Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Nigel on March 15, 2018, 11:01:AM
-
1)
Here PC Myall is talking about the Box Room (room adjoining Parent's bedroom and Twins room) side of house.
-
The Jury were misled into believing it was the FRONT (Sheilla's bedroom) by Bews (my belief unintentionally).
"I thought was the back"
"I believe the front door"
Bews: "Yes, that is when we first went to the house with Mr Bamber. We had gone round what I thought was the back. We had seen the kitchen door with the light on. We then went into a field which is at the side of the farm house and went went round to where what is - - I believe the front door is and above that is a window. As we moved away I thought we saw something else move, a shadow, something like that. We looked up and after looking for a couple of minutes I was satisfied that it was a - - perhaps a part in the glass that just shone the light slightly as you looked at it."
Rivlin: "It could have been a trick of the light?"
Bews: "I think it was a trick of the light"
......
Both were talking about the BOX ROOM adjoining 'Parents room and Twins room, (the room with red ochre coloured walls).
Four separate Police officers refer to either possible movement and or a sighting of a 'rifle'.
It is pertinent to note 'Box room' is feet away from where Sheilla's body was found.
nb
The video Clip mentioned, where Bews identifies the wrong first floor window at which the figure was seen, by himself, PC Myall and Jeremy Bamber, constitutes fresh evidence which was not available at the time of the original 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal (https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M) evidence which is capable of seriously undermining the prosecutions case at trial
Mike Tesko
PROOF OF THE SIDE OF BUILDING BEING REFERRED TO CAN BE SEEN FROM CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS OF COLOUR OF CURTAINS, JEREMY'S DIAGRAM HAS COLOURS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT (PLEASE SEE HIS SKETCH).
ALSO MYALL "BEHIND THE WALL" THERE IS NO WALL IN FRONT OF HOUSE.
-
THIS IS THE BACK DOOR BEWS REFERS TO:
-
THIS IS THE FRONT DOOR BEWS REFERS TO IMAGE BELOW:
(confusion over 'Kitchen door', BEWS admits himself in video re: two bodies in kitchen. 'Heat of the moment'.
-
Moon was on other side of farm house. Night sky: "clear sky" as per BEWS video.
Chance of 'Trick of the light' virtually zero.
-
2)
JEREMY COULD NOT HAVE PLACED RIFLE ON SHEILA AS BOTH INTERNAL KITCHEN DOOR (SEE BELOW) AND KITCHEN STAIRCASE WERE BLOCKED see this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9271.0.html .
Neville Bambers body was sat perched upon a wooden chair which had been pushed right up against the inner kitchen door and the right angled corner with the outer wall of the farmhouse prior to the firearms team entering the kitchen! Directly in front of Neville who was seated was a second wooden chair which was empty! His arms and upper body was slumped forward so that it rested on the back rest of this other chair!
Anyone stood outside the kitchen window looking in, would not have been able to see Neville Bambers body because the angle of vision was too acute!
The height and width of the kitchen worktop at the kitchen window, hampered the view any observer at that window might have had!
The opening edge of the kitchen door opened swinging from left to right, and was hinged on the right (when viewed from outside the kitchen window)!
Firearm officers were delayed in entering that inner kitchen door, because there was something very heavy behind it obstructing the door! What they did not know until they actually got into the kitchen was that it was Neville Bambers body that had been causing the obstruction!
thanks @mike tesko
STAIRCASE NOTE WORD BLOCKED:
-
This is how Neville's body was positioned PRIOR to Raid Team entering
thanks @mike tesko
-
more detail
-
more detail
-
At the other side of this door, were firearms drivers trying to get into the kitchen, but there was something behind the door which was very heavy preventing them from opening the inner door! Bit, by bit, they shoved against the opposite side of this door, until the door gradually started to open...
Unbeknown to the firearms officers the chair at the front of Neville Bambers body started to become pressed out of alignment in front of Neville Bambers body!
-
Eventually, the front chair toppled over, and with the ever increasing pressure being exerted on the opening edge of the door by firearm officers, the chair which Neville Bamber had been sat upon, also started to topple forward at a slight angle, sending Neville Bambers body crashing forward ending up looking as though his body was balanced somewhat precariously on top of the original forward positioned chair!
