Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on February 22, 2018, 07:56:PM
-
he speculates about a hitman and then later mug ford mentions one he gives an account of Jeremy selling furniture that sounds almost the same as the met surveillance teams account.
could it be possible that rwb had psychic ability's.
-
Not really----it was called head-working !
-
well what other explantion could there be.
-
His mate from the Met was giving him a running commentary.
-
but what about him and mugford both coming up with a hitman independently of each other surely that couldent of come from the met.
surely that shows psycic ability doesn't it.
-
but what about him and mugford both coming up with a hitman independently of each other surely that couldent of come from the met.
surely that shows psycic ability doesn't it.
Seems you have 'Daveability' ::)
-
but what about him and mugford both coming up with a hitman independently of each other surely that couldent of come from the met.
surely that shows psycic ability doesn't it.
No,he was no more a psychic than I am. He was blessed with big ears that's all.
-
No,he was no more a psychic than I am. He was blessed with big ears that's all.
but surely he must of been psycic I mean the only other possible explanation is collusion with mugford.
-
but surely he must of been psycic I mean the only other possible explanation is collusion with mugford.
That's exactly what it was. She used the same solicitor as RWB. Doesn't need much working out.
-
I have previously suggested RB may be psychic.
He told Julie about MM & the kitchen window. While she was with Bamber.
-
That's exactly what it was. She used the same solicitor as RWB. Doesn't need much working out.
but surely him have pescyic powers is a far more likely explanation.
-
but surely him have pescyic powers is a far more likely explanation.
More wishful thinking I'd have said.
-
I have previously suggested RB may be psychic.
He told Julie about MM & the kitchen window. While she was with Bamber.
I know you have benn saying it right from the start.
-
That's exactly what it was. She used the same solicitor as RWB. Doesn't need much working out.
You have a source for this?
-
That's exactly what it was. She used the same solicitor as RWB. Doesn't need much working out.
are you sure of this lookout.
-
are you sure of this lookout.
As it didn't happen - of course not!
-
well its pretty easy to establish weather that's true or not the solicters are listed somewhere. here.
-
You have a source for this?
It was discussed as well as sourced a couple of months ago that's how I know the same solicitor was used.
It was RWB's suggestion to JM that she use him--------which she did.
-
No matter how many times these " reminders " appear there'll still be questions asked. Isn't it me who's supposed to have the duff memory ?
-
It was discussed as well as sourced a couple of months ago that's how I know the same solicitor was used.
It was RWB's suggestion to JM that she use him--------which she did.
As far as I am aware, Julie's mother found her solicitor and it was he/she who advised her to do the deal with the News of the World. Nothing to do with RWB.
-
The company of the solicitors was Ellisons and RWB's solicitor was a Mr Rant.
-
It was a Mr Church of Ellisons who attended to the NOTW payment to JM.
-
Do please pay attention. ;D
-
It was a Mr Church of Ellisons who attended to the NOTW payment to JM.
Source Lookout? Do back up your claims!
-
Source Lookout? Do back up your claims!
Don't you remember it being said that when JM was asked about the arrangement between her solicitor and the NOTW that she suddenly couldn't remember the date that the agreement had been signed ?
Now where did this information/source come from,or have you suddenly gone blank ?
-
Don't you remember it being said that when JM was asked about the arrangement between her solicitor and the NOTW that she suddenly couldn't remember the date that the agreement had been signed ?
Now where did this information/source come from,or have you suddenly gone blank ?
Of course I remember that but how does that act as proof that they used the same solicitors? If true, it does sound like a conflict of interest but where is it stated that they used the same company?
-
Not sure why Julie should remember the date she signed an agreement.
-
Of course I remember that but how does that act as proof that they used the same solicitors? If true, it does sound like a conflict of interest but where is it stated that they used the same company?
Don't worry,I'll find it somewhere. It's good to search you never know what you find !
Wouldn't you have thought it odd that RWB's solicitor sorted out Mabel's will as well as overseeing JM's NOTW deal ? Perhaps you don't now but once upon a time you did :o
-
Don't worry,I'll find it somewhere. It's good to search you never know what you find !
Wouldn't you have thought it odd that RWB's solicitor sorted out Mabel's will as well as overseeing JM's NOTW deal ? Perhaps you don't now but once upon a time you did :o
Stop being silly & childish.
-
Ditto.
-
Don't worry,I'll find it somewhere. It's good to search you never know what you find !
Wouldn't you have thought it odd that RWB's solicitor sorted out Mabel's will as well as overseeing JM's NOTW deal ? Perhaps you don't now but once upon a time you did :o
Find me the source, then I will tell you what I think.
-
Source Lookout? Do back up your claims!
In JM's Witstat of 11/4/2002 she states that she sought " general advice " on furnishing a lawyer-------strange how her " advice " led her to the same solicitors as RWB. Of all the solicitors there must have been in Colchester and she chose Ellisons. Too much of a coincidence for me.
-
Why,in her statement,did JM have to say about her choice of solicitor,that " this is not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously ?"
Her visit was to stop press harassment and her suspension from teaching,among other things.
She hadn't minded the press being there when she was posing though.
If/when someone complains about having been suspended and they fight its cause it's usually a valid point.
Whereas,if you know you've wronged and are suspended,you accept the result,so either JM knew that JB wasn't the murderer ( and who would never have associated with him on account of her career ) or she was as thick as a plank to think a school would employ someone who had been involved with a " murderer "
-
In JM's Witstat of 11/4/2002 she states that she sought " general advice " on furnishing a lawyer-------strange how her " advice " led her to the same solicitors as RWB. Of all the solicitors there must have been in Colchester and she chose Ellisons. Too much of a coincidence for me.
You haven't shown that she used the same solicitor yet.
-
You haven't shown that she used the same solicitor yet.
A Mr Church who also oversaw the changing of Mabel Speakman's Will. You must already know this from 2013 !
-
A Mr Church who also oversaw the changing of Mabel Speakman's Will. You must already know this from 2013 !
That would just prove it was RWB's solicitor now where is the PROOF that Julie used the same one?
-
That would just prove it was RWB's solicitor now where is the PROOF that Julie used the same one?
