Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Alias on May 20, 2011, 06:36:PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
I wonder if he is emphasising the word himself or saying that Ralph said it that way?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Good point, it also contains superfluous info which is consistent with a cover-up.
Dad said, "Please come over". Totally unbelievable, was this a party Nevill was planning on or what?
Nobody and I mean nobody rings their son in the middle of the night when their daughter has gone crazy/berserk with a gun and asks "please".
It just isn't credible.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Good point, it also contains superfluous info which is consistent with a cover-up.
Dad said, "Please come over". Totally unbelievable, was this a party Nevill was planning on or what?
Nobody and I mean nobody rings their son in the middle of the night when their daughter has gone crazy/berserk with a gun and asks "please".
It just isn't credible.
I have to be honest. I have a problem with a lot of what Jeremy says in his telephone (?) interview. Isn´t there just one? But longer than this part here - I have heard more anyway. And do have some issues with the sound of it.
Maybe I will go through it one day and talk about what my thoughts are. I know I won´t be popular for it, but I have to be honest to myself. I want the truth.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Good point, it also contains superfluous info which is consistent with a cover-up.
Dad said, "Please come over". Totally unbelievable, was this a party Nevill was planning on or what?
Nobody and I mean nobody rings their son in the middle of the night when their daughter has gone crazy/berserk with a gun and asks "please".
It just isn't credible.
I have to be honest. I have a problem with a lot of what Jeremy says in his telephone (?) interview. Isn´t there just one? But longer than this part here - I have heard more anyway. And do have some issues with the sound of it.
Maybe I will go through it one day and talk about what my thoughts are. I know I won´t be popular for it, but I have to be honest to myself. I want the truth.
I think the more he says now the bigger a foot he puts in it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Good point, it also contains superfluous info which is consistent with a cover-up.
Dad said, "Please come over". Totally unbelievable, was this a party Nevill was planning on or what?
Nobody and I mean nobody rings their son in the middle of the night when their daughter has gone crazy/berserk with a gun and asks "please".
It just isn't credible.
I have to be honest. I have a problem with a lot of what Jeremy says in his telephone (?) interview. Isn´t there just one? But longer than this part here - I have heard more anyway. And do have some issues with the sound of it.
Maybe I will go through it one day and talk about what my thoughts are. I know I won´t be popular for it, but I have to be honest to myself. I want the truth.
I'd be interested in hearing your views abs
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Good point, it also contains superfluous info which is consistent with a cover-up.
Dad said, "Please come over". Totally unbelievable, was this a party Nevill was planning on or what?
Nobody and I mean nobody rings their son in the middle of the night when their daughter has gone crazy/berserk with a gun and asks "please".
It just isn't credible.
I have to be honest. I have a problem with a lot of what Jeremy says in his telephone (?) interview. Isn´t there just one? But longer than this part here - I have heard more anyway. And do have some issues with the sound of it.
Maybe I will go through it one day and talk about what my thoughts are. I know I won´t be popular for it, but I have to be honest to myself. I want the truth.
I'd be interested in hearing your views abs
Thank you Paulluap. It has bothered me for a while, I am just a little bit of a chicken, so I´ve :-X
Guess I opened up a little bit with the THE, couldn´t keep it inside any longer. ;)
-
Perhaps if you can find another link or two to any audio I can have a listen too. Happy to receive a PM too.
6 minutes here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-audio
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
-
Why chicken?? Your opionion is as validcas anyones in here and you have a right to think what you want !
Me i think hes guilty as charged ( the more i read the more im sure) i used to be 50/50 but that changed quite quickly after joining this forum! Nobody has posted anything thats made me think hes innocent (quite the opposite in fact) maybe im wring but who cares cos in the scheme of things my opinion doesnt matter anyway!
My biggest worry is that a guilty man will get freed on a technicality just because he has a fanclub!
-
Why chicken?? Your opionion is as validcas anyones in here and you have a right to think what you want !
Me i think hes guilty as charged ( the more i read the more im sure) i used to be 50/50 but that changed quite quickly after joining this forum! Nobody has posted anything thats made me think hes innocent (quite the opposite in fact) maybe im wring but who cares cos in the scheme of things my opinion doesnt matter anyway!
My biggest worry is that a guilty man will get freed on a technicality just because he has a fanclub!
Why chicken? It is just a gut feeling. Then again maybe not all of it. I am still trying to sort it out in my mind.
PaulluaP, here is more audio, it is from 12:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI)
In it, Jeremy could be contradicting himself about what they saw in that window - or more precisely, who saw it. In his blog, he is very specific about a fully lit room, a grown person walking from right to left that HE HIMSELF saw.
In this audio he says. "I know that I was outside with the police when they saw someone moving around in the house."
THEY saw? Shouldn't that have been WE saw?
Little things like that...
-
Yes, you're right there. A very clear emphasis on THEY saw. Interesting stuff!
-
Perhaps if you can find another link or two to any audio I can have a listen too. Happy to receive a PM too.
6 minutes here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-audio
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Had not heard that before. Thanks.
He should shut up. He gives himself away all the time. Just my opinion.
-
A lie is a lie. If you were innocent, there would not be a lie. Jeremy is lying. And probably guilty of this horrible crime.
I wish his own parents would have kept him and loved him + the grandparents that forced his parents to give him up! Fuck them all!
-
Why chicken?? Your opionion is as validcas anyones in here and you have a right to think what you want !
Me i think hes guilty as charged ( the more i read the more im sure) i used to be 50/50 but that changed quite quickly after joining this forum! Nobody has posted anything thats made me think hes innocent (quite the opposite in fact) maybe im wring but who cares cos in the scheme of things my opinion doesnt matter anyway!
My biggest worry is that a guilty man will get freed on a technicality just because he has a fanclub!
Why chicken? It is just a gut feeling. Then again maybe not all of it. I am still trying to sort it out in my mind.
PaulluaP, here is more audio, it is from 12:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI)
In it, Jeremy could be contradicting himself about what they saw in that window - or more precisely, who saw it. In his blog, he is very specific about a fully lit room, a grown person walking from right to left that HE HIMSELF saw.
In this audio he says. "I know that I was outside with the police when they saw someone moving around in the house."
THEY saw? Shouldn't that have been WE saw?
Little things like that...
Hi Abs! I have heard these audiotapes before, but thought i would listen to them again in case i'd missed something. Regarding the above: I simply took what Jeremy had said as him emphasising the words "they saw" (rather than "we saw") to get the significant point across that not only did he see someone in the window, but that the police did too!. If that makes any sense? I think too much is being read into those words, just my opinion.
I will say though, when Jeremy was asked by the interviewer what life was like on the farm, i think he used the wrong words there, when he said: "I am quite happy if i'm banged up!" ;D
-
Why chicken?? Your opionion is as validcas anyones in here and you have a right to think what you want !
Me i think hes guilty as charged ( the more i read the more im sure) i used to be 50/50 but that changed quite quickly after joining this forum! Nobody has posted anything thats made me think hes innocent (quite the opposite in fact) maybe im wring but who cares cos in the scheme of things my opinion doesnt matter anyway!
My biggest worry is that a guilty man will get freed on a technicality just because he has a fanclub!
Joolz, it sounds a bit derogatory to label some people as being in a 'fan club'. Maybe some people have examined the case in a similar manner to your own examination.... but have come to a different conclusion.
Going off topic from the thread title...
I retain some doubt about Jeremy's alleged innocence due to damning circumstancial evidence. I do retain some doubt as to the validity of this circumstancial evidence... but other than a document posted on here about composite statements, I've yet to see solid proof from the defence, re statements actually being either 'sexed up' or eidited between arrest and trial with the aim of securing a conviction.
On this issue alone, the defence is alleging that numerous pages of of statements are simply missing.
It just goes round and round because I'm guessing the poster who adheres to the prosecution line would argue that the missing pages are probably irrelavent... and the poster who takes up the defence line would argue the exact opposite, suspecting the pages were ommitted precisely because they dont fit the prosecutions' case.
-
A lie is a lie. If you were innocent, there would not be a lie. Jeremy is lying. And probably guilty of this horrible crime.
I wish his own parents would have kept him and loved him + the grandparents that forced his parents to give him up! Fuck them all!
I'm at work... and so cant listen to the audio links that have secured abs believing in Jeremy's guilt :o Frustrating!!! >:(
-
I personally resent being called part of a "fan club". I am interested in this case because I believe this man has suffered a gross miscarriage of justice of great magnitude. My main problem keeps nagging me. Why was it deemed necessary that so much evidence to be witheld from the defence team? I believed that he was innocent when I first heard the verdict and I still think he's innocent today the more I hear. Why therefore should so many people who think the same as I do be called a "fan club". That is patronising in the extreme. And for someone who is always going on about people having the right to believe what they want, this is a blatant contradiction of that belief. In other words. Those who think he's guilty they have the right to believe what they like without being contradicted by anyone.
But on the other hand those who think he is not guilty but has suffered at the hands of our flawed justice system are to be termed "fans" of Jeremy Bamber. If you had suffered at the hand of a corrupt justice system I would also fight for you and not follow other "fans" of our so called justice system like sheep, who believe the decisions of the appeal courts just because they are appeal courts without really looking at the unjust decisions they have made in the past and the CCRC decision this time around. Their decision was floored and it is obviously floored to those who won't take the blinkers from their eyes and see it for themselves. The truth is the CCRC need to be investigated themselves.
There is so much corruption in this system it is unbelievable. abs, start looking at the other evidence instead of hanging on the bad memories of Jeremy Bamber. Try remembering all you said 25 years ago. In fact if he had rehearsed it all over 25 years wouldn't you think that he would tell it the same each time? Sure he would. The very fact that his words are different each time round indicates that he hasn't rehearsed it. Look at every accusation that those who think he is guilty say. It is mostly based upon things they think possible or impossible, such as "We don't think Sheila did it" Why? "Oh because she was a frail person". That is an assumption. Or if you contend with them when they say that Sheila was "spotlessly" clean and you mention that so was Jeremy, They don't judge it on the same level as they do Sheila. Rather they have to bring in a "hit man" to explain why Jeremy himself was clean. So you have all these assumptions they make. Again, rather than believing Mugford was a lier (which she was proved to be after her story of a hitman was found out to be false) they would rather believe JB to be the lier.
My great question is, why did not the defence barrister not question the relatives more rigorously about the silencer and the very real possibility of them contaminating it with the blood left at the scene or with the bloodied clothes found soaking in the bucket which Ann Eaton "took home" to "wash" of all things. Why oh why did he not question them on that? That silencer should never ever have been entered as evidence and Julie Mugford should have been deemed an unreliable witness as soon as her story of the "hit man" didn't hold water. Those are the two key elements that made that trial a miscarriage of justice. Not what Jeremy Bamber said or did not say.