-
2a)
What we can conclude therefore, is that the rooms beyond that internal kitchen door was off limits to Neville Bambers killer, who could not go beyond Neville's body sat in that chair behind the door, thus preventing the killer from taking the sound moderator from the guns barrel and concealing it inside a cupboard in the den.
...
So, with Sheila being killed off last of all, upstairs on the bedroom floor with the sound moderator still on the barrel of the gun, her killer would have to remove the moderator, go into the upstairs bathroom, unbolt the wall panel that afforded access to the other upstairs part of the farmhouse, and go all the way down the back stairs, into the hallway outside the internal kitchen door behind which Neville Bambers body was sat and blocking the door off, turn into the den, go to the cupboard in the corner of the den, rummage about until the killer found an almost empty ammunition box and place the sound moderator inside it, replace the box, shut the cupboard door, and then what?
Well, presumably the killer would then have to back track his way out of the den, along the back passage, up the back stairs, go from one side of the upper part of the farmhouse on one side of the bathroom panel, to the other, making sure that the killer remembered to bolt the bath panel, and then what?
Made good his escape via a window?
...
@mike tesko
-
3)
to be continued...
-
2a)
What we can conclude therefore, is that the rooms beyond that internal kitchen door was off limits to Neville Bambers killer, who could not go beyond Neville's body sat in that chair behind the door, thus preventing the killer from taking the sound moderator from the guns barrel and concealing it inside a cupboard in the den.
...
So, with Sheila being killed off last of all, upstairs on the bedroom floor with the sound moderator still on the barrel of the gun, her killer would have to remove the moderator, go into the upstairs bathroom, unbolt the wall panel that afforded access to the other upstairs part of the farmhouse, and go all the way down the back stairs, into the hallway outside the internal kitchen door behind which Neville Bambers body was sat and blocking the door off, turn into the den, go to the cupboard in the corner of the den, rummage about until the killer found an almost empty ammunition box and place the sound moderator inside it, replace the box, shut the cupboard door, and then what?
Well, presumably the killer would then have to back track his way out of the den, along the back passage, up the back stairs, go from one side of the upper part of the farmhouse on one side of the bathroom panel, to the other, making sure that the killer remembered to bolt the bath panel, and then what?
Made good his escape via a window?
...
@mike tesko
It's my belief Jeremy staged the body of his dad on his favourite chair. Didn't Scott Lomax mention that the body had been dragged along the kitchen floor, something that would rule out Sheila's involvement?
-
It's my belief Jeremy staged the body of his dad on his favourite chair. Didn't Scott Lomax mention that the body had been dragged along the kitchen floor, something that would rule out Sheila's involvement?
I'm not sure if Lomax said that but I am sure Nevill's body would have been too heavy for Jeremy or anyone else to lift and manipulate onto the chair on their own. He was a very big man and obviously would have been a dead weight.
-
It's my belief Jeremy staged the body of his dad on his favourite chair. Didn't Scott Lomax mention that the body had been dragged along the kitchen floor, something that would rule out Sheila's involvement?
The only marks anywhere at all on Neville Bambers body, or clothing were gouge marks found on his forearm! A part from this there was no evidence that anyone had lifted or dragged Neville's body! I think it highly likely that Neville himself may have sought refuge on that chair prior to each of the four head shots being inflicted! It is possible that Neville himself arranged the front chair and that he collapsed, or slumped forward over it with the top half of his body! In that slumped position Neville Bamber would have been a sitting duck, an easy target for Sheila to pump four head shots into him with little or no resistance whatsoever!
-
The only marks anywhere at all on Neville Bambers body, or clothing were gouge marks found on his forearm! A part from this there was no evidence that anyone had lifted or dragged Neville's body! I think it highly likely that Neville himself may have sought refuge on that chair prior to each of the four head shots being inflicted! It is possible that Neville himself arranged the front chair and that he collapsed, or slumped forward over it with the top half of his body! In that slumped position Neville Bamber would have been a sitting duck, an easy target for Sheila to pump four head shots into him with little or no resistance whatsoever!
Forget any purported struggle between Neville and Sheila in front of the red painted kitchen aga!
There was no contact between the end of any sound moderator with the aga in any purported struggle involving Neville Bamber and his killer! The scratch marks on the kitchen aga, and matching red paint found almost two months later ingrained into the knurl of the moderator, was as a result of deliberate contamination introduced so that the prosecution could set a trap for Jeremy Bambers defence at the trial!