What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.
-
What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.
I believe it was Mary Mugford who picked the solicitor her daughter used. Given that the majority of her time was spent in London, it's unlikely that Julie would have known one Colchester solicitor from another.
-
What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.
Someone’s post isn’t proof!
-
I believe it was Mary Mugford who picked the solicitor her daughter used. Given that the majority of her time was spent in London, it's unlikely that Julie would have known one Colchester solicitor from another.
This is my understanding also and as their is no official source to Lookouts claim and unless one is forthcoming, I think it can be dismissed.
-
Someone’s post isn’t proof!
The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.
-
The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.
As Julie's mother found a solicitor on Julie's behalf, her choice can hardly be Julie's responsibility, which ever solicitor she used. The firm could have been recommended by the practice where Mary worked.
-
The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.
Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.
-
Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.
I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.
-
Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.
I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.
With the greatest respect... this hardly makes JB innocent though does it?
-
I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.
Well, not necessarily, it could be a coincidence. His name may have been mentioned and approached because of his familiarity with events.
-
With the greatest respect... this hardly makes JB innocent though does it?
Of course not because he isn't.
-
Well, not necessarily, it could be a coincidence. His name may have been mentioned and approached because of his familiarity with events.
Mmm. I can go with that.
-
With the greatest respect... this hardly makes JB innocent though does it?
Why would it?
-
Why would it?
I was being sarcastic. As I am here:
So it's gone from not looking good and probable collusion, to mere coincidence, before you can say Bob's your uncle. I can see now why no circumstance equates to JB being innocent.
-
I was being sarcastic. As I am here:
So it's gone from not looking good and probable collusion, to mere coincidence, before you can say Bob's your uncle. I can see now why no circumstance equates to JB being innocent.
Correct.
-
I was being sarcastic. As I am here:
So it's gone from not looking good and probable collusion, to mere coincidence, before you can say Bob's your uncle. I can see now why no circumstance equates to JB being innocent.
I never thought it was collusion. It's a long way from not 'looking' good to collusion. Not sure why you injected sarcasm when none was required?
-
I never thought it was collusion. It's a long way from not 'looking' good to collusion. Not sure why you injected sarcasm when none was required?
If you read back, as soon as you posted that it didn't look good, Jane folllowed up that it could be collusion. As soon as you suggested it may just be a benign coincidence, Jane followed suit in agreement.
I couldn't help the initial sarcasm, I was trying to parody the usual dismissal we read on here 'doesn't mean JB is innocent' etc.
-
I was being sarcastic. As I am here:
So it's gone from not looking good and probable collusion, to mere coincidence, before you can say Bob's your uncle. I can see now why no circumstance equates to JB being innocent.
I wasn't actually putting forward collusion as a statement of fact.
-
I wasn't actually putting forward collusion as a statement of fact.
Perhaps not but you certainly weren't far off doing so...
I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.
And shouldn't I at least get some credit for my 'Bob's your uncle' quip? :))
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68621000/jpg/_68621378_68621377.jpg)
-
Perhaps not but you certainly weren't far off doing so...
And shouldn't I at least get some credit for my 'Bob's your uncle' quip? :))
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68621000/jpg/_68621378_68621377.jpg)
No! Far from it, Had I said "It took collusion............." you'd have been correct. I used "Would have.................." because I didn't believe it was the case. Of course, HAD it been, "Bob" would most certainly have been my/your uncle :)
-
If you read back, as soon as you posted that it didn't look good, Jane folllowed up that it could be collusion. As soon as you suggested it may just be a benign coincidence, Jane followed suit in agreement.
I couldn't help the initial sarcasm, I was trying to parody the usual dismissal we read on here 'doesn't mean JB is innocent' etc.
My own post had been little more than sarcasm, which was why I agreed with Caroline. I DID not, DO not, NEVER have thought that Mary Mugford colluded with RWB. However, it WAS she who arranged a solicitor for Julie.
Something else with which I concur with Caroline. I seem to recall that she suggested that you take the forum a little too seriously. Perhaps you should refrain from telling people what they meant by the words they posted.
-
If you read back, as soon as you posted that it didn't look good, Jane folllowed up that it could be collusion. As soon as you suggested it may just be a benign coincidence, Jane followed suit in agreement.
I couldn't help the initial sarcasm, I was trying to parody the usual dismissal we read on here 'doesn't mean JB is innocent' etc.
What's wrong with that? It could be either!
How may many times have you also seen that 'this' 'that' or 'the other' doesn't make him guilty?
-
did rwb recound the solicter to them if so that proves there was contact between rwb and mugford.
-
did rwb recound the solicter to them if so that proves there was contact between rwb and mugford.
That's the assumption being made - no evidence of it though.
-
That's the assumption being made - no evidence of it though.
I know it is but Colchester is not short of solicitors so I find it hard to belive that mugford picked that one purely by coincidence.
-
I know it is but Colchester is not short of solicitors so I find it hard to belive that mugford picked that one purely by coincidence.
I understood it to have been Mary Mugford who picked a solicitor on her daughter's behalf.
-
I understood it to have been Mary Mugford who picked a solicitor on her daughter's behalf.
by why did she pic that solicter had she used him before or did somone recommend him.
-
What has been recorded in the past is that it was through Ainsley telling RWB of what JM's statements consisted of ( as Ainsley kept RWB constantly informed ) is the reason that the case did an about-turn and RWB requested a new investigation into the five deceased. His request was granted--------on the strength of JM's statements.
-
by why did she pic that solicter had she used him before or did somone recommend him.
Someone might have recommended him but it doesn't mean it was RWB. His being a solicitor wasn't a secret and he may have had a good reputation. And even if RWB DID recommend him, it was AFTER Jeremy was arrested and not really unusual for those involved to have 'some' communication.
-
Damn funny they should use the same firm of solicitors !!
-
What has been recorded in the past is that it was through Ainsley telling RWB of what JM's statements consisted of ( as Ainsley kept RWB constantly informed ) is the reason that the case did an about-turn and RWB requested a new investigation into the five deceased. His request was granted--------on the strength of JM's statements.