-
I personally resent being called part of a "fan club". I am interested in this case because I believe this man has suffered a gross miscarriage of justice of great magnitude. My main problem keeps nagging me. Why was it deemed necessary that so much evidence to be witheld from the defence team? I believed that he was innocent when I first heard the verdict and I still think he's innocent today the more I hear. Why therefore should so many people who think the same as I do be called a "fan club". That is patronising in the extreme. And for someone who is always going on about people having the right to believe what they want, this is a blatant contradiction of that belief. In other words. Those who think he's guilty they have the right to believe what they like without being contradicted by anyone.
But on the other hand those who think he is not guilty but has suffered at the hands of our flawed justice system are to be termed "fans" of Jeremy Bamber. If you had suffered at the hand of a corrupt justice system I would also fight for you and not follow other "fans" of our so called justice system like sheep, who believe the decisions of the appeal courts just because they are appeal courts without really looking at the unjust decisions they have made in the past and the CCRC decision this time around. Their decision was floored and it is obviously floored to those who won't take the blinkers from their eyes and see it for themselves. The truth is the CCRC need to be investigated themselves.
There is so much corruption in this system it is unbelievable. abs, start looking at the other evidence instead of hanging on the bad memories of Jeremy Bamber. Try remembering all you said 25 years ago. In fact if he had rehearsed it all over 25 years wouldn't you think that he would tell it the same each time? Sure he would. The very fact that his words are different each time round indicates that he hasn't rehearsed it. Look at every accusation that those who think he is guilty say. It is mostly based upon things they think possible or impossible, such as "We don't think Sheila did it" Why? "Oh because she was a frail person". That is an assumption. Or if you contend with them when they say that Sheila was "spotlessly" clean and you mention that so was Jeremy, They don't judge it on the same level as they do Sheila. Rather they have to bring in a "hit man" to explain why Jeremy himself was clean. So you have all these assumptions they make. Again, rather than believing Mugford was a lier (which she was proved to be after her story of a hitman was found out to be false) they would rather believe JB to be the lier.
My great question is, why did not the defence barrister not question the relatives more rigorously about the silencer and the very real possibility of them contaminating it with the blood left at the scene or with the bloodied clothes found soaking in the bucket which Ann Eaton "took home" to "wash" of all things. Why oh why did he not question them on that? That silencer should never ever have been entered as evidence and Julie Mugford should have been deemed an unreliable witness as soon as her story of the "hit man" didn't hold water. Those are the two key elements that made that trial a miscarriage of justice. Not what Jeremy Bamber said or did not say.
Passionate response that grahame.... Pretty much concur, no suprises there though, me being a fellow 'moderate lefty' ;)
-
Very well said, grahame! I would applaud you for that, but already gave you one less than an hour ago ;)
All the reasons you give here for believing in Jeremy's innocence, are the same for me. There is no doubt about it that the relatives should have been investigated regarding the convenient finding of the silencer. And if the White House Farm murders had occurred today, i feel certain that the silencer evidence would have been thrown out, and the testimony of a jilted girlfriend. If this had been a fair trial, Jeremy would not be where he is today, in my opinion.
-
Interesting audio in the 1.15 clip.
The last 15 seconds, in my opinion, are not consistent with other statements made at the time of the killings and discussed at the original trial.
Jeremy says in the interview "...and I specifically remember getting the engaged tone because I then pressed the last number redial at least twice more and both times got the engaged tone. (Long pause) And that is when I rang the Police."
Well, according to other statements this is not strictly true because in some accounts.........Jeremy rang Julie, Jeremy apparently looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police Station instead of dialling 999, Jeremy rang the Police a good while after apparently getting the engaged tone having pressed the last number redial at least twice more. For me, given Jeremy in his own words is talking about something he specifically remembers the inconsistancy raises question. Additionally, for me, there is a distinct change in the tone of Jeremy's voice when he pauses and then states "And that is when I rang the Police" ...........
-
Graeme i think maybe fanclub was the wrong word so i apologise!
Its not peoples opinions or beliefs that make me think like that it is certain peoples way of expressing them! Theres a minority on here that would believe he was innocent no matter what they read, infact one person has openly admitted that they havnt read appeal documents because they disagree with what is in them!
If people think he is innocent then i respect that opinion but a few posters do his cause no favours as they are so sure hes innocent that they go off on a tangent as soon as anyone suggests otherwise!
Ive said all along the investigation was seriously flawed and i 100% support a retrial so the truth whatever that may be can finally come out!
I agree the relatives and JM acted very suspiciously but JBs team had the chance to discredit JM at his appeal and they chose not to! So its either a case of shoddy defence lawyers that didnt do their job or that they knew JM wasnt lying!
People can say she lied, commited perjury etc... But his team have not proven she did so!
-
A lie is a lie. If you were innocent, there would not be a lie. Jeremy is lying. And probably guilty of this horrible crime.
I wish his own parents would have kept him and loved him + the grandparents that forced his parents to give him up! Fuck them all!
I'm at work... and so cant listen to the audio links that have secured abs believing in Jeremy's guilt :o Frustrating!!! >:(
Rochford, don't get too excited about the audio as I have listened and it's not doing anything for me either way. I think the reason Jeremy is highlighting the "THEY SAW SOMETHING" is because that is what matters. There is no point in saying HE saw something as that means nothing at all (HE is the same chap who has been telling the Police for 26 years that he didn't kill his family and they haven't believed what he has said so far). So the fact that THEY saw something (as in the Police) is the key point which is why he is highlighting it. They half admit THEY saw something with the "trick of the light" fairy story. Set it all up and let's have a demonstration of a trick of the light as I'm trying my hardest to believe it. They saw something and it wasn't a trick of the light. Remember they were calling senior members of EP very early that morning telling them of a possible siege situation at WHF. Justify why they were using the word "Siege" if they had no other intel apart from what Jeremy Bamber had told them in the initial phone call and conversations on site with Police?
-
So well put Grahame (who yesterday was saying the forum had gone to pot with the type of people who pot)I couldn't have put that across as well as that.
As someone who is constantly being accused of being one of JB s biggest fan I bet I have tried harder to find things that would make me decide he was guilty than the people who think he is guilty have looked at reasons he could be innocent.
I have looked at his background no history of violence to anyone including his family no motive he had a wonderful lifestyle if we are talking about money the relatives had more motive planting the silencer to make money, mugford an accomplished liar when she went from shop to shop committing fraud why believe her this time I might have the tiniest bit of doubt if she hadn't sold her story after the trial. JBs behaviour after the murders stupid thick whatever he would not have left the relatives raking around Whf if he was guilty. His behaviour in the witness box I defy anyone to say his behaviour was someone putting on a brilliant performance to prove he was innocent remember he apparently told mugford what a good actor he was.
Where had JB s brilliant acting skills gone when he should have been putting on the performance of his life I think that went to Miss Mugford
I think a lot of people might agree his so called performance was an arrogant young man thinking how ridiculous he was sitting there accused of murdering his whole family.
Nobody who had committed those murders would have baited the prosecution the way he did.
JB was not someone who had been in and out of prison all his life if he was responsible he would have been scared out of his life he could have been going to prison for the rest of his life and as for the hitman theory isn't the reason a hitman is usually used so the person has an alibi. Why didn't JB go and see Julie and let the police find the staged suicide and don't forget JB had to leave the hitman details of where to find the bible what if sheila had moved it
I could go on and on the grateful relatives giving one of the investigating officers a job at the caravan
Gratitude above and beyond
But Abs if we are down to scrutinising words think of JB s reaction when he was told all his family were dead
Well the police must have killed them
What part of his master plan was that
Shouldn't it have been I knew Sheila would do this before
If JB had spoken to Neville a few hours before (Sheila had kicked off on previous occasions)and if JB and the police thought they had seen someone move around in the house wouldn't that be a natural response I can see myself saying that also
Abs why do you think he would say that
-
Perhaps if you can find another link or two to any audio I can have a listen too. Happy to receive a PM too.
6 minutes here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/audio/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-audio
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Had not heard that before. Thanks.
He should shut up. He gives himself away all the time. Just my opinion.
Are you being fair to Jeremy, Abs? If you were interviewed by a broadcasting company about a highly complex subject that you must simplify, something you care deeply about, how well do you think might do? Do you think you would be able to explain yourself clearly, make your points in a natural, 100% accurate, honest and compelling manner and come across as you do here? In my experience, it is most unlikely that you would do so.
I've been interviewed a few times by the media in respect of protest campaigns and a charity I'm involved with and I can tell you that the experience is not at all how you might think it would be. Being interviewed by the media is not something the average person does very often. It's a surreal and stressful experience. I am in awe of anyone who can do a good interview without becoming so stressed out that they mess it up: which is what happened to me.
On one occasion I was interviewed, I was first approached by a researcher a week or two prior to the interview. She was lovely and very sympathetic to our campaign. She asked me lots of questions, gave me time to think about my answers and wanted all the background information she could gather in order to understand our protest. I was left with the impression that the interviewer would interview me just as the researcher had done. Another time I had to go to the BBC studios to be interviewed. Neither experience turned out as I'd expected.
In the intervening period until the day of each of the interviews, I worried about what I would say: would I remember to make all the key points or would I say the wrong thing and mess it up? I kept rehearsing what I wanted to say in my head so that I could reproduce these points in the interview.
The interview at the BBC was a nightmare. I sat dripping with sweat in an otherwise completely darkened, windowless room with this fiercely hot, bright lamp shining in my face. I couldn't see the interviewer, I just heard this disembodied voice that I struggled to hear going over and over and the same points and questions. I felt pressured to give different answers each time. It was so surreal, I can't see how I could have behaved naturally under such pressurised and artificial circumstances. The interview took ages and kept stopping and starting. I became so confused and stressed that I ended up giving nonsensical answers, I just wanted to get out of there.
The other interview was recorded at a demo, so should have been better, however, I lost track of the points I wanted to make when the interviewer I'd expected to be sympathetic began by attacking us: "This protest is unlikely to change anything, is it?", he said and it got worse from there on.
The, heavily edited, final versions of the above interviews seemed manipulated and to bear little or no relation to what I'd said. The interviewers' questions were edited out and a number of sections of my replies seemed stitched together as though I was making an - incoherent - statement.
Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!
When I listen to these clips of Jeremy's interview I recall the dreadful interviews I did. Given the circumstances, I'm not all surprised that I messed up my interviews, nor am I surprised that stressed out Jeremy messed up his: perhaps it's in the nature of the media beast to distort and manipulate interviews, abs.
-
A lie is a lie. If you were innocent, there would not be a lie. Jeremy is lying. And probably guilty of this horrible crime.
I wish his own parents would have kept him and loved him + the grandparents that forced his parents to give him up! Fuck them all!
I'm at work... and so cant listen to the audio links that have secured abs believing in Jeremy's guilt :o Frustrating!!! >:(
Rochford, don't get too excited about the audio as I have listened and it's not doing anything for me either way. I think the reason Jeremy is highlighting the "THEY SAW SOMETHING" is because that is what matters. There is no point in saying HE saw something as that means nothing at all (HE is the same chap who has been telling the Police for 26 years that he didn't kill his family and they haven't believed what he has said so far). So the fact that THEY saw something (as in the Police) is the key point which is why he is highlighting it. They half admit THEY saw something with the "trick of the light" fairy story. Set it all up and let's have a demonstration of a trick of the light as I'm trying my hardest to believe it. They saw something and it wasn't a trick of the light. Remember they were calling senior members of EP very early that morning telling them of a possible siege situation at WHF. Justify why they were using the word "Siege" if they had no other intel apart from what Jeremy Bamber had told them in the initial phone call and conversations on site with Police?