Cops, relatives and the prosecution's experts were all involved in the entrapment I am talking about!
Sheila's blood and the red paint from the kitchen aga was presented as though both were found either inside or upon the same sound moderator, but I have already proven that Sheila Caffell's blood could not have been found inside the same moderator upon which the red paint that matched the kitchen aga was purportedly found! The sound moderator was not present at Huntingdon Lab' on the 12th September 1985, when Sheila's blood was supposedly discovered inside 'it'...
If the sound moderator was not present at the Lab' on that red letter day, how can Sheila Caffell's blood have been found inside it?
Ann Eaton did not hand over the sound moderator to DC Oakey until the 11th September 1985, Essex police retained possession of the moderator, hanging onto 'it' until the 20th September 1985! On 'that' date, Essex police submitted the sound moderator to the Lab' along with other items that David Boutflour and Ann Eaton had handed over to the police! It was requested that amongst other things that the sound moderator should be checked for blood and fibers!
This request is remarkable, particularly so in view of the fact that blood had already supposedly been found inside the same sound moderator 9 days previously, when to all intents and purposes the moderator was never at the Lab' at all!
I have uncovered clear evidence that the prosecution's use of the sound moderator, Sheila's blood and the red paint from the scratched kitchen aga is 'fabricated evidence', which was deliberately introduced for the specific purpose of entrapment!
-
Essex police and the relatives, and the prosecution's experts, have all adamantly proclaimed that there was only ever one Sound Moderator! The relatives only found one sound moderator! The relatives only ever handed over one sound moderator to Essex police! Experts at Huntingdon only ever examined one sound moderator! Sheila Caffell's unique blood and red paint from the kitchen aga was only found inside and upon one sound moderator - the problem is, the sound moderator was not present at the Lab' when Sheila's blood was supposedly found inside it, and the red paint from the kitchen aga was not found ingrained into the knurled end cap of the sound moderator until after Essex police submitted it on the 20th September 1985, it wasn't until the 2nd October 1985, that Experts matched paint on the sound moderator to the red paint on the kitchen aga!
Glynis Howard, would tell the COLP investigators, that she only ever examined one sound moderator, she only handled a sound moderator, on one occasion! This is a startling admission, and one which should not go unnoticed! Since, COLP wanted to know why she signed an exhibit label bearing the identifying mark, 'DRB/1', which she could not answer satisfactorily! Handwritten Lab' notes confirm that at the beginning of April 1986, Glynis Howard examined the sound moderator! It should be noted, that by April 1986, the sound moderator was being referred to by that ('DRB/1') exhibit reference!
According to the official version of events, Essex police had submitted the sound moderator to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985!
But..
If that be true, how could Ann Eaton and the relatives still have got possession of 'it', to enable David Boutflour to fill out a police document dated the 11th September 1985, which stated that he had found the gun silencer, the very same date, that his sister (Ann Eaton) handed 'it' to the police! It should also be noted, somewhat joyfully, that DS Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprinted 'it' on the 14th September 1985, 7 days prior to Essex police submitting the sound moderator to the Lab' on 20th September 1985!
This emphatically establishes that Jeremy Bamber has been wrongly accused and convicted of these murders!
The prosecution's case has collapsed, upon itself, they have been exposed as the real criminals in this matter!
Ann Eaton and David Boutflour have got some very serious questions to answer, as do Essex police, and its experts!
-
What a complete waste of time and money, for the CCRC, who have spent almost two decades rejecting grounds of appeal, and yet they didn't t even have the intelligence to discover that the sound moderator was not present at the Lab' when Sheila Caffell's blood was supposedly found inside 'it'!
Praise be to God!
-
What we are dealing with here, are dishonest prosecution witnesses, and malfeance in public office, by the prosecution, the judiciary, the appellate court, and the CCRC!!
-
What we are dealing with here, are dishonest prosecution witnesses, and malfeance in public office, by the prosecution, the judiciary, the appellate court, and the CCRC!!
I now know with 100% certainty, how the relatives, Essex police, and those at the Lab' managed to cover up the introduction of the sound moderator, so they could 'pretend' that 'it' had been at the Lab' beforehand (allegedly, since 30th August 1985) - they got away with it because the sound moderator was concealed inside the cardboard box that got sent to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985!