That can't be right, Julie gave her statements after Jeremy became a suspect - he was arrested the day AFTER she made her first one.
-
Damn funny they should use the same firm of solicitors !!
Not really.
-
I was being sarcastic. As I am here:
So it's gone from not looking good and probable collusion, to mere coincidence, before you can say Bob's your uncle. I can see now why no circumstance equates to JB being innocent.
as promised from PM:
-
That can't be right, Julie gave her statements after Jeremy became a suspect - he was arrested the day AFTER she made her first one.
Wasn't it the 7th of September that JM went to the police ? Wasn't it the 6th ( day before ) of September that RWB visited Simpson to request a new investigation ? Coincidence or what ?
-
by why did she pic that solicter had she used him before or did somone recommend him.
Possibly she closed her eyes and picked one randomly, using a pin.
-
Makes a change from tossing a coin in court----SC or JB. They may just as well have.
-
Damn funny they should use the same firm of solicitors !!
It's possible that it was the "go to" firm of solicitors in Colchester at that time. If so, why on earth would one choose one felt to be second best?
-
It's possible that it was the "go to" firm of solicitors in Colchester at that time. If so, why on earth would one choose one felt to be second best?
Oh yeah ::)
-
Oh yeah ::)
Why so strange? Of couurrrse! It doesn't fit with what you'd like to think occurred, but it's not unheard of for certain companies, within an area, to gain a reputation for giving good service -the service provided being irrelevant- I see no reason to think this was not the case. I understand you'd prefer it not to be so.
-
Possibly she closed her eyes and picked one randomly, using a pin.
well possibly/
-
Wasn't it the 7th of September that JM went to the police ? Wasn't it the 6th ( day before ) of September that RWB visited Simpson to request a new investigation ? Coincidence or what ?
How is that a coincidence?
-
How is that a coincidence?
Because it looks totally staged.
-
Because it looks totally staged.
So does Sheila's body and the crime scene.
-
So does Sheila's body and the crime scene.
I agree. Sheila's crime scene looks staged.
-
I agree. Sheila's crime scene looks staged.
I didn't say 'Sheila's crime scene' I said Sheila's body. Sheila would have no reason to stage anything, nor would the police at that time.
-
So does Sheila's body and the crime scene.
That's because it was. By those who'd first entered the farmhouse.
-
That's because it was. By those who'd first entered the farmhouse.
Reason being?
-
I didn't say 'Sheila's crime scene' I said Sheila's body. Sheila would have no reason to stage anything, nor would the police at that time.
Body / crime scene, splitting hairs. How can you possibly know the police had no reason?
-
Reason being?
Funny how you knew 6 years ago.Memory failing ?
-
Funny how you knew 6 years ago.Memory failing ?
Are you saying I used to believe the police staged Sheila's body?
-
Are you saying I used to believe the police staged Sheila's body?
Oh yes,you used to be very vocal. Now it's all whys and wherefores-------without substance. Like a pie with no filling.
-
Oh yes,you used to be very vocal. Now it's all whys and wherefores-------without substance. Like a pie with no filling.
And you make even more noise about never altering your mind which for some unknown reason you believe is something to be proud of, whist I see it as fear of being thought weak. Each to their own, eh?
-
Oh yes,you used to be very vocal. Now it's all whys and wherefores-------without substance. Like a pie with no filling.
I thought the police staged managed Sheila's body? Can you find me the post(s)?
-
Body / crime scene, splitting hairs. How can you possibly know the police had no reason?
How can you possibly know they had? What plausible reason could you give for such? Are you attempting to set free every crim who denies the crime they were convicted of? Perhaps you'd like to have a look at a current one. Elderly man, walking his dog, killed with such ferocity that his head was nearly severed. The alleged perp, a dog hater -despite his DNA being on the body- admits to being in the area but denies murder. I guess you'd want to find him innocent. After all, if he insists he's innocent......................
-
How can you possibly know they had? What plausible reason could you give for such? Are you attempting to set free every crim who denies the crime they were convicted of? Perhaps you'd like to have a look at a current one. Elderly man, walking his dog, killed with such ferocity that his head was nearly severed. The alleged perp, a dog hater -despite his DNA being on the body- admits to being in the area but denies murder. I guess you'd want to find him innocent. After all, if he insists he's innocent......................
Totally irrelevant rant. Besides, TFG raised serious concerns that the scene had been re-staged. A fact which only came to light many years after JB had been imprisoned.
-
Totally irrelevant rant. Besides, TFG raised serious concerns that the scene had been re-staged. A fact which only came to light many years after JB had been imprisoned.
But you haven't answered my -perfectly reasonable- question. You've side-stepped. As for those "serious concerns" raised by the TFG? Exactly WHO was concerned? Perhaps just those who were looking for nothing in order to try and make something out of it?
-
But you haven't answered my -perfectly reasonable- question. You've side-stepped. As for those "serious concerns" raised by the TFG? Exactly WHO was concerned? Perhaps just those who were looking for nothing in order to try and make something out of it?
What serious question? A couple of TFG raised concerns individually and they raised '"real concerns" as a group, on more than one occasion and to more than one detective. It happened because they were briefed with accompanying crime scene photos - but the scene depicted in the photos could not be reconciled with the scene they encountered. One officer couldn't even recall there having been a rifle present.
Then there's the small matter of the 'informatives',
-
What serious question? A couple of TFG raised concerns individually and '"real concerns" as s group, on more than one occasion and to more than one detective. It happened because they were briefed with accompanying crime scene photos - but the scene depicted in the photos could not be reconciled with the scene they encountered. One officer couldn't even recall there having been a rifle present.
Then there's the small matter of the 'informatives',
Well now, I guess I'd think it pretty strange -given the diversity of characters involved- if they were all speaking off the same script. Given that diversity, there is bound to be a diversity of opinions about what took place, but none of that means they think Jeremy is innocent.
See, it's easy to throw it out there that 'cops' made a mucking fuddle of the investigation -aided and abetted by Jeremy, but that's conveniently forgotten- but no one has yet to give an acceptable reason for it. I MIGHT be prepared to have accepted that they shot her ONCE in the line of duty, but to have her get up and 'escape' upstairs with such an appalling injury, only to have them shoot her again, is beyond belief, and to top that by having them cobble together some fantastic -MYTHICAL- tale, at the outset, when they had a convenient culprit who couldn't argue for themselves, is asking too much.