I've heard them before Vortex but i wanted to see if I could get what the other posters were picking up from it. I've read a lot of your posts and i would say from my point of view we're on a similar wavelength re this case.
-
I wonder has this forum gone to pot with people like Grahame, Vortex Chochokeira etc
Far far from it
(mine was rubbish my excuse using my iPhone and not checking what I had written but I hope everyone gets my drift)
-
I wonder has this forum gone to pot with people like Grahame, Vortex Chochokeira etc
Far far from it
(mine was rubbish my excuse using my iPhone and not checking what I had written but I hope everyone gets my drift)
Lol iphone has a lot to answer for, i do the same!
-
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
chocho: "Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!"
That could be true.
I don´t know what to think - I wish I could make up my mind!
-
He is well institutionalised by now as can be heard by the latest audio messages. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind?
-
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
chocho: "Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!"
That could be true.
I don´t know what to think - I wish I could make up my mind!
Assisted Breaking System. That's what I think of every time I see abs ;)
Are you back on the fence after your trip over to the other side? ;D
-
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
chocho: "Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!"
That could be true.
I don't know what to think - I wish I could make up my mind!
Assisted Breaking System. That's what I think of every time I see abs ;)
Are you back on the fence after your trip over to the other side? ;D
Hanging in mid air... I need some ground under my feet regarding this frustrating case. Not a thing makes sense to me! :o
I don't WANT to think that Jeremy did this and I have a hard time picturing it; but there are elements that tell me that he might have.
He doesn't display any emotion talking about his family (and never once mentions the twin boys). Perhaps a tiny hint of emotion when he talks about how he "walks" with his dad, I have to be fair. You can hear that he is very emotional talking about the drawing a friend made for him of him standing outside with his fist raised. Only emotion for himself...
-
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
chocho: "Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!"
That could be true.
I don't know what to think - I wish I could make up my mind!
Assisted Breaking System. That's what I think of every time I see abs ;)
Are you back on the fence after your trip over to the other side? ;D
Hanging in mid air... I need some ground under my feet regarding this frustrating case. Not a thing makes sense to me! :o
I don't WANT to think that Jeremy did this and I have a hard time picturing it; but there are elements that tell me that he might have.
He doesn't display any emotion talking about his family (and never once mentions the twin boys). Perhaps a tiny hint of emotion when he talks about how he "walks" with his dad, I have to be fair. You can hear that he is very emotional talking about the drawing a friend made for him of him standing outside with his fist raised. Only emotion for himself...
I find some of his verbal statements oddly phrased. The statement about visiting a supermarket to buy a mangoe was light-hearted and understandable, if quirky. The statement about the informatives propping up his 'dear old mum and dad' was misplaced in its' quirkyness. I think he doesn't come across well and I wonder if this aided in the relatives in turning against him. In life, some people are not great communicators. Where other statements made by him also meant to be quirky but were actually out of place and open to being interpreted in a more sisniter manner "oh no uncle bobby" etc. He doesn't strike me as a a young man who would have necessarily conformed to what was deemed appropriate by his family, re day to day verbal communication.
-
On the 6 minute tape, he doesn't sound guilty to me. It's a cracking interview. His blog says he's been banned from any other interviews with journalists / docu-makers etc.
-
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
chocho: "Unlike Jeremy Bamber, I hadn't been locked away in prison in a surreal and artificial, 25 year time warp when I was interviewed. My freedom did not partly depend on how well I might do in those interviews. How hard must it be to come across as natural under such circumstances!"
That could be true.
I don't know what to think - I wish I could make up my mind!
Assisted Breaking System. That's what I think of every time I see abs ;)
Are you back on the fence after your trip over to the other side? ;D
Hanging in mid air... I need some ground under my feet regarding this frustrating case. Not a thing makes sense to me! :o
I don't WANT to think that Jeremy did this and I have a hard time picturing it; but there are elements that tell me that he might have.
He doesn't display any emotion talking about his family (and never once mentions the twin boys). Perhaps a tiny hint of emotion when he talks about how he "walks" with his dad, I have to be fair. You can hear that he is very emotional talking about the drawing a friend made for him of him standing outside with his fist raised. Only emotion for himself...
Hi abs,
We must remember that Jeremy Bamber has been locked away in the harsh environment of HM prisons for over 25 years, since he was a young man of just 24 years old.
Imagine it. You're 24, an innocent man and you've just been locked up in a cell for the next 25 years. In a few years time the Home Secretary is going to come along and play a pretty mean trick on you by telling you, sorry, chum, I've decided to leave you here to rot: you will never leave prison, you will die there. But you don't yet know that this is going to happen. How strong will you have to become to survive this, abs?
Brian Keenan, one of the Beirut hostages who was a captive for around 5 years - like Jeremy, he was in solitary confinement for part of that time - wrote a wonderful book about his experiences and the effect of captivity on the human mind. The book's called 'Evil Cradling'.
Keenan writes of his constant struggle to remain sane. He describes that one method he had for keeping a tenuous hold on his sanity was to mentally rerun every piece of music he'd ever heard and every film he'd ever seen, day after day, after day. Some days though the strategy didn't work. Sitting there for months on end, all alone, with no one to talk to or to reassure him that he was alive and still existed, that he would survive, Keenan went to the brink of madness and back. At those times, all of his films and music would play simultaneously and take over his mind. Then Keenan would do a crazy little dance to the resultant demented cacophony of sounds and images until he callapsed in exhaustion.
Some days there'd be a terrible squawking and a flock of imaginary birds would fill his cell as terrified Keenan flung himself around in an attempt to escape them.
One of the other Beirut hostages, John McCarthy, also wrote a wonderful book about his captivity which he called, "Some Other Rainbow." The first page of the book has the lyrics to one of the songs he replayed in his mind while sitting there in his lonely cell:
Wonderful Remark
How can you stand the silence
That pervades when we all cry?
How can you watch the violence
That erupts before your eyes?
How can you tell us something
Just to keep us hangin' on?
Something that just don't mean nothing
When we see it you are gone
Clinging to some other rainbow
While we're waiting in the cold
Telling us the same old story
Knowing time is growing old.
That was a Wonderful Remark
I had my eyes closed in the dark
I sighed a million sighs
I told a million lies - to myself - to myself
How can we listen to you
When we know your talk is cheap?
How can we ever question
Why we give more and you keep?
How can your empty laughter
Fill a room like ours with joy
When you're only playing with us
Like a child does with a toy?
How can we ever feel the freedom
Or the flame lit by the spark
How can we ever come out even
When reality is stark?
http://www.wolfgangsvault.com/van-morrison/video/wonderful-remark_-1229593273.html
-
We must remember that Jeremy Bamber has been locked away in the harsh environment of HM prisons for over 25 years, since he was a young man of just 24 years old.
He's lucky he wasn't hung but then again hanging would be too fast and too good for a child murderer wouldn't it babe?
-
We must remember that Jeremy Bamber has been locked away in the harsh environment of HM prisons for over 25 years, since he was a young man of just 24 years old.
He's lucky he wasn't hung but then again hanging would be too fast and too good for a child murderer wouldn't it babe?
You are sickening.
-
Isn't that what we used to do with child murderers nice Keira? ;)
In fact, just thinking about it the Bamber case is a very good example as to why we shouldn't hang child murderers but if guilty the perfect reason why we should do so and I for one would gladly provide the rope.
-
We must remember that Jeremy Bamber has been locked away in the harsh environment of HM prisons for over 25 years, since he was a young man of just 24 years old.
He's lucky he wasn't hung but then again hanging would be too fast and too good for a child murderer wouldn't it babe?
John you have some strange thoughts running through your head. Are you sure that you yourself do not have these latent tendencies of blood thirsty violence deep within your heart? I'm worried about you. Do you think you ought to see a psychiatrist before these worrying feelings manifest themselves and you begin to murder potential child murderers? :o
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
Good points. Worth considering.
-
If Jeremy had indeed left the gun on the kitchen table as he originally said,then Im sure someone would have put it away.The table appeared to be set ready for breakfast.However,if Jeremy left the gun on the settle in the scullery,as he now remembers,then it is possible that nobody noticed it?Gun on the kitchen table statement,it seems credible that a very upset Sheila could have grabbed it impulsively and gone beserk.Gun out in the scullery statement,not so sure.To go looking for the gun shows premeditation and Im wondering if it would have been more likely that she would have gone to the gun cupboard for a shotgun,rather than opt for a rifle that she had probably never fired before,due to it being a very new addition to Nevilles gun collection?
-
The recent Crimes that shocked Britain documentary showed Jeremy leaving the gun on the kitchen table.
Then again it also gave the impression that Jeremy rang the Police as soon as he received an alleged call from Nevill. This is not true as confirmed by Jeremy in his first interviews whether they be as a witness or as a suspect. Jeremy took time to look up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police Station as opposed to dialling 999 and in some reports there are claims he also rang Julie at this time.
-
If Jeremy had indeed left the gun on the kitchen table as he originally said,then Im sure someone would have put it away.The table appeared to be set ready for breakfast.However,if Jeremy left the gun on the settle in the scullery,as he now remembers,then it is possible that nobody noticed it?Gun on the kitchen table statement,it seems credible that a very upset Sheila could have grabbed it impulsively and gone beserk.Gun out in the scullery statement,not so sure.To go looking for the gun shows premeditation and Im wondering if it would have been more likely that she would have gone to the gun cupboard for a shotgun,rather than opt for a rifle that she had probably never fired before,due to it being a very new addition to Nevilles gun collection?
I think is unlikely that Sheila would have selected a shotgun rather than a rifle. Nevill's double barrelled 12 bore shotgun shown in some of the photographs posted on this site was a far heavier weapon than the rifle. It appears to have an extended stock, which Nevill will have required as a very tall man with long arms. It would therefore have been very difficult for Sheila to mount the shotgun to her shoulder easily and the recoil would have been considerable. Sheila would have been aware of this from her life on the farm. There is the further problem with the shotgun that it could only fire two shots before requiring reloading, and the first shot would have awoken everyone in the house. If this was premediated the rifle was the natural choice.
-
I see what you mean. I think she would have had to pass through the scullery on route to the gun cupboard anyway.
CuriousEssex,I think Jeremy is a little confused as to where he actually left the gun.He has often mentioned the kitchen table,but now mentions the settle in the scullery.The Crimes that shook Britain documentry was fairly good,I thought,but wasnt totally portrayed acurately.Do you remenber it showing Sheila having a vocal argument with her parents? Yet Jeremy says that when his parents put it to Sheila about possible fostering arrangements,that she just sat there,staring into space.