-
I have discovered the documentary evidence which confirms that Essex police, the relatives, and the prosecution's experts, have all 'gilded the lily', to frame Jeremy Bamber for alleged involvement in the deaths of five members of his immediate family!
The relatives are wicked individuals, the 'Nazis' of the modern age, Essex police the 'Gestapo', the trial judge 'Drake' Hitler reincarnate!
There was no sound moderator at Huntingdon Lab' on 12th September 1985, to enable experts to find Sheila Caffell's blood inside it on 'that' date!
-
What is somewhat bizzare, is that Ds Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprinted the sound moderator on the 14th September 1985, despite Ron Cook claiming he had already fingerprinted 'it' twice beforehand, Once on 15th August 1985 by oblique light test technique, and secondly on 23rd August1985 when he exposed the sound moderator to cyanoacrylate fumes (Superglue treatment)! How could Ron Cook have fingerprinted the sound moderator on two occasions before Ann Eaton handed 'it' over to Essex police (11th September 1985)? It just doesn't make sense, or add up..
-
What is somewhat bizzare, is that Ds Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprinted the sound moderator on the 14th September 1985, despite Ron Cook claiming he had already fingerprinted 'it' twice beforehand, Once on 15th August 1985 by oblique light test technique, and secondly on 23rd August1985 when he exposed the sound moderator to cyanoacrylate fumes (Superglue treatment)! How could Ron Cook have fingerprinted the sound moderator on two occasions before Ann Eaton handed 'it' over to Essex police (11th September 1985)? It just doesn't make sense, or add up..
If Ron Cook fingerprinted the sound moderator by Superglue technique on 23rd August 1985, it must surely mean that Essex police had possession of the sound moderator prior to the 11th September 1985 when Ann Eaton handed 'it' to DC Oakey? But if she did, and if Cook had fingerprinted it by super glue technique on 23rd August 1985, it can only lead to one astonishing conclusion...
-
If Ron Cook fingerprinted the sound moderator by Superglue technique on 23rd August 1985, it must surely mean that Essex police had possession of the sound moderator prior to the 11th September 1985 when Ann Eaton handed 'it' to DC Oakey? But if she did, and if Cook had fingerprinted it by super glue technique on 23rd August 1985, it can only lead to one astonishing conclusion...
Essex police 'must have returned the sound moderator to the relatives'..
Why would police do that?
-
Essex police 'must have returned the sound moderator to the relatives'..
Why would police do that?
Well, if Essex police did hand the sound moderator back to the relatives after Cook had fingerprinted 'it' using super glue treatment on 23rd August 1985,, they have gone out of their way to deny having done so!
Anthony Pargeter, However, made a comment in one of his witness statements, saying that David Boutflour had told him that police had returned the sound moderator to the family! David Boutflour, on the other hand denied ever having told Anthony Pargeter any such thing! But, it now looks like, cops did hand the sound moderator back to the family! They must have done, because on the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton is handing 'it' back to the police, and on that very same date, her brother David Boutflour is filling out a police form in relation to finding the silencer his sister handed over!
-
I think that it's a nailed on certainty, that the relatives had possession of the sound moderator, between 23rd August 1985 (when Cook fingerprinted it by super glue technique) and until 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed 'it' back to DC Oakey (this would have placed the sound moderator back in the possession of the relatives for a continuous period of about 19 days)!
During this 19 day period, Essex police arrested Jeremy Bamber on suspicion of the murders for the first occasion!
-
I think that it's a nailed on certainty, that the relatives had possession of the sound moderator, between 23rd August 1985 (when Cook fingerprinted it by super glue technique) and until 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed 'it' back to DC Oakey (this would have placed the sound moderator back in the possession of the relatives for a continuous period of about 19 days)!
During this 19 day period, Essex police arrested Jeremy Bamber on suspicion of the murders for the first occasion!
By the time relatives had possession of the sound moderator during this period, the relatives had full control of whf, Peter Eaton taking on the tenancy of the farmhouse, by the time Robert Boutflour went to see ACC Peter Simpson, and when Julie Mugford' came forward to plant Jeremy in the frame!