-
Totally irrelevant rant. Besides, TFG raised serious concerns that the scene had been re-staged. A fact which only came to light many years after JB had been imprisoned.
How many TFG and how long afterwards? Did they raise 'serious' concerns or did they just question a few things? Why would it come to light any sooner when they weren't really sure?
-
What serious question? A couple of TFG raised concerns individually and they raised '"real concerns" as a group, on more than one occasion and to more than one detective. It happened because they were briefed with accompanying crime scene photos - but the scene depicted in the photos could not be reconciled with the scene they encountered. One officer couldn't even recall there having been a rifle present.
Then there's the small matter of the 'informatives',
As a group? Really? So like everyone else, they're a;; 'buttoned up' now? How many TFG are you actually talking about?
One couldn't remember a rifle so that means he must be correct and all the other who spotted it must be wrong?
Informatives - what informatives ?
-
As a group? Really? So like everyone else, they're a;; 'buttoned up' now? How many TFG are you actually talking about?
One couldn't remember a rifle so that means he must be correct and all the other who spotted it must be wrong?
Informatives - what informatives ?
Yeah. WHAT exactly, are informatives?
-
Well now, I guess I'd think it pretty strange -given the diversity of characters involved- if they were all speaking off the same script. Given that diversity, there is bound to be a diversity of opinions about what took place, but none of that means they think Jeremy is innocent.
See, it's easy to throw it out there that 'cops' made a mucking fuddle of the investigation -aided and abetted by Jeremy, but that's conveniently forgotten- but no one has yet to give an acceptable reason for it. I MIGHT be prepared to have accepted that they shot her ONCE in the line of duty, but to have her get up and 'escape' upstairs with such an appalling injury, only to have them shoot her again, is beyond belief, and to top that by having them cobble together some fantastic -MYTHICAL- tale, at the outset, when they had a convenient culprit who couldn't argue for themselves, is asking too much.
None of this seems relevant to our little discussion (regarding the TFG officers being unhappy with Sheila's crime scene; as depicted in the crime scene photographs).
You had to point out again, that no circumstance whatsoever in the history of mankind (or for that matter the universe) 'makes Jeremy innocent'.
-
None of this seems relevant to our little discussion (regarding the TFG officers being unhappy with Sheila's crime scene; as depicted in the crime scene photographs).
You had to point out again, that no circumstance whatsoever in the history of mankind (or for that matter the universe) 'makes Jeremy innocent'.
You seem to be inferring that they were ALL unhappy?
-
None of this seems relevant to our little discussion (regarding the TFG officers being unhappy with Sheila's crime scene; as depicted in the crime scene photographs).
You had to point out again, that no circumstance whatsoever in the history of mankind (or for that matter the universe) 'makes Jeremy innocent'.
Whilst you seem to be searching under every stone to try to find something which makes him APPEAR to be innocent.................which isn't quite the same thing as BEING innocent, is it?
-
How many TFG and how long afterwards? Did they raise 'serious' concerns or did they just question a few things? Why would it come to light any sooner when they weren't really sure?
Collins, Delgado and Adams. Also, concerns were raised 'as a group'. Both the Jones', Ainsley and Montgomery were all spoken with about the concerns.
As a group? Really? So like everyone else, they're a;; 'buttoned up' now?
The officers did the right thing by raising their concerns internally. They registered their unhappiness but their concerns were simply noted and dismissed, by way of reassurance.
One couldn't remember a rifle so that means he must be correct and all the other who spotted it must be wrong?
Not exactly. Another officer corroborated, by placing the rifle as being elsewhere in the crime scene. It would be a bit difficult to not recall a rifle being on top of a woman, that you've just burst in to a farmhouse for the specific reason of cornering and neutralising - don't you think?
Informatives - what informatives ?
Training procedures e.g. practising removing gun from Sheila.
-
.........................
Training procedures e.g. practising removing gun from Sheila.
So now, having established that they didn't -as a group- state unequivocally that they were concerned, have you ANY idea just how ludicrous sounds that last sentence. How many of them were there? How long did it take for someone to decide that this, here would be a jolly good training exercise? How long did it take to rustle up this crack team which would benefit from being sent on a training exercise -or was it ad hoc? It seems to me that one or two may have said that it wasn't the way they'd have carried out the exercise and it's been blown up to say they all had concerns.
-
So now, having established that they didn't - as a group- state unequivocally that they were concerned...
That's not accurate though is it? The TFG did 'as a group' express 'real concerns' - in addition to it being known that three of their group noted their own concerns individually.
Not sure why you feel the need to misrepresent my posts? :-\
have you ANY idea just how ludicrous sounds that last sentence. How many of them were there? How long did it take for someone to decide that this, here would be a jolly good training exercise? How long did it take to rustle up this crack team which would benefit from being sent on a training exercise -or was it ad hoc? It seems to me that one or two may have said that it wasn't the way they'd have carried out the exercise and it's been blown up to say they all had concerns.
I'm struggling to understand exactly what you mean here. If you can express this again in a different way, I may be able to respond.
-
That's not accurate though is it? The TFG did 'as a group' express 'real concerns' - in addition to it being known that three of their group noted their own concerns individually.
Not sure why you feel the need to misrepresent my posts? :-\
I'm struggling to understand exactly what you mean here. If you can express this again in a different way, I may be able to respond.
"Practice removing gun from Sheila"!!!!! Are you telling me that this crack team had no experience of removing guns from bodies, using either team members during role play, or dummies? Why was it deemed necessary to carry out exercises which could perfectly well have been done anywhere other than in a place where it totally disrespected the dignity of victims. I'm VERY hard pushed to believe such occurred, even if personnel were present.
-
Whilst you seem to be searching under every stone to try to find something which makes him APPEAR to be innocent.................which isn't quite the same thing as BEING innocent, is it?
You can't just MAKE a person guilty either,when it suits those all round.
-
You can't just MAKE a person guilty either,when it suits those all round.