-
I see what you mean. I think she would have had to pass through the scullery on route to the gun cupboard anyway.
CuriousEssex,I think Jeremy is a little confused as to where he actually left the gun.He has often mentioned the kitchen table,but now mentions the settle in the scullery.The Crimes that shook Britain documentry was fairly good,I thought,but wasnt totally portrayed acurately.Do you remenber it showing Sheila having a vocal argument with her parents? Yet Jeremy says that when his parents put it to Sheila about possible fostering arrangements,that she just sat there,staring into space.
Yes I agree the documentary did not describe events accurately but then again, in my opinion, its purpose was to cast doubt on a convinction and as such had bias which is fair enough. However, in such circumstances I do beleive it needs to be convincing.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
BIG error here as the gun as Jeremy refers to was moved from the table by Nevill and what's more, Jeremy knows this to be fact. It's all in the detail campers! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent052.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Eh? Nevill didnt live to tell the tale did he?
-
Tyler
You point out the kitchen table is layed ready for breakfast in the crime scene pictures which would also have been available and disclosed to the defence.
My personal beleif is that Jeremy's first statements as a witness are most important as these will be the most accurate record of Jeremy's alibi. It is that alibi which needs to be tested if he was guilty. I beleive in those statements Jeremy claimed to have left THE gun on the kitchen table. Jeremy also details he left White House Farm at about 9.30 pm the previous evening. If Jeremy as he first claimed had left THE gun on the kitchen table then the table could not have been layed for breakfast at that point in time.
It is known Nevill was in the kitchen at around 9.30 pm as he spoke with the Farm Secretary on the telphone. Surely if Nevill was in the kitchen then Nevill would have noticed THE loaded gun on the kitchen table. In all likelihood as mentioned above in previous psots he would probably have secured it given the discussions about the possibility of fostering Sheila's children. If not, in any event THE gun would have had to have been moved in order to lay the table ready for breakfast. If true at this point in time Jeremy would not know where THE gun will have been placed / put / secured. Jeremy's alibi, if guilty, has THE gun readily available for Sheila to go beserk.
If THE gun has been moved from the kitchen table then Nevill or June Bamber's fingerprints would be expected to be on THE gun. I do not beleive such fingerprints were noted when THE gun was examined. If Sheila had moved THE gun then her fingerprints would be more of her fingerprints than were found on THE gun.
This raises potential questions about Jeremy's version of events / alibi.
If Jeremy left THE gun on the kitchen table then he left THE gun on the kitchen table. However, the crime scene pictures, show someone will have had to have moved the gun from the kichen table. In moving THE gun someone will have to have held the gun in a manner that supports it having been moved.
There is no need for Jeremy to change his version of events and place THE gun in the scullery when Jeremy is a witness to 4 murders and a suicide as originally accepted.
So why does Jeremy, change his version of events to place THE gun in the scullery when he is a suspect. An explanation could be if THE gun is placed in the scullery and not the kitchen then there will be no evidence to suggest that THE gun would have to have been held in such a manner as to move it from where Jeremy had claimed he had left it before Sheila allegedly goes beserk. I thnk there were very few fingerprints found on THE gun although I could be wrong.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
BIG error here as the gun as Jeremy refers to was moved from the table by Nevill and what's more, Jeremy knows this to be fact. It's all in the detail campers! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent052.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
How does Jeremy know for fact that Nevill moved THE gun from the kitchen table?
Is this information detailed anywhere?
Why is it reported Jeremy left THE gun in the scullery when you are saying Jeremy knows Nevill moved it from the kitchern table???
-
CuriousEssex,good points and I see exactly where you are coming from.I remember right back from when the murders took place that Jeremy maintained that he left the gun on the kitchen table.I am led to believe that is what is contained in Jeremys original statements to the police.Did it change when he became a suspect then? I didnt know that because I have only really become interested in the case of late.I noticed that,on his official website,it claims that he left the gun on a settle. There is a big difference between a kitchen table and a settle.I agree the changes he has made as to where he left the gun seem a little suspicious.But maybe he cannot genuinely be absolutely certain?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
BIG error here as the gun as Jeremy refers to was moved from the table by Nevill and what's more, Jeremy knows this to be fact. It's all in the detail campers! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent052.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
How does Jeremy know for fact that Nevill moved THE gun from the kitchen table?
Is this information detailed anywhere?
Why is it reported Jeremy left THE gun in the scullery when you are saying Jeremy knows Nevill moved it from the kitchern table???
Nevill always moved the guns when thick lad left them lying around and especially so when the six year-old's were around...mind you there were three of them!
-
CuriousEssex,good points and I see exactly where you are coming from.I remember right back from when the murders took place that Jeremy maintained that he left the gun on the kitchen table.I am led to believe that is what is contained in Jeremys original statements to the police.Did it change when he became a suspect then? I didnt know that because I have only really become interested in the case of late.I noticed that,on his official website,it claims that he left the gun on a settle. There is a big difference between a kitchen table and a settle.I agree the changes he has made as to where he left the gun seem a little suspicious.But maybe he cannot genuinely be absolutely certain?
Kitchen or scullery the difference is.......
If THE gun is left on the kitchen table it will have to have been held and moved by someone leaving consistent fingerprints.
If in the scullery ther is no proof to confirm THE gun will have to have been held and moved by someone.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWFCvXNAlPA)
Why do you think Jeremy says THE gun around 00:37. That has always puzzled me.
Back to the original question in the thread.
A possible explanation for Jeremy saying THE gun as opposed to A gun - By using THE it is consistent with Jeremy apparently leaving a loaded gun in the kitchen before he left on the previous evening. THE gun is consistent with that account.
With Nevill allegedly choosing to use THE gun would imply that Nevill had noticed Jeremy had left a loaded gun in the kitchen. Otherwise Jeremy would not have known to which gun Nevill was referring. It was Jeremy who by his own admission allegedly left THE gun in the kitchen.
If Nevill had noticed THE gun left loaded in the kitchen why did Nevill not put it away and secure it having earlier in the evening had a heated alleged discussion with Sheila in which it was allegedly suggested that her children should be fostered. - Afterall, I am sure Nevill would have known Sheila had a history of mental ilness.
BIG error here as the gun as Jeremy refers to was moved from the table by Nevill and what's more, Jeremy knows this to be fact. It's all in the detail campers! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent052.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
How does Jeremy know for fact that Nevill moved THE gun from the kitchen table?
Is this information detailed anywhere?
Why is it reported Jeremy left THE gun in the scullery when you are saying Jeremy knows Nevill moved it from the kitchern table???
Nevill always moved the guns when thick lad left them lying around and especially so when the six year-old's were around...mind you there were three of them!
I am afraid that is not proof Nevill moved THE gun if left on the kitchen table on the night of 7th August after Jeremy left at 9.30 pm.
-
Tyler
You point out the kitchen table is layed ready for breakfast in the crime scene pictures which would also have been available and disclosed to the defence.
My personal beleif is that Jeremy's first statements as a witness are most important as these will be the most accurate record of Jeremy's alibi. It is that alibi which needs to be tested if he was guilty. I beleive in those statements Jeremy claimed to have left THE gun on the kitchen table. Jeremy also details he left White House Farm at about 9.30 pm the previous evening. If Jeremy as he first claimed had left THE gun on the kitchen table then the table could not have been layed for breakfast at that point in time.
It is known Nevill was in the kitchen at around 9.30 pm as he spoke with the Farm Secretary on the telphone. Surely if Nevill was in the kitchen then Nevill would have noticed THE loaded gun on the kitchen table. In all likelihood as mentioned above in previous psots he would probably have secured it given the discussions about the possibility of fostering Sheila's children. If not, in any event THE gun would have had to have been moved in order to lay the table ready for breakfast. If true at this point in time Jeremy would not know where THE gun will have been placed / put / secured. Jeremy's alibi, if guilty, has THE gun readily available for Sheila to go beserk.
If THE gun has been moved from the kitchen table then Nevill or June Bamber's fingerprints would be expected to be on THE gun. I do not beleive such fingerprints were noted when THE gun was examined. If Sheila had moved THE gun then her fingerprints would be more of her fingerprints than were found on THE gun.
This raises potential questions about Jeremy's version of events / alibi.
If Jeremy left THE gun on the kitchen table then he left THE gun on the kitchen table. However, the crime scene pictures, show someone will have had to have moved the gun from the kichen table. In moving THE gun someone will have to have held the gun in a manner that supports it having been moved.
There is no need for Jeremy to change his version of events and place THE gun in the scullery when Jeremy is a witness to 4 murders and a suicide as originally accepted.
So why does Jeremy, change his version of events to place THE gun in the scullery when he is a suspect. An explanation could be if THE gun is placed in the scullery and not the kitchen then there will be no evidence to suggest that THE gun would have to have been held in such a manner as to move it from where Jeremy had claimed he had left it before Sheila allegedly goes beserk. I thnk there were very few fingerprints found on THE gun although I could be wrong.
Good observations.
However I don´t think you can put too much into which fingerprints were found on the rifle and which not. The gun had been handled so carelessly by the police after the discovery. They were moving it around, placing it on Sheila´s body in different positions - I think without gloves. Who knows what else was done with this rifle?!
-
CuriousEssex,good points and I see exactly where you are coming from.I remember right back from when the murders took place that Jeremy maintained that he left the gun on the kitchen table.I am led to believe that is what is contained in Jeremys original statements to the police.Did it change when he became a suspect then? I didnt know that because I have only really become interested in the case of late.I noticed that,on his official website,it claims that he left the gun on a settle. There is a big difference between a kitchen table and a settle.I agree the changes he has made as to where he left the gun seem a little suspicious.But maybe he cannot genuinely be absolutely certain?
Kitchen or scullery the difference is.......
If THE gun is left on the kitchen table it will have to have been held and moved by someone leaving consistent fingerprints.
If in the scullery ther is no proof to confirm THE gun will have to have been held and moved by someone.
Jeremy thought that by saying that he had left a fully loaded gun lying on the kitchen table (what an idiot) that it would fit nicely into his fantasy story that Sheila lifted it and started plugging everyone. Problem is that Nevill moved the gun as per usual so if Sheila wanted it she would have had to have looked for it in the kitchen or the office.
The rifle was wiped clean as evidenced by the lack of prints of any sort...except for one of Jeremy's off course. Is that the print he made when he left the rifle on Sheila's body?
Abs, the police moving a gun around does not remove prints.
-
CuriousEssex,good points and I see exactly where you are coming from.I remember right back from when the murders took place that Jeremy maintained that he left the gun on the kitchen table.I am led to believe that is what is contained in Jeremys original statements to the police.Did it change when he became a suspect then? I didnt know that because I have only really become interested in the case of late.I noticed that,on his official website,it claims that he left the gun on a settle. There is a big difference between a kitchen table and a settle.I agree the changes he has made as to where he left the gun seem a little suspicious.But maybe he cannot genuinely be absolutely certain?
Kitchen or scullery the difference is.......
If THE gun is left on the kitchen table it will have to have been held and moved by someone leaving consistent fingerprints.
