the guy is scum and deserves to be in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
Well, I think he's guilty too, as it happens. But it's a damn good site. Google 'pwc peterson'. That should take you to it.