But I'm not responsible for 'making' him anything. He was FOUND to be guilty, not innocent.
-
"Practice removing gun from Sheila"!!!!! Are you telling me that this crack team had no experience of removing guns from bodies, using either team members during role play, or dummies? Why was it deemed necessary to carry out exercises which could perfectly well have been done anywhere other than in a place where it totally disrespected the dignity of victims. I'm VERY hard pushed to believe such occurred, even if personnel were present.
Well as I understand it, there seems to be two or three different claims.
The first, is that due to the incident being so serious and a very rare occurence, it was decided that trainees would be drafted in to learn from the scene - i.e. the serious incident, once made safe, represented an opportunity for on-site learning. If this is a true representation of what actually occurred, a number of negative consequences could have arisen from this exercise. For example, with hindsight it may have become a somewhat regrettable decision, given the pressures being exerted upon Essex Police during the weeks following the incident. During any such exercise, how much interference with the crime scenes actually occurred and did any of this interference occur prior to or in close proximity with crime scene photography?
The second claim seems to be that a team of officers were drafted in under the guise of 'informatives' as per above - but for the purpose of re-staging the scene after something had gone seriously wrong (for example, in a sceneario were an accidental shot was administered and Sheila was rolled on to her side causing the distinctive bloodstain that we can make-out under the bible).
Perhaps a third claim is that one of the 'informatives' themselves, while in the process of carrying out the training exercise, became responsible for the accident mentioned above. That would have been particularly unfortunate for the rooky concerned.
I personally do not subscribe to any one scenario regarding this. I am merely aware that 'informatives' are supposed to have played some role at the scene - benign or otherwise - and that the scene altered at some point inbetween TFG leaving and the crime scene photography taking place.
-
But I'm not responsible for 'making' him anything. He was FOUND to be guilty, not innocent.
The jury were only as good as the information put before them------except that there'd been a lot " missing " of which they hadn't been aware of. Nothing new it would seem.
-
Well as I understand it, there seems to be two or three different claims.
The first, is that due to the incident being so serious and a very rare occurence, it was decided that trainees would be drafted in to learn from the scene - i.e. the serious incident, once made safe, represented an opportunity for on-site learning. If this is a true representation of what actually occurred, a number of negative consequences could have arisen from this exercise. For example, with hindsight it may have become a somewhat regrettable decision, given the pressures being exerted upon Essex Police during the weeks following the incident. During any such exercise, how much interference with the crime scenes actually occurred and did any of this interference occur prior to or in close proximity with crime scene photography?
The second claim seems to be that a team of officers were drafted in under the guise of 'informatives' as per above - but for the purpose of re-staging the scene after something had gone seriously wrong (for example, in a sceneario were an accidental shot was administered and Sheila was rolled on to her side causing the distinctive bloodstain that we can make-out under the bible).
Perhaps a third claim is that one of the 'informatives' themselves, while in the process of carrying out the training exercise, became responsible for the accident mentioned above. That would have been particularly unfortunate for the rooky concerned.
I personally do not subscribe to any one scenario regarding this. I am merely aware that 'informatives' are supposed to have played some role at the scene - benign or otherwise - and that the scene altered at some point inbetween TFG leaving and the crime scene photography taking place.
I would remind you that whilst we may have 'assurances' that such occurred, I don't believe we've been given clear evidence.
-
I would remind you that whilst we may have 'assurances' that such occurred, I don't believe we've been given clear evidence.
I think 'informatives' are mentioned somewhere in documentation but I do not recall where. I know there was a rather unfortunately worded newspaper article regarding this. Subtlety is not Jeremy's forte.
-
I think 'informatives' are mentioned somewhere in documentation but I do not recall where. I know there was a rather unfortunately worded newspaper article regarding this. Subtlety is not Jeremy's forte.
Yes, there seems to have been much information given that can be traced back to Jeremy.
-
Yes, there seems to have been much information given that can be traced back to Jeremy.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-my-familys-107641
This is the article which also shos the photograph of the bedding - which I just mentioned on another thread.
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-my-familys-107641
This is the article which also shos the photograph of the bedding - which I just mentioned on another thread.
How do you know that's bedding? Looks like clothes to me?
-
Thanks for that Roch. It's good to be reminded of these things which tend to fall by the wayside during other discussions.
-
How do you know that's bedding? Looks like clothes to me?
On closer inspection - could be a mixture of clothes and bedding? I do recall that in one crime scene image of the master bedroom, this pile is not visible.
-
Well as I understand it, there seems to be two or three different claims.
The first, is that due to the incident being so serious and a very rare occurence, it was decided that trainees would be drafted in to learn from the scene - i.e. the serious incident, once made safe, represented an opportunity for on-site learning. If this is a true representation of what actually occurred, a number of negative consequences could have arisen from this exercise. For example, with hindsight it may have become a somewhat regrettable decision, given the pressures being exerted upon Essex Police during the weeks following the incident. During any such exercise, how much interference with the crime scenes actually occurred and did any of this interference occur prior to or in close proximity with crime scene photography?
The second claim seems to be that a team of officers were drafted in under the guise of 'informatives' as per above - but for the purpose of re-staging the scene after something had gone seriously wrong (for example, in a sceneario were an accidental shot was administered and Sheila was rolled on to her side causing the distinctive bloodstain that we can make-out under the bible).
Perhaps a third claim is that one of the 'informatives' themselves, while in the process of carrying out the training exercise, became responsible for the accident mentioned above. That would have been particularly unfortunate for the rooky concerned.
I personally do not subscribe to any one scenario regarding this. I am merely aware that 'informatives' are supposed to have played some role at the scene - benign or otherwise - and that the scene altered at some point inbetween TFG leaving and the crime scene photography taking place.
Don't believe there even was a training exercise.
-
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-my-familys-107641
This is the article which also shos the photograph of the bedding - which I just mentioned on another thread.
Oh dear! Yet more -spurious?- information from Jeremy. I'm even more skeptical of the alleged 'informatives'
-
Don't believe there even was a training exercise.
Well if 'informatives' are documented somewhere - then there either was a training excercise or some other use for 'informatives'. I dont recall where they are are documented.