If in the scullery ther is no proof to confirm THE gun will have to have been held and moved by someone.
Jeremy thought that by saying that he had left a fully loaded gun lying on the kitchen table (what an idiot) that it would fit nicely into his fantasy story that Sheila lifted it and started plugging everyone. Problem is that Nevill moved the gun as per usual so if Sheila wanted it she would have had to have looked for it in the kitchen or the office.
The rifle was wiped clean as evidenced by the lack of prints of any sort...except for one of Jeremy's off course. Is that the print he made when he left the rifle on Sheila's body?
That wouldn´t have been too hard. Everyone in that house knew where the firearms were kept. She could even have seen Nevill move it from the kitchen.
-
CuriousEssex,good points and I see exactly where you are coming from.I remember right back from when the murders took place that Jeremy maintained that he left the gun on the kitchen table.I am led to believe that is what is contained in Jeremys original statements to the police.Did it change when he became a suspect then? I didnt know that because I have only really become interested in the case of late.I noticed that,on his official website,it claims that he left the gun on a settle. There is a big difference between a kitchen table and a settle.I agree the changes he has made as to where he left the gun seem a little suspicious.But maybe he cannot genuinely be absolutely certain?
Kitchen or scullery the difference is.......
If THE gun is left on the kitchen table it will have to have been held and moved by someone leaving consistent fingerprints.
If in the scullery ther is no proof to confirm THE gun will have to have been held and moved by someone.
Jeremy thought that by saying that he had left a fully loaded gun lying on the kitchen table (what an idiot) that it would fit nicely into his fantasy story that Sheila lifted it and started plugging everyone. Problem is that Nevill moved the gun as per usual so if Sheila wanted it she would have had to have looked for it in the kitchen or the office.
The rifle was wiped clean as evidenced by the lack of prints of any sort...except for one of Jeremy's off course. Is that the print he made when he left the rifle on Sheila's body?
That wouldn´t have been too hard. Everyone in that house knew where the firearms were kept. She could even have seen Nevill move it from the kitchen.
Very true and quite possibly did do. Point is that Jeremy's story about the gun left lying on the table overnight is cods-wallop.
-
Abs,I agree about the fingerprints,the police handling the gun without gloves etc.There was one print found of Jeremys and one print found of Sheilas on the gun.There was also blood on the gun (you can see where the various locations of the blood were found on one of Mikes diagrams). Though I have never seen it stated anywhere as to who that blood belonged to.Has anyone else?
-
Abs,I agree about the fingerprints,the police handling the gun without gloves etc.There was one print found of Jeremys and one print found of Sheilas on the gun.There was also blood on the gun (you can see where the various locations of the blood were found on one of Mikes diagrams). Though I have never seen it stated anywhere as to who that blood belonged to.Has anyone else?
The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
A shotgun that had Sheila Caffell's fingerprints and Ralph Bamber's fingerprints upon it was found and photographed next to the gun cupboard in which the silencer was eventually found.
The police don't handle weapons without using a barrier.
-
Abs,I agree about the fingerprints,the police handling the gun without gloves etc.There was one print found of Jeremys and one print found of Sheilas on the gun.There was also blood on the gun (you can see where the various locations of the blood were found on one of Mikes diagrams). Though I have never seen it stated anywhere as to who that blood belonged to.Has anyone else?
There were no fingerprints on the rifle belonging to Sheila, Nevill or June. Strange that when Nevill moved the rifle to the office.
I think that you will find that there was one each of Jeremys ansd Sheilas fingerprints on the rifle.In addition to this,one each of both Nevill and Sheilas fingerprints were found on Ralphs shogun.
-
Abs,I agree about the fingerprints,the police handling the gun without gloves etc.There was one print found of Jeremys and one print found of Sheilas on the gun.There was also blood on the gun (you can see where the various locations of the blood were found on one of Mikes diagrams). Though I have never seen it stated anywhere as to who that blood belonged to.Has anyone else?
Exactly...... if THE gun had been left on the kitchen table it will have had to have been moved in order to lay the table for breakfast leaving the fingerprints of those who had moved it. There were none.
Jeremy was not at White House Farm so could not have moved it although he admits holding THE gun to go and shoot rabbits and Sheila had only left a fingerprint near the trigger I beleive.
Jeremy's first statement was portrayed in the documentary Crimes that shocked Britain with Jeremy leaving THE gun on the kitchen table. In which case Nevill or June's fingerprints should along with all others be on THE gun. I do not beleive either of their fingerprints were found on THE gun.
-
It would be really helpful to have access to Jeremys original statements.I think someone said that Mike has them but cannot post them due to them containing personal things concerning Colin Caffell.Could he not post them and maybe black out the personal stuff?
-
It would be really helpful to have access to Jeremys original statements.I think someone said that Mike has them but cannot post them due to them containing personal things concerning Colin Caffell.Could he not post them and maybe black out the personal stuff?
Tyler
I have been trying to get Mike to post Jeremy's original statements for sometime. If you look back there is a specific thread titled Jeremy's original statements in which you can read Mike's promises and then retractions....... based on advice from others I seem to recall.
-
Are you thinking that the refusal to show them is suspicious? That the evidence in them may contradict what Jeremy is having us believe 26 years later?Its not really fair to criticize the police for witholding evidence from Jeremy,and yet evidence can be witheld from us when he (Jeremy)needs our support.If he wants to convince us of his innocence,then he really should put all his cards on the table.Not just cherry pick evidence that puts him in a good light.
-
Are you thinking that the refusal to show them is suspicious? That the evidence in them may contradict what Jeremy is having us believe 26 years later?Its not really fair to criticize the police for witholding evidence from Jeremy,and yet evidence can be witheld from us when he (Jeremy)needs our support.If he wants to convince us of his innocence,then he really should put all his cards on the table.Not just cherry pick evidence that puts him in a good light.
Well it is not very transparent given, as you correctly point out, all the critisms of the Police and how things were handled.
It seems to me everything is fine and not questioned when Jeremy is not under suspicion. In the very early stages Jeremy is key to influencing or has an influence in how things might be portrayed. Remember originally everything was accepted as 4 murders and a suicide which, if Jeremy is guilty, would have been just what he would have wanted. Also if guilty Jeremy will have wrong footed the Police and it was very difficult for them to rewind so to speak.
For me the key to this are Jeremy's original statements when he was treated as a witness and the sequence and timings of the initial telephone calls.
-
Frustrating isnt it? Well it is known that during police questioning,they got Jeremy to admit that he phoned Julie BEFORE he called the police.But Jeremys explanation for this was that the police were trying to confuse him.Well that is a common police tactic as we know.After being questioned for hours on end,he could simply have been exhausted when he made the error? And as I said,if the newspapers (back in 1985) and various books are to be believed,then I believe that in Jeremys original statement,he says he left the gun on the kitchen table.You said that you would like to know what was in Jeremys original statement BEFORE he was a suspect.He told the police at his cottage,that he left the gun on the table.That was witnessed by Colin Caffell,who subsequently remarked that Nevill would have put the rifle away.That Nevill was meticulous about things like that.Jeremy was said to reply "yes,I would have thought so too". Please note that this is only information that I have gathered,not my opinion of events.
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
That was a really good posting. Well done.+1
-
Frustrating isnt it? Well it is known that during police questioning,they got Jeremy to admit that he phoned Julie BEFORE he called the police.But Jeremys explanation for this was that the police were trying to confuse him.Well that is a common police tactic as we know.After being questioned for hours on end,he could simply have been exhausted when he made the error? And as I said,if the newspapers (back in 1985) and various books are to be believed,then I believe that in Jeremys original statement,he says he left the gun on the kitchen table.You said that you would like to know what was in Jeremys original statement BEFORE he was a suspect.He told the police at his cottage,that he left the gun on the table.That was witnessed by Colin Caffell,who subsequently remarked that Nevill would have put the rifle away.That Nevill was meticulous about things like that.Jeremy was said to reply "yes,I would have thought so too". Please note that this is only information that I have gathered,not my opinion of events.
Tyler
If Jeremy's original statement as a witness was that he left THE gun on the kitchen table then that is what I beleive Jeremy wanted everyone to beleive. Jeremy also made it known he fully loaded THE gun in front of everyone including Sheila before going to shoot rabbits. Then returning, having not shot any rabbits, to place THE gun on the kitchen table before going to his cottage in Goldhanger. THE gun on the kitchen table would have been freely available for anyone to pick up. (It must be pointed out there is no one left alive who can say otherwise apart from Jeremy.)
This is not a problem when regarded as a witness. If Colin Caffell had mentioned that Nevill, as detailed in your post, would have put THE gun away, to which Jeremy agrees, again this is not a potential problem if Jeremy is regarded as a witness. However, when a suspect things change because in each case someonelse will have handled THE gun and moved it. The scenes of crime photographs clearly depict the kitchen table layed ready for breakfast. This means THE gun will have to have been moved in order to lay the table ready for breakfast. If THE gun has been moved there is a very high risk, if not a certainty, that fingerprints will have been left on THE gun. (We now know of the family members at White House Farm on the evening before the shootings there were only Jeremy's and Sheila's fingerprints found to be on THE gun. Jeremy admits to loading THE gun and it was allegedly reported Sheila had gone beserk with THE gun.)
In my opinion one way of eliminating these potential problems when regarded as a suspect would be to place THE gun in another position where it could not be certain that someone would have had to have handled THE gun in order to move it before Sheila allegedly goes beserk.
However, the stark reality is only Jeremy really knows......
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
-
I still believe there were a number of factors why the police thought it was a suicide and part of the cover up is I still believe Sheila could well have been alive later than what we have been led to believe.
5 dead bodies and we are led to believe the decision it was a suicide was led by Jeremys comments I still think the next piece of information to get is File 1 complete and any recordings we have to have everything out in the open or this will go on forever.
I actually wonder if Jeremy even remembered where he left the gun if he was as bad as me when I lived at my Mum and Dads I used to leave stuff everywhere and then couldnt remember where I had left it.
He didnt really come across very responsible and the danger of the gun he wasnt used to having kids around.
I really would like to know more about Sheila having more food left in her stomach and any further observations on that.
Also if jeremy left the farm at 9.30 june was having a conversation after that time with her sister saying sheila was acting strangely i take it jeremy did not hear that conversation but at least its not hearsay as Jeremy saying they were discussing custody with sheila
I also want to know about this bucket of bloody clothes how quickly did Ann Eaton remove them after access to the house i meant how quickly did she start poking around
Imagine the shock horror of the relatives if when they heard about the murders it must have been pandemonium I suppose Jeremy might have ended up as the overall boss
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
Have a +1!
Agree with this 100%
-
CuriousEssex. We only have Jeremys word for it that he left a gun out at all.Its another one of those (did Nevill really indeed ring Jeremy) problems isnt it.Its something I doubt we are ever going to know for sure,so I myself have stopped agonising over those issues and have begun to look at other evidence.Evidence that can only be interpretated one way.