It was during this same 19 day period (albeit on the very last day of this period) that Ann Eaton 'returned' the sound moderator to Essex police, and her brother filled out a police form stating that he had found the sound moderator on that date!
Is it just a coincidence, that scratch marks were only photographed on the kitchen aga surround, 'after relatives handed the sound moderator back to Essex police'?
-
By the time relatives had possession of the sound moderator during this period, the relatives had full control of whf, Peter Eaton taking on the tenancy of the farmhouse, by the time Robert Boutflour went to see ACC Peter Simpson, and when Julie Mugford' came forward to plant Jeremy in the frame!
It was during this same 19 day period (albeit on the very last day of this period) that Ann Eaton 'returned' the sound moderator to Essex police, and her brother filled out a police form stating that he had found the sound moderator on that date!
Is it just a coincidence, that scratch marks were only photographed on the kitchen aga surround, 'after relatives handed the sound moderator back to Essex police'?
I don't understand why nobody can seemingly do a documentary about the silencer alone. Its' importance in the case and its' anomalies surely warrent a 30 minute slot. I know Simon McKay in effect achieved this but that was based almost solely on the forensic tests regarding photographs of the wounds - not the issues surrounding the discovery and custody of the exhibit etc.
How did McKay get the ITV documentary comissioned?
-
Cops gave the sound moderator back to the relatives so that the relatives could 're-introduce' it later on, and Sheila's blood and the red paint from the kitchen linked to 'it'...
-
I don't understand why nobody can seemingly do a documentary about the silencer alone. Its' importance in the case and its' anomalies surely warrent a 30 minute slot. I know Simon McKay in effect achieved this but that was based almost solely on the forensic tests regarding photographs of the wounds - not the issues surrounding the discovery and custody of the exhibit etc.
How did McKay get the ITV documentary comissioned?
Mark Williams-Thomas was introduced to the case initially through Jackie Preece's twitter campaign. He then joined this forum and read the material and decided to make a documentary. He was put in contact with Simon MacKay who cooperated with him. He did have material for a further documentary but that is another story.
-
Mark Williams-Thomas was introduced to the case initially through Jackie Preece's twitter campaign. He then joined this forum and read the material and decided to make a documentary. He was put in contact with Simon MacKay who cooperated with him. He did have material for a further documentary but that is another story.
Jackie said last year she was going to make a 6 part documentary on the case. Hopefully this project has not been abandoned & it will been shown this year.
Do you believe the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?
-
Jackie said last year she was going to make a 6 part documentary on the case. Hopefully this project has not been abandoned & it will been shown this year.
Do you believe the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?
What do you believe?
'the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?'
-
What do you believe?
'the police or relatives fabricated the silencer. Or was it a joint effort ?'
For me it has to be a joint effort.
If the police fabricated the silencer, they would have to ask the relatives to lie in their witness statements & say they found it.
I don't agree with David & Buddy that the relatives acted independently and scrapped period blood off wet underwear into the silencer. Then scratched the aga without knowing what the crime scene pictures showed.
Hopefully NGB will give his view. He has been close to the case so may have a new view.
-
I believe it would be (a) in the public Interest, and (b) in the interest of justice, that there should be an in depth (tv) documentary about the sound moderator evidence in this prosecution!
There now exists a body of documentary evidence to confirm that the sound moderator evidence, with Sheila's blood and paint from the kitchen aga linked to it, can no longer be relied upon to sustain the credibility of these convictions. It has not helped matters by the strength with which the prosecutions case relied so heavily upon the presentation of this evidence, during the trial, and authenticated by the trial judge in his ghastly summing up, where he reminded the jury in forceful terms how Sheila Caffells blood had got forced back into the sound moderator at the time she had got shot and killed, and how with the sound moderator attached to the end of the guns barrel, the overall length of the weapon would have been much too long to enable her to have shot herself, even if she had wanted to..
How also, was it possible once she had shot herself hypothetically, had Sheila managed to unscrew the sound moderator from the end of the guns barrel (when she was dead), and take it all the way downstairs to conceal it inside a box hidden away in a cupboard in the downstairs office (den), and lo and behold, how Sheila had managed to return back upstairs, and lay down dead on the main bedroom floor, in possession of the now 'silencerless' rifle?
Well...
All of these factors fall by the wayside, if the sound moderator in question 'WAS NOT USED'...