-
On closer inspection - could be a mixture of clothes and bedding? I do recall that in one crime scene image of the master bedroom, this pile is not visible.
They eventually would have moved stuff around, but if there was anything untoward, they wouldn't photograph it.
-
Well if 'informatives' are documented somewhere - then there either was a training excercise or some other use for 'informatives'. I dont recall where they are are documented.
Or even if they are?
-
rwb mentioning a hitman before mugford did rwb giving a description at that is almost the same as the police account that's to strange coincidences mugford using the same solicitor as rwb another strange coincidence it all really depends on how much you prepared to put down to coincidence.
-
rwb mentioning a hitman before mugford did rwb giving a description at that is almost the same as the police account that's to strange coincidences mugford using the same solicitor as rwb another strange coincidence it all really depends on how much you prepared to put down to coincidence.
Hardly coincidence when it was a situation they were all sharing. There would have been times when -in one permutation or another- those concerned would have been together. Given the circumstances, it's hardly surprising that a solicitor's name cropped up. Given that Julie's mother lived and worked in Colchester, she MAY have asked colleagues to recommend a solicitor. Equally, she may have picked the name randomly out of yellow pages, Church coming up as the first Colchester solicitor listed.
-
Hardly coincidence when it was a situation they were all sharing. There would have been times when -in one permutation or another- those concerned would have been together. Given the circumstances, it's hardly surprising that a solicitor's name cropped up. Given that Julie's mother lived and worked in Colchester, she MAY have asked colleagues to recommend a solicitor. Equally, she may have picked the name randomly out of yellow pages, Church coming up as the first Colchester solicitor listed.
No! There is only ONE explanation, they were all puppets under the control of RWB - the puppet master ::) - logic just flies out of the window in a desperate attempt to feed the conspiracy!
-
Hardly coincidence when it was a situation they were all sharing. There would have been times when -in one permutation or another- those concerned would have been together. Given the circumstances, it's hardly surprising that a solicitor's name cropped up. Given that Julie's mother lived and worked in Colchester, she MAY have asked colleagues to recommend a solicitor. Equally, she may have picked the name randomly out of yellow pages, Church coming up as the first Colchester solicitor listed.
she may of done or she of radomely picked the name or rwb may of recomended it.
-
The jury were only as good as the information put before them------except that there'd been a lot " missing " of which they hadn't been aware of. Nothing new it would seem.
My understanding is one Jury member fell asleep during the trial.
If that person was one of 'The Ten" that alone should warrant a Retrial, which I am certain would lead to Jeremy being exonerated.
-
she may of done or she of radomely picked the name or rwb may of recomended it.
I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath to hear how you think Julie's mother managed to get that information from RWB.
-
I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath to hear how you think Julie's mother managed to get that information from RWB.
well there would of had to have been contact rwb and the mugfords but seeing how her evidence so neatly fits in withn rwbs theorys I don't think that's so unlikely.
-
well there would of had to have been contact rwb and the mugfords but seeing how her evidence so neatly fits in withn rwbs theorys I don't think that's so unlikely.
You say there had to have been contact. Now you have to tell us why RWB would have need of being in contact with Julie's mother. Julie didn't live with her parents. I see no reason for RWB and his family to know Julie's family.
-
Nugs needs to provide the source that RB thought a hit man committed the massacre. Otherwise everyone will again believe Nugs is just saying what he would like the situation to be.
Then Nugs need to provide proof RB contacted Julie. While Julie was with Bamber in 6 different locations out of Essex. Otherwise again everyone will believe Nugs is creating his own weak conspiracy theories.
-
When is RB supposed to imagine the hit man theory. Days or weeks after the massacre ?
Doesn't give him much time to persuade Julie. She was with Bamber & out of Essex until approaching the police on the 7th September.
But Nugs has suggested RB was psychic.
-
Nugs needs to provide the source that RB thought a hit man committed the massacre. Otherwise everyone will again believe Nugs is just saying what he would like the situation to be.
Then Nugs need to provide proof RB contacted Julie. While Julie was with Bamber in 6 different locations out of Essex. Otherwise again everyone will believe Nugs is creating his own weak conspiracy theories.
its in his dairys thats allready been established noobodys didputing it so stop wasting everyones time.
-
its in his dairys thats allready been established noobodys didputing it so stop wasting everyones time.
So no source again.
You can't keep creating threads on how you would like something to be.
Quit posting rubbish or quit posting.
-
So no source again.
You can't keep creating threads on how you would like something to be.
Quit posting rubbish or quit posting.
i just told you the sourcee adam.
-
So no source again.
You can't keep creating threads on how you would like something to be.
Quit posting rubbish or quit posting.
Blimey,so nasty !
-
its in his dairys thats allready been established noobodys didputing it so stop wasting everyones time.
He may well have jotted down abstract thoughts in his diary. There's a huge difference, though, between a maybe/possibly thought and a definite/certain thought. The similarity is that both start in one's head.
-
i just told you the sourcee adam.
Provide the link and page number. As I do.
Or do you not have the capacity to do that ?
-
He may well have jotted down abstract thoughts in his diary. There's a huge difference, though, between a maybe/possibly thought and a definite/certain thought. The similarity is that both start in one's head.
true but i still think it a rather odd coincedence like the rather coincedence that his wifes inherietence cliam needs to the twins to die first and funnly enough mugfords evdence says that they do.
-
true but i still think it a rather odd coincedence like the rather coincedence that his wifes inherietence cliam needs to the twins to die first and funnly enough mugfords evdence says that they do.
Oh! So not only is RWB psychic! By sheer coincidence -and YOU know how much you love coincidences- it looks as if Julie is too!!! Here we have it that it was she who passed on the information to RWB that the twins died first!!!! Now from WHOM did Julie get this information. Is she Mystic Meg in disguise, or perhaps she held a seance? What d'ya think, Nugs?
-
Oh! So not only is RWB psychic! By sheer coincidence -and YOU know how much you love coincidences- it looks as if Julie is too!!! Here we have it that it was she who passed on the information to RWB that the twins died first!!!! Now from WHOM did Julie get this information. Is she Mystic Meg in disguise, or perhaps she held a seance? What d'ya think, Nugs?
i dont belive a clue who died first.
rwb new that colin had a cliam if the twins didident died last/
but there was no evdence of the order of death untill mugford came forward wich was very lucky for rwb.
and it
-
My understanding is one Jury member fell asleep during the trial.