Personally, I myself would like to see a re-trial.But as both yourself and NGB point out,it is very unlikely,due to evidence being destroyed,some of the prosecution witnesses may be deceased etc.I too am torn.One half of me wants to see him released as I feel strongly that he had an unfair trial,and I just cant seem to feel satisfied that his guilt was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.The other half of me thinks,what if he is released and is blagging it? I would just have to console myself that he served 26 years in prison fo his crime and didnt actually get away scot free.But I sincerly want to believe that isnt the case.
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
How ironic would it be if Jeremy was released and he then pursued Essex Police and others through the Courts for what I imagine would be very substantial compension. Money being the very motive portrayed in the original trial.
From the legal viewpoint do you beleive Jeremy would be successful in pursuit of civil action?
Are you from a legal background?
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
You both have +1 each for your posts.
-
CuriousEssex. We only have Jeremys word for it that he left a gun out at all.Its another one of those (did Nevill really indeed ring Jeremy) problems isnt it.Its something I doubt we are ever going to know for sure,so I myself have stopped agonising over those issues and have begun to look at other evidence.Evidence that can only be interpretated one way.
Personally, I myself would like to see a re-trial.But as both yourself and NGB point out,it is very unlikely,due to evidence being destroyed,some of the prosecution witnesses may be deceased etc.I too am torn.One half of me wants to see him released as I feel strongly that he had an unfair trial,and I just cant seem to feel satisfied that his guilt was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.The other half of me thinks,what if he is released and is blagging it? I would just have to console myself that he served 26 years in prison fo his crime and didnt actually get away scot free.But I sincerly want to believe that isnt the case.
I ssort of get where your coming from and im a big believer in life meaning life but theres a little part of me that thinks even if he did get released on a technicality for us to find out after he did do it then yes at least he has served a very VERY lengthy sentence (longer than some killers have anyway) i do hate to think like that though!
Just another quick question to put in the mix, if he was released on a techincality or retrial but further down the line more evidence came to light that he was guilty could he be charged and tryed again?? (unlikely i know)
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
-
I still believe there were a number of factors why the police thought it was a suicide and part of the cover up is I still believe Sheila could well have been alive later than what we have been led to believe.
5 dead bodies and we are led to believe the decision it was a suicide was led by Jeremys comments I still think the next piece of information to get is File 1 complete and any recordings we have to have everything out in the open or this will go on forever.
I actually wonder if Jeremy even remembered where he left the gun if he was as bad as me when I lived at my Mum and Dads I used to leave stuff everywhere and then couldnt remember where I had left it.
He didnt really come across very responsible and the danger of the gun he wasnt used to having kids around.
I really would like to know more about Sheila having more food left in her stomach and any further observations on that.
Also if jeremy left the farm at 9.30 june was having a conversation after that time with her sister saying sheila was acting strangely i take it jeremy did not hear that conversation but at least its not hearsay as Jeremy saying they were discussing custody with sheila
I also want to know about this bucket of bloody clothes how quickly did Ann Eaton remove them after access to the house i meant how quickly did she start poking around
Imagine the shock horror of the relatives if when they heard about the murders it must have been pandemonium I suppose Jeremy might have ended up as the overall boss
June had the telephone conversation with her sister at around 10 pm.
The telephone conversation at 9.30 pm was with the Farm Secretary.
And if Jeremy did not remember where he had left THE gun then why not just say I do not remember where I left THE gun?
-
Are you saying Jeremy was there for the call to pam and was it in the statement I am just checking up on stuff because if this hitman was used that had to be organised
-
Are you saying Jeremy was there for the call to pam and was it in the statement I am just checking up on stuff because if this hitman was used that had to be organised
No....... I am sorry I do not follow your logic and reason for your question
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
How ironic would it be if Jeremy was released and he then pursued Essex Police and others through the Courts for what I imagine would be very substantial compension. Money being the very motive portrayed in the original trial.
From the legal viewpoint do you beleive Jeremy would be successful in pursuit of civil action?
Are you from a legal background?
If he succeeds on appeal I believe that Jeremy Bamber would almost certainly be eligible for substantial compensation from the state under the discretionary scheme currently in place. Depending upon the evidence he now has available he could launch a civil claim for damages against Essex Police for malicious prosecution. He would have to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that Essex Police Officers falsified or withheld key evidence with a view to securing a conviction. I do not have access to the latest evidence so it is not possible for me to assess the likelihood of success in such an action at this stage.
I do have a legal background. I practised as a barrister for a number of years.
-
Because the impression that is given was that Jeremy did not witness the arguement about custody I have seen it posted this could have been made up but there was a conversation between june and pam that night Sheila was behaving strangely
For the people on this forum who believe jb used a hitman and he told jm tonights the night he didnt have a very big window to organise this hitman. I dont live in Darcy and i dont know how many hitmen live in Darcy but presumably he was local
-
Because the impression that is given was that Jeremy did not witness the arguement about custody I have seen it posted this could have been made up but there was a conversation between june and pam that night Sheila was behaving strangely
For the people on this forum who believe jb used a hitman and he told jm tonights the night he didnt have a very big window to organise this hitman. I dont live in Darcy and i dont know how many hitmen live in Darcy but presumably he was local
Yes, that is so true. To think that a hitman was just sitting around waiting for Jeremy to call on him to go out to kill five people any day, any night at Jeremy's whim just doesn't hold water in my opinion. For 2000£. Nah.
Julie's account isn't plausible. Not at all!
-
Because the impression that is given was that Jeremy did not witness the arguement about custody I have seen it posted this could have been made up but there was a conversation between june and pam that night Sheila was behaving strangely
For the people on this forum who believe jb used a hitman and he told jm tonights the night he didnt have a very big window to organise this hitman. I dont live in Darcy and i dont know how many hitmen live in Darcy but presumably he was local
I have not mentioned anything about a hitman.
Besides Jeremy's statements do not support the use of a hitman. Jeremy reported that Nevill had allegedly mentioned Sheila had gone beserk with THE gun.
I also beleive it was Jeremy who has stated there was a discussion about custody of Sheila's children.
-
Ngb1066
Do you think that the huge sum of money that Jeremy could get in compensation could have a bearing on if this case was referred to the court of appeal and do any secret deals take place like we will let you if (i know it sounds far fetched and I dont want any details but do things like that go on)
I know in the Eddie Gilfoyle case he was freed but there was some sort of gagging order on him that he couldnt talk to the media. I know he was fighting this
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
How ironic would it be if Jeremy was released and he then pursued Essex Police and others through the Courts for what I imagine would be very substantial compension. Money being the very motive portrayed in the original trial.
From the legal viewpoint do you beleive Jeremy would be successful in pursuit of civil action?
Are you from a legal background?
If he succeeds on appeal I believe that Jeremy Bamber would almost certainly be eligible for substantial compensation from the state under the discretionary scheme currently in place. Depending upon the evidence he now has available he could launch a civil claim for damages against Essex Police for malicious prosecution. He would have to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that Essex Police Officers falsified or withheld key evidence with a view to securing a conviction. I do not have access to the latest evidence so it is not possible for me to assess the likelihood of success in such an action at this stage.
I do have a legal background. I practised as a barrister for a number of years.
When did you give up practising as a Barrister? (If you do not mind me asking)
-
Curiousessex I didnt mention the hitman being involved but a number of forum members have that is why I am discussing that theory like all other theory I do read everyones posts even Mr Angrys
-
He won the euro lottery that is too private
-
Curiousessex I didnt mention the hitman being involved but a number of forum members have that is why I am discussing that theory like all other theory I do read everyones posts even Mr Angrys
Jackie
I beleive the hitman theory was discredited by Essex Police as the supposed hitman had an alibi.
As I understand it the hitman theory was only investigated, and discounted, after Jeremy became a suspect.
-
Curiousessex I didnt mention the hitman being involved but a number of forum members have that is why I am discussing that theory like all other theory I do read everyones posts even Mr Angrys
Jackie
I beleive the hitman theory was discredited by Essex Police as the supposed hitman had an alibi.
As I understand it the hitman theory was only investigated, and discounted, after Jeremy became a suspect.
Interesting that instead of rejecting Julie Mugford's story as fiction when the story of the hitman was discredited, They rather believed that Jeremy invented the story instead of Julie. Very strange that.
-
Exactly Grahame
-
Curiousessex I didnt mention the hitman being involved but a number of forum members have that is why I am discussing that theory like all other theory I do read everyones posts even Mr Angrys
Jackie
I beleive the hitman theory was discredited by Essex Police as the supposed hitman had an alibi.
As I understand it the hitman theory was only investigated, and discounted, after Jeremy became a suspect.
Interesting that instead of rejecting Julie Mugford's story as fiction when the story of the hitman was discredited, They rather believed that Jeremy invented the story instead of Julie. Very strange that.
It would not be unreasonable for the Police to investigate all aspects of what Julie Mugford had reported that Jeremy had told her.
As I understand it Julie Mugford detailed that both Jeremy and her had burgled the caravan site. Jeremy confirmed this was true so not all Julie Mugford detailed was incorrect.
-
Ngb1066
Do you think that the huge sum of money that Jeremy could get in compensation could have a bearing on if this case was referred to the court of appeal and do any secret deals take place like we will let you if (i know it sounds far fetched and I dont want any details but do things like that go on)
I know in the Eddie Gilfoyle case he was freed but there was some sort of gagging order on him that he couldnt talk to the media. I know he was fighting this
I have no direct evidence that the compensation issue influences the CCRC in their decisions about whether to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal. It certainly should not be a factor as the CCRC commissioners are supposed to exercise their independent judgement on the merits of an appeal only. I think in this case the CCRC may be adopting a particularly cautious approach as they have already referred the case back to the Court of Appeal once and a second reference is rare (at the moment I cannot think of an example where this has happened but there may be some such cases). In addition in the 2002 appeal the Court of Appeal judges were very strong in their rejection of the new scientific evidence which formed the basis of the CCRC's referral, and even went out of their way to criticise the evidence of the new expert. They also in a lengthy judgement dismissed every single point of appeal raised, in strong terms. Against this background I suspect the CCRC may fear criticism for making a second referral here and are therefore adopting a very wary approach to the new material presented by Jeremy Bamber's legal team. They should of course look at the application purely on its merits, but the CCRC have come in for criticism of late (including from Bob Woffinden) and that may be affecting their approach.
There would be no gagging order on Jeremy Bamber if he wins an appeal. Gagging orders can only be imposed where a life sentenced prisoner is released on licence.
-
Not forgetting Julie Mugford also confirmed Jeremy rang her in the evening of the night before and during the early hours of the following morning. This telephone call being heard by others at sometime between 3.00 am and 3.15 am. This potentially being a time before Jeremy receives an alleged telephone call from Nevill which allegedly reports Sheila going beserk with THE gun.
-
Part of me thinks if one lifted Jeremy's trial verbatim into a Criminal Court as of today the case would be thrown out but then again the rules are very different now. Some of those rules are different now because of what happened in Jeremy's case / police investigation and the mistakes that were made as a result of the initial conclusions of 4 murders and a suicide. It cannot be denied that Jeremy was involved in the reporting of key information / intel which meant the Police thought they were dealing with a live situation which involved someone going beserk with a gun. The eventual result was there were 5 people who lost their lives.