If that person was one of 'The Ten" that alone should warrant a Retrial, which I am certain would lead to Jeremy being exonerated.
The whole trial? ::)
-
i dont belive a clue who died first.
rwb new that colin had a cliam if the twins didident died last/
but there was no evdence of the order of death untill mugford came forward wich was very lucky for rwb.
and it
OK. So now all you have to do is tell us from whom Julie got the information.
-
OK. So now all you have to do is tell us from whom Julie got the information.
The idea is that she was told to say that by RWB so they could inherit instead of Colin. Of course why would Julie want to help RWB over Colin?
-
The idea is that she was told to say that by RWB so they could inherit instead of Colin. Of course why would Julie want to help RWB over Colin?
Especially after Jeremy would have shared with her how much he loved Uncle Bobby.
-
The idea is that she was told to say that by RWB so they could inherit instead of Colin. Of course why would Julie want to help RWB over Colin?
colin couldent help get the chardges agianst her droped rwb could
-
colin couldent help get the chardges agianst her droped rwb could
If Jeremy wasn't being investigated at the time there was no question of charges against Julie.
-
colin couldent help get the chardges agianst her droped rwb could
So RWB went to the police and said he wanted Bamber locked up for the murders because he wanted to inherit all the cash. He told the police that they needed to tell Julie to say the twins died first so he COULD inherit the cash and they said "No problem, leave it to us"? Just like that?
-
Was that before or after RWB sent a stiff letter to EP complaining about their investigation ? ( it wasn't going the way he'd wanted it to,initially and that's when the Carr's stepped in ) The " big-guns " from the Met. If that's not desperation I'll eat my hat.
-
Was that before or after RWB sent a stiff letter to EP complaining about their investigation ? ( it wasn't going the way he'd wanted it to,initially and that's when the Carr's stepped in ) The " big-guns " from the Met. If that's not desperation I'll eat my hat.
I'm sure you don't have any hats left, given the number of times you must have had to eat one!
-
Was that before or after RWB sent a stiff letter to EP complaining about their investigation ? ( it wasn't going the way he'd wanted it to,initially and that's when the Carr's stepped in ) The " big-guns " from the Met. If that's not desperation I'll eat my hat.
Are you suggesting "a stiff letter of complaint to EP" resulted in them 'making' Julie say the twins died first?
-
I'm sure you don't have any hats left, given the number of times you must have had to eat one!
My God, would you put your life, family and children on 'Jeremy is guilty'?
I would, sans children as I don't have any, that Jeremy is INNOCENT....over to you.
-
Are you suggesting "a stiff letter of complaint to EP" resulted in them 'making' Julie say the twins died first?
What on earth are you on about now ?
-
My God, would you put your life, family and children on 'Jeremy is guilty'?
I would, sans children as I don't have any, that Jeremy is INNOCENT....over to you.
The you're a fool.
-
What on earth are you on about now ?
i secound that.
-
i secound that.
It's pretty simple, Lookout suggested that RWB wanted to inherit, if the twins died last, then Colin would. So via EP RWB influenced EP to pressure Julie to say Jeremy told her the twins died first.
-
It's pretty simple, Lookout suggested that RWB wanted to inherit, if the twins died last, then Colin would. So via EP RWB influenced EP to pressure Julie to say Jeremy told her the twins died first.
The said letter I spoke about had nothing whatsoever to do with who died first ::)
-
The said letter I spoke about had nothing whatsoever to do with who died first ::)
No, but it did have something to do with RWB trying to influence the investigation!
-
No, but it did have something to do with RWB trying to influence the investigation!
It was all about him having been unhappy at the way the investigation was going------a month after the murders when it was murder/suicide. It seems unthinkable that a member of the public can influence the police in such a way.
-
It was all about him having been unhappy at the way the investigation was going------a month after the murders when it was murder/suicide. It seems unthinkable that a member of the public can influence the police in such a way.
Huh! I'll bet it wouldn't have stopped you putting in your two pen'th, though.
-
It was all about him having been unhappy at the way the investigation was going------a month after the murders when it was murder/suicide. It seems unthinkable that a member of the public can influence the police in such a way.
Really? So you don't think that the parents of James Bulger (or other family members of murder victims) had the right to try and intervene?
-
Really? So you don't think that the parents of James Bulger (or other family members of murder victims) had the right to try and intervene?
As has been previously said, an entirely other set of rules when it comes to Jeremy.
-
Really? So you don't think that the parents of James Bulger (or other family members of murder victims) had the right to try and intervene?
Why bring others into this ? It was two entirely different sets of circumstances anyway.
-
Why bring others into this ? It was two entirely different sets of circumstances anyway.
Are you saying that relatives only have intervention rights under given circumstances? I'd hazard a guess they'd have to be 'Lookout' approved.
-
No, but it did have something to do with RWB trying to influence the investigation!
well its pretty clear from his actions that he was.
-
well its pretty clear from his actions that he was.
Actually, that's not QUITE true. He may have been registering his dissatisfaction with the way the investigation was proceeding. He was within his rights to do so. HOWEVER, it was entirely down to the police if they allowed themselves to be influenced by anything he said. One reads statements such as "He/she made me do it". This is rarely true. We usually have a choice. So whatever it was you imagine he may have been responsible for 'making' the police do, it would have been their choice.
-
Why bring others into this ? It was two entirely different sets of circumstances anyway.
Playing the sympathy card never works with me anyway.
-
Playing the sympathy card never works with me anyway.
Wouldn't expect it to. It'd be wasted. Sentimentality, however................
-
Wouldn't expect it to. It'd be wasted. Sentimentality, however................
So you'll know next time not to try it won't you ?
-
Actually, that's not QUITE true. He may have been registering his dissatisfaction with the way the investigation was proceeding. He was within his rights to do so. HOWEVER, it was entirely down to the police if they allowed themselves to be influenced by anything he said. One reads statements such as "He/she made me do it". This is rarely true. We usually have a choice. So whatever it was you imagine he may have been responsible for 'making' the police do, it would have been their choice.
The police did say 'no' to 'the relatives'. The police explained to 'the relatives' how Sheila was the killer and 'the relatives' at least in-part, were able to come to a reluctant acceptance that she could have carried out the killings. However 'the relatives' began an attempt to 'infiltrate' and influence various police ranks - some of whom were familar with the customs and historic relationships in that particular area of Essex. The police again said 'no' - even at one point questioning whether they were prepared for a potentially innocent man to go to jail. One particuilar relative replied in the affirmative. Even when Robert Boutflour's chosen stooge was manovering in to position and asking for a case review, the police still came back and said 'no - the evidence indicates Sheila Caffell'.
'The relatives' had to resort to using a channel between themselves, Ainsley and Stan Jones (more than willing to do to Ainsley and the relatives' bidding), in order engineer a situation were Julie Mugford was facing a precipice and could be manipulated in to constantly changing statements with the aim of achieving a desired result. They also had to collude in order to come up with a bogus physical exhibit! This latter circumstance is even accepted by some who favour guilt!
The real police did say 'no' to the relatives. The problem was that Jeremy lent himself to being framed, by virtue of three factors - his position vis-a-vis 'the relatives' and the relevant estate / financial / land matters, his own behaviour in the aftermath of the killings; and his perceived character among 'the relatives' prior to the killings. The actual evidence regarding the crime had to be invented!
-
The police did say 'no' to 'the relatives'. The police explained to 'the relatives' how Sheila was the killer and 'the relatives' at least in-part, were able to come to a reluctant acceptance that she could have carried out the killings. However 'the relatives' began an attempt to 'infiltrate' and influence various police ranks - some of whom were familar with the customs and historic relationships in that particular area of Essex. The police again said 'no' - even at one point questioning whether they were prepared for a potentially innocent man to go to jail. One particuilar relative replied in the affirmative. Even when Robert Boutflour's chosen stooge was manovering in to position and asking for a case review, the police still came back and said 'no - the evidence indicates Sheila Caffell'.
'The relatives' had to resort to using a channel between themselves, Ainsley and Stan Jones (more than willing to do to Ainsley and the relatives' bidding), in order engineer a situation were Julie Mugford was facing a precipice and could be manipulated in to constantly changing statements with the aim of achieving a desired result. They also had to collude in order to come up with a bogus physical exhibit! This latter circumstance is even accepted by some who favour guilt!
The real police did say 'no' to the relatives. The problem was that Jeremy lent himself to being framed, by virtue of three factors - his position vis-a-vis 'the relatives' and the relevant estate / financial / land matters, his own behaviour in the aftermath of the killings; and his perceived character among 'the relatives' prior to the killings. The actual evidence regarding the crime had to be invented!
So what did they threaten Julie with, to make her send a person she cared about to prison for murder? Prosecute her for the cheque book fraud? Something she openly admitted to, for the caravan park robbery? Something she also told them about - OR was it as an accessory? What did they actually have on Julie before SHE TOLD THEM about the events leading up the the murders? In your scenario THEY needed Julie, not the other way around. Without Julie, they could prosecute Bamber, which means they had less ability to tie her into anything. Any solicitor would have told her they had nothing.
-
JM still helped their cause though. I wonder if she received a gift like EP did ?
-
JM still helped their cause though. I wonder if she received a gift like EP did ?
I'm not disputing that.
-
I'm not disputing that.
But at the same time,I'll bet anything that Julie had been unaware of their motive !
-
So you'll know next time not to try it won't you ?
Ha! In your dreams, maybe.
-
So what did they threaten Julie with, to make her send a person she cared about to prison for murder? Prosecute her for the cheque book fraud? Something she openly admitted to, for the caravan park robbery? Something she also told them about - OR was it as an accessory? What did they actually have on Julie before SHE TOLD THEM about the events leading up the the murders? In your scenario THEY needed Julie, not the other way around. Without Julie, they could prosecute Bamber, which means they had less ability to tie her into anything. Any solicitor would have told her they had nothing.
Did she have just any solicitor?
In the days and weeks following the killings, the relatives spread FUD about Jeremy. A first, it was to various police officers - which as we know continued unabated. They may have been furtive outside of this, but given their status and trusted band of 'retainers' etc., it would only be a matter of time before their conversational nuances caused 'Chinese whispers' to begin to spread. 'Guilt by association' would only need to be hinted at. The fact that Jeremy allowed their relationship to lapse is hardly likely to have rekindled her loyalty. I think Julie was faced with an unnerving reappraisal of her situation, which is exactly what DS Jones wanted. He was in on the FUD, telling witnesses that no phone call had occurred from Nevill to Jeremy, when in fact it could not be proven either way. Imagine for one moment the doubt and suspicion this would have fostered in the rumour mill at the time? The fact that Julie had in some part come clean regarding some offences simply played in to Jones' hands later on, while also presenting a challenge in that she would have to be 'cleaned' as a witness.
-
Did she have just any solicitor?
In the days and weeks following the killings, the relatives spread FUD about Jeremy. A first, it was to various police officers - which as we know continued unabated. They may have been furtive outside of this, but given their status and trusted band of 'retainers' etc., it would only be a matter of time before their conversational nuances caused 'Chinese whispers' to begin to spread. 'Guilt by association' would only need to be hinted at. The fact that Jeremy allowed their relationship to lapse is hardly likely to have rekindled her loyalty. I think Julie was faced with an unnerving reappraisal of her situation, which is exactly what DS Jones wanted. He was in on the FUD, telling witnesses that no phone call had occurred from Nevill to Jeremy, when in fact it could not be proven either way. Imagine for one moment the doubt and suspicion this would have fostered in the rumour mill at the time? The fact that Julie had in some part come clean regarding some offences simply played in to Jones' hands later on, while also presenting a challenge in that she would have to be 'cleaned' as a witness.
I don't believe it happened like that - Julie came forward and they needed to know if there was anything in her past that Jeremy could tell the defence that might discredit her. Otherwise, she had no reason to tell them,