Another part of me thinks Jeremy possibly knows what really happened and knows the events portrayed in court which secured his conviction are not how things actually happened. In reality only Jeremy knows what really happened.
Does this make Jeremy to be proven guilty............ I honestly do not know but I do know when tried in 1986 by 12 of his peers 10 of them found him guilty on a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
Should Jeremy get another trial......... probably to settle all the controvosy.
Is there a risk the Crown may not be able to win a second trial. Most probably. Does that make Jeremy not guilty......... only Jeremy knows. If it is the case Jeremy did actually commit the murders and the Crown were not able to prove a case at retrial and Jeremy is given his freedom where does that leave us all?
curiousessex - you have summed up very clearly the dilemma faced by a number of members of this forum. I sense that there is a fairly widespread feeling that all was not right with the original trial, mainly because of the non disclosure of evidence by the DPP/Essex Police. However a number of posters have said that whilst they are not satisfied that justice was done and that Jeremy Bamber's case requires fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal, they are not convinced of his innocence and because of the really dreadful nature of the crimes they do not want him to be released on a technicality. I can understand those feelings and it is right that the debate on this forum should not just be about whether Jeremy Bamber has strong grounds for appeal but should also cover views on what in fact happened at WHF.
Looking at this from the legal viewpoint and from the viewpoint of basic fairness, if we take the view that Jeremy Bamber's trial was flawed and his convictions are therefore unsafe, his appeal should be allowed. If the Court of Appeal orders a retrial, a jury can evaluate the evidence again. I strongly suspect that he would be acquitted on a retrial. However, as I have posted earlier today I believe that in view of the passage of time and the fact that important evidence has been destroyed, if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal there will not be a retrial. Jeremy Bamber will be declared not guilty and immediately released from prison, but he will not have a second chance to present his case before a jury. However from what I have read if Jeremy Bamber is succesful in a third appeal he is unlikely to leave the matter there. He will pursue civil action against Essex Police and possibly others and there might through that process be an opportunity for all the evidence to be tested again.
I am sorry that this is a rather lengthy post but I do think that it is important to accept that in order to succeeed in overturning his convictions Jeremy Bamber does not have to prove his innocence, he only has to show that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If there is such a doubt, all fair minded people should support his appeal being allowed and his release from imprisonment.
How ironic would it be if Jeremy was released and he then pursued Essex Police and others through the Courts for what I imagine would be very substantial compension. Money being the very motive portrayed in the original trial.
From the legal viewpoint do you beleive Jeremy would be successful in pursuit of civil action?
Are you from a legal background?
If he succeeds on appeal I believe that Jeremy Bamber would almost certainly be eligible for substantial compensation from the state under the discretionary scheme currently in place. Depending upon the evidence he now has available he could launch a civil claim for damages against Essex Police for malicious prosecution. He would have to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that Essex Police Officers falsified or withheld key evidence with a view to securing a conviction. I do not have access to the latest evidence so it is not possible for me to assess the likelihood of success in such an action at this stage.
I do have a legal background. I practised as a barrister for a number of years.
When did you give up practising as a Barrister? (If you do not mind me asking)
I do not mind you asking. I left my chambers in the Temple in 1995. I was in practice at the time of Jeremy's original trial. I retain my qualification and could return to the bar (although that is unlikely).
-
Not forgetting Julie Mugford also confirmed Jeremy rang her in the evening of the night before and during the early hours of the following morning. This telephone call being heard by others at sometime between 3.00 am and 3.15 am. This potentially being a time before Jeremy receives an alleged telephone call from Nevill which allegedly reports Sheila going beserk with THE gun.
Yes, good point, according to that version, Jeremy was not therefore awoken by the call from Ralph.
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I agree with this too. I'd like to also see Jeremy's original statement which is available but withheld from the forum
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I agree with this too. I'd like to also see Jeremy's original statement which is available but withheld from the forum
Most definately............ I have been asking for Mike to release a copy of Jeremy's original statement for a long time.
Maybe a pole / vote should be organised........ does anyone know how to do this?
-
Bob and John??
It does seem strange to me to have graphic pictures of Sheila available and not the statement Jeremy made.
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I agree with this too. I'd like to also see Jeremy's original statement which is available but withheld from the forum
I find this bizzare to be honest because JB is wanting all the information held unfer PFI (sorry it might not be PFI ,my brain has left me today) but on the other hand seems to be witholding a certain amount of info himself!
I feel like we are only reading what some people want us to read on here! If mike has the original statements he should show them rather than cherry pick what info he shares!
After all this isnt a Jeremy Bamber is innocent forum so all sides should be shown!
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I agree with this too. I'd like to also see Jeremy's original statement which is available but withheld from the forum
I find this bizzare to be honest because JB is wanting all the information held unfer PFI (sorry it might not be PFI ,my brain has left me today) but on the other hand seems to be witholding a certain amount of info himself!
I feel like we are only reading what some people want us to read on here! If mike has the original statements he should show them rather than cherry pick what info he shares!
After all this isnt a Jeremy Bamber is innocent forum so all sides should be shown!
If we are only being told what people want us to beleive then one could interpret that as being consistant with the events when Jeremy was regarded as only a witness.
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I agree with this too. I'd like to also see Jeremy's original statement which is available but withheld from the forum
Most definately............ I have been asking for Mike to release a copy of Jeremy's original statement for a long time.
Maybe a pole / vote should be organised........ does anyone know how to do this?
Well you all know why he won't release it don't you! The story has become confused over time and now the errors are beginning to come to the fore. Just like one minute the rifle was left on the kitchen table according to Jeremy and the next time it was on the kitchen settle.
Then there was the order of the telephone calls which he confused and now it is THE GUN and not THE RIFLE. :D :D
-
Joolz are you someone that would like all the evidence released to jb s defence team
I would like ALL evidence released to all concerned! Whether it proves him innocent or guilty all evidence should be released!
I wish we had a freedom of information act like America has. That way everyone including the President in the case of the US, or those in high places can be called to account. In the British system those in influential places can escape justice and withold crucial evidence to protect themselves from investigation.
-
We do have a Freedom of Information Act.
-
We do have a Freedom of Information Act.
The police reason for ‘being unable to assist’ Jeremy was that his requests were ‘beyond the remit’ of the information compliance officer at Essex Police and could not be completed within the 18-hour time limit for searches. Jeremy wrote: ‘I would like to pay for someone… to track down these vital documents… let me know the proposed cost and I will pay…’
Essex police turned the offer down.
Jeremy contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office and a spokesman duly agreed with Jeremy’s rights and said that Essex Police was obliged to provide the option of an outsider paying for the FOI information. The spokesman was explicit: ‘Under the Data Protection Act there is no such time limit in terms of hours and costs – but if it will take too much effort in terms of hours and costs, then an authority can request that an applicant comes in to look for it.’
Still Essex police refused. They wrote to Jeremy saying they were: ‘…now satisfied that Essex Police has fulfilled its obligations arising from your requests for information under the acts.’ Consequently, they did not ‘… intend to enter into any further correspondence with you… Do we have FOI !!
-
We do have a Freedom of Information Act.
The police reason for ‘being unable to assist’ Jeremy was that his requests were ‘beyond the remit’ of the information compliance officer at Essex Police and could not be completed within the 18-hour time limit for searches. Jeremy wrote: ‘I would like to pay for someone… to track down these vital documents… let me know the proposed cost and I will pay…’
Essex police turned the offer down.
Jeremy contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office and a spokesman duly agreed with Jeremy’s rights and said that Essex Police was obliged to provide the option of an outsider paying for the FOI information. The spokesman was explicit: ‘Under the Data Protection Act there is no such time limit in terms of hours and costs – but if it will take too much effort in terms of hours and costs, then an authority can request that an applicant comes in to look for it.’
Still Essex police refused. They wrote to Jeremy saying they were: ‘…now satisfied that Essex Police has fulfilled its obligations arising from your requests for information under the acts.’ Consequently, they did not ‘… intend to enter into any further correspondence with you… Do we have FOI !!
Well from your post it appears the Information Commissioner was supportive of the Freedom of Information.
It appears the issue is more with Essex Police as opposed to whether we have a Freedom of Information Act.
Being devil's advocate......
Given the reply as quoted in your post it may be the case that Essex Police beleived as they could not invite Jeremy (the applicant) in to look at it because he is detained at Her Majesty's pleasure therefore Essex Police beleived they had done all they could in order to fulfil their obligations under the Act.
Do you know what did Jeremy then do having received the Essex Police satisfaction letter?
-
We do have a Freedom of Information Act.
Not like America's
-
We do have a Freedom of Information Act.
The police reason for ‘being unable to assist’ Jeremy was that his requests were ‘beyond the remit’ of the information compliance officer at Essex Police and could not be completed within the 18-hour time limit for searches. Jeremy wrote: ‘I would like to pay for someone… to track down these vital documents… let me know the proposed cost and I will pay…’
Essex police turned the offer down.
Jeremy contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office and a spokesman duly agreed with Jeremy’s rights and said that Essex Police was obliged to provide the option of an outsider paying for the FOI information. The spokesman was explicit: ‘Under the Data Protection Act there is no such time limit in terms of hours and costs – but if it will take too much effort in terms of hours and costs, then an authority can request that an applicant comes in to look for it.’
Still Essex police refused. They wrote to Jeremy saying they were: ‘…now satisfied that Essex Police has fulfilled its obligations arising from your requests for information under the acts.’ Consequently, they did not ‘… intend to enter into any further correspondence with you… Do we have FOI !!
Well from your post it appears the Information Commissioner was supportive of the Freedom of Information.
It appears the issue is more with Essex Police as opposed to whether we have a Freedom of Information Act.
Being devil's advocate......
Given the reply as quoted in your post it may be the case that Essex Police beleived as they could not invite Jeremy (the applicant) in to look at it because he is detained at Her Majesty's pleasure therefore Essex Police beleived they had done all they could in order to fulfil their obligations under the Act.
Do you know what did Jeremy then do having received the Essex Police satisfaction letter?
I think the word is ' an applicant ' , not 'the applicant ' therefore any solicitor representing JB would be suffice !! The question surely is why do they refuse WHY ?
-
Part of the adjournment debate in Parliament on 9 Feb 2005 on the issue of non-disclosure of evidence to Jeremy Bamber's defence.
Andrew Hunter MP:
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."
-
Part of the adjournment debate in Parliament on 9 Feb 2005 on the issue of non-disclosure of evidence to Jeremy Bamber's defence.
Andrew Hunter MP:
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."
Yes, one wonders.... +1
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for the 1991 COLP investigation.
-
Part of the adjournment debate in Parliament on 9 Feb 2005 on the issue of non-disclosure of evidence to Jeremy Bamber's defence.
Andrew Hunter MP:
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."
Yes one does wonder? Also if JB was guilty then he surely would be digging a big hole for himself if these things were eventually disclosed. So I am still convinced of his innocence myself.
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for 1991 COLP investigation.
I totally agree with you. It would settle the issue once and for all.
-
Witholding all of this evidence, it stinks.
-
Adjournment debate (continued)
"The Minister also stated in her reply:
"If the information requested is available under the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act, then Mr. Bamber may have his own rights to gain access to such information under this legislation."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1556W.]
Those possible rights have been explored, but appear not to exist. It is now time for the Home Office to take matters seriously, and consider carefully not only the few points that I have made, but the whole Bamber affair. In particular, it should look at the issue of non-disclosure and the behaviour and attitude of Essex constabulary. It is also time for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to expedite matters so that the case of Mr. Jeremy Bamber is not left in judicial limbo. Such action is necessary to avoid perpetuating what a growing number of people fear may be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice of our times.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart) :
I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and congratulate him on securing this debate on the important and, in many ways, sensational case of Jeremy Bamber, who is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of his adopted parents and sister and her twin sons.
The hon. Gentleman has stated that he believes that the Home Office should look closely at the Bamber affair, and in particular at the issue of non-disclosure and the behaviour and attitude of Essex constabulary. I shall begin by saying that, on previous occasions, the Home Office has looked closely at the Bamber affair, as have the constabulary and the City of London police, following a complaint by Mr. Bamber to the Police Complaints Authority under the previous system. Its 14-month study did not uphold Mr. Bamber's complaint. Since then, there have been reforms to the Police Complaints Authority, and I do not know whether Mr. Bamber has made a further complaint to the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. Perhaps, however, it would help if I explained the recent handling of requests to review cases such as Mr. Bamber's, because that is relevant to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The 1993 royal commission on criminal justice recommended that the responsibility for re-opening cases of suspected miscarriages of justice should be
"removed from the Home Secretary, and transferred to a body independent of Government."
Parliament agreed with that when it passed the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, setting up the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Accordingly, the Home Secretary's powers to consider alleged miscarriages of justice ended on 31 March 1997, and were replaced by new powers vested in an independent body, the CCRC. It has the power to review and supervise investigations into possible miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; to approve the appointment of investigating officers; to gain access—I emphasise this—to documents and other material that may be relevant to its investigations; and to refer any cases when there is a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld to the appropriate court, which will treat the referral as a new appeal.
The Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament for the work of the commission, but as it is operationally independent, he cannot intervene in its determination of a particular case. That being so, in many ways, it is not within the Home Secretary's remit to examine Mr. Bamber's case. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is asking not for a general re-examination of the case, but for a particular investigation of the role of Essex constabulary. Further allegations of non-disclosure by the Essex constabulary are a matter for the CCRC, rather than for the Home Office, because non-disclosure can be a ground for the CCRC to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal. The commission referred Mr. Bamber's case to the Court of Appeal in 2001, following an earlier investigation, but those grounds were not based on non-disclosure. Mr. Bamber's solicitor added a number of non-disclosure arguments at the appeal hearing, although they were dismissed by the full court.
I understand that the commission has recently been asked to investigate the new allegations, and I can confirm that under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act it has the power to gain access to documents and any other material that may be relevant to its investigations. I have been told that there are something like 4 million items of material in this case, so there is a large range of matters that the commission needs to investigate. If it has not already done so as part of its earlier review of the case, which resulted in the unsuccessful appeal in 2002, it may, if it believes it appropriate, obtain the material to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
It would be inappropriate for the Home Secretary to become involved in this or any other alleged wrongful conviction. The safety of the conviction is a matter for the courts rather than the Home Secretary. Accusations about the Essex police are a matter for the chief constable of the force or the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. There is an important public policy reason why both the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Independent Police Complaints Commission are independent of the Home Office: to create public confidence in those authorities.
Mr. Bamber is of course aware of the Criminal Cases Review Commission's remit, as his second appeal in October 2002 followed its reviewing his case and referring it back to the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2001. In that case, the Court of Appeal did not find that there were sufficient grounds for finding the conviction to be unsafe. In its judgment, the court went so far as to say:
"It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider.
We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury's conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury's verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount."
It is open to anyone to re-apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission if they can present an argument or evidence not raised in previous court hearings or demonstrate that the case would, exceptionally, otherwise merit a reference back to the Court of Appeal. I am informed that Mr. Bamber's solicitor reapplied to the commission in March 2004. I understand that the commission reached a provisional decision but that his solicitor has since provided further material that will take time to investigate. I am confident that the commission is dealing with the further application both fairly and thoroughly.
It is neither in my remit nor in that of the Home Secretary to consider the said to be newly discovered police logs or any other new evidence that may have been made available to the commission. However, the commission can ask for that material and assess whether it demonstrates that the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a fair trial is sufficient to merit re-referring the case to the Court of Appeal.
I believe that it is at best premature to discuss a call for a further inquiry into the suggested withholding of information by the Essex constabulary. At the second appeal, the court found no evidence to support Mr. Bamber's allegations of serious wrongdoing, including deliberate non-disclosure, by the police; nor did the results of the internal inquiry and the 14-month investigation of Mr. Bamber's complaints by the City of London police confirm that there was any justification to Mr. Bamber's allegations.
I understand that there is no current recorded complaint to the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. If there is a complaint that the police are deliberately withholding material, that is the proper authority to deal with the matter. Only if a third appeal contradicted the earlier findings of the re-referral and of the previous court might it be reasonable to consider whether an inquiry was needed into how the matter had come to that pass.
Before us is a concern that evidence has not properly been made available to the body that is rightly charged with judging it. There is an independent body, which is sifting through that evidence and which has the powers, given to it by Parliament, to call for that evidence if it believes that it is in any way relevant to the case for a re-hearing by the Court of Appeal. It is doing that job. I urge the hon. Gentleman to depend on that process. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been pretty efficient at dealing with the matters before it. "
How can the defence provide the grounds for an Appeal, which the Home Secretary claims they have failed to do, while so much evidence is being withheld?
What sort of justice system is this?
-
Adjournment debate (continued )
"Mr. Hunter :
Is not the point that the CCRC may be evaluating submissions from Mr. Bamber's solicitor and has the power to request evidence, but the defence does not? The defence's submission to the CCRC is the weaker, because it does not have access, or powers to gain access, to the evidence that the police are allegedly denying it.
Fiona Mactaggart :
The hon. Gentleman points out that these are allegations. The record of the CCRC in its independent role is good. It has referred a number of cases back to court. I do not have the figures before me, but I think that, to date, there have been more than 60 cases in which the judgments of previous courts have been overturned as a result of its work. The CCRC is not anybody's patsy. It has the power to require the material. It is the mechanism that has the power to ensure reconsideration if a case merits reconsideration. We have established a powerful independent way to deal with miscarriages of justice. If the concern is that there has in this case been a miscarriage of justice, that body must have the opportunity to do its job and to ensure that that matter is dealt with effectively."
-
"If the concern is that there has in this case been a miscarriage of justice, that body must have the opportunity to do its job and to ensure that that matter is dealt with effectively."
Is there a suggestion here that, if the CCRC does not do its job, the minister might be prepared to get involved, or am I misreading this?
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for the 1991 COLP investigation.
+ 100. It's hardly brain surgery is it?
-
Adjournment debate (continued )
"Mr. Hunter :
Is not the point that the CCRC may be evaluating submissions from Mr. Bamber's solicitor and has the power to request evidence, but the defence does not? The defence's submission to the CCRC is the weaker, because it does not have access, or powers to gain access, to the evidence that the police are allegedly denying it.
Fiona Mactaggart :
The hon. Gentleman points out that these are allegations. The record of the CCRC in its independent role is good. It has referred a number of cases back to court. I do not have the figures before me, but I think that, to date, there have been more than 60 cases in which the judgments of previous courts have been overturned as a result of its work. The CCRC is not anybody's patsy. It has the power to require the material. It is the mechanism that has the power to ensure reconsideration if a case merits reconsideration. We have established a powerful independent way to deal with miscarriages of justice. If the concern is that there has in this case been a miscarriage of justice, that body must have the opportunity to do its job and to ensure that that matter is dealt with effectively."
Ain't that Fiona a waffler? In this case the CCRC appear to be deliberately hindering proceedings?
Good work choco
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for the 1991 COLP investigation.
+ 100. It's hardly brain surgery is it?
Thanks Rochford. All this endless speculation about what is withheld could be solved by the CCRC - they say they "aren't anyone's patsy" so why don't they demand it all from EP. I'd be happy with a new conclusion either way as long as it is based on every single fact being available. At the moment from my point of view the original jury were presented with a pre-edited version of the facts. That's no way to make a decision on somebody else's life. There are people within Essex Police who are too concerned with their pensions to release all the facts. It frustrates me that anti Bamber types ignore the fact that key information is withheld
by saying it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Well, people with open minds will be the judge of that when / if it eventually gets released.
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for the 1991 COLP investigation.
+ 100. It's hardly brain surgery is it?
Thanks Rochford. All this endless speculation about what is withheld could be solved by the CCRC - they say they "aren't anyone's patsy" so why don't they demand it all from EP. I'd be happy with a new conclusion either way as long as it is based on every single fact being available. At the moment from my point of view the original jury were presented with a pre-edited version of the facts. That's no way to make a decision on somebody else's life. There are people within Essex Police who are too concerned with their pensions to release all the facts. It frustrates me that anti Bamber types ignore the fact that key information is withheld
by saying it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Well, people with open minds will be the judge of that when / if it eventually gets released.
Well it seems they sure are someone's patsy doesn't it? :)
-
I'm 100% sure that if the withheld documents helped or backed up Essex Police's version of events they would have been released years ago. It makes me very suspicious and I can't draw any other conclusion other than the release of this information could potentially be very damaging to Essex Police.
If any of it went against Jeremy it would of been at the trial or released for the 1991 COLP investigation.
+ 100. It's hardly brain surgery is it?
Thanks Rochford. All this endless speculation about what is withheld could be solved by the CCRC - they say they "aren't anyone's patsy" so why don't they demand it all from EP. I'd be happy with a new conclusion either way as long as it is based on every single fact being available. At the moment from my point of view the original jury were presented with a pre-edited version of the facts. That's no way to make a decision on somebody else's life. There are people within Essex Police who are too concerned with their pensions to release all the facts. It frustrates me that anti Bamber types ignore the fact that key information is withheld
by saying it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Well, people with open minds will be the judge of that when / if it eventually gets released.
Great post !!
-
"on previous occasions, the Home Office has looked closely at the Bamber affair"
(Fiona Mactaggart)
Ms Mactaggart is presumably refering to Michael Howard, who increased Bamber's tariff to Life? Yet how could Howard have reached a just decision on this case while so much evidence was withheld? I don't believe for one moment that Howard or his staff went through the evidence they were given access to, nor do I believe they knew of the large body of withheld evidence. What did Howard base his opinion on: a chat with the trial judge and a distorted summary from the prosecution?