-
I believe it would be (a) in the public Interest, and (b) in the interest of justice, that there should be an in depth (tv) documentary about the sound moderator evidence in this prosecution!
There now exists a body of documentary evidence to confirm that the sound moderator evidence, with Sheila's blood and paint from the kitchen aga linked to it, can no longer be relied upon to sustain the credibility of these convictions. It has not helped matters by the strength with which the prosecutions case relied so heavily upon the presentation of this evidence, during the trial, and authenticated by the trial judge in his ghastly summing up, where he reminded the jury in forceful terms how Sheila Caffells blood had got forced back into the sound moderator at the time she had got shot and killed, and how with the sound moderator attached to the end of the guns barrel, the overall length of the weapon would have been much too long to enable her to have shot herself, even if she had wanted to..
How also, was it possible once she had shot herself hypothetically, had Sheila managed to unscrew the sound moderator from the end of the guns barrel (when she was dead), and take it all the way downstairs to conceal it inside a box hidden away in a cupboard in the downstairs office (den), and lo and behold, how Sheila had managed to return back upstairs, and lay down dead on the main bedroom floor, in possession of the now 'silencerless' rifle?
Well...
All of these factors fall by the wayside, if the sound moderator in question 'WAS NOT USED'...
Access to the gun cupboard to place Moderator via door Neville was against and kitchen staircase to upstairs were BLOCKED.
It could not have been Jeremy, unless he can walk through walls.
-
For me it has to be a joint effort.
If the police fabricated the silencer, they would have to ask the relatives to lie in their witness statements & say they found it.
I don't agree with David & Buddy that the relatives acted independently and scrapped period blood off wet underwear into the silencer. Then scratched the aga without knowing what the crime scene pictures showed.
Hopefully NGB will give his view. He has been close to the case so may have a new view.
I am as guilty as the next person for trying to get people to talk about the silencer issue, in particular, that there had been two different sound moderators involved in this police investigation, at one time or another..
I do not regret going down that avenue, because at the end of the day any teething problems with that suggestion have been ironed out - we now know, for example, that Anthony Pargeters sound moderator was not present at the scene at the time of the shootings...
I was guided by what Jeremy told me, and I don't regret pursuing that matter based upon Jeremy's information! Jeremy wasn't there at the time members of his family were shot to death, so its irrelevant what Jeremy thinks, or thought!
Anthony Pargeter had taken his sound moderator home on the penultimate week - end prior to the shooting tragedy! There was only one sound moderator present at whf at the time of the shootings! If I am wrong, then obviously Anthony Pargeter has a lot of questions to answer for!
The only sound moderator present at the scene at the time of these shootings was the sound moderator belonging to the anshuzt rifle...
-
I am as guilty as the next person for trying to get people to talk about the silencer issue, in particular, that there had been two different sound moderators involve in this police investigation, at one time or another..
I do not regret going down that avenue, because at the end of the day any teething problems with that suggestion have been ironed out - we now know, for example, that Anthony Pargeters sound moderator was not present at the scene at the time of the shootings...
I was guided by what Jeremy told me, and I don't regret pursuing that matter based upon Jeremy's information! Jeremy wasn't there at the time members of his family were shot to death, so its irrelevant what Jeremy thinks, or thought!
Anthony Pargeter had taken his sound moderator home on the penultimate week - end prior to the shooting tragedy! There was only one sound moderator present at whf at the time of the shootings! If I am wrong, then obviously Anthony Pargeter has a lot of questions to answer for!
The only sound moderator present at the scene at the time of these shootings was the sound moderator belonging to the anshuzt rifle...
and the sound moderator was in the gun cupboard?, as Jeremy left WHF on the night of the Tuesday the 6th August 1985?
-
and it was in the gun cupboard?, as Jeremy left WHF on the night of the Tuesday the 6th August 1985?
YES...
'Not used at all in the tragedy, since as Jeremy reported to DCI Jones, and DS Jones on the 9th August 1985, the sound moderator was not fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, at the time he loaded bullets into the magazine of the rifle in the kitchen that evening!
I can confirm that on the many occasions I personally raised this with Jeremy, he always responded in the negative!
-
YES...
'Not used at all in the tragedy, since as Jeremy reported to DCI Jones, and DS Jones on the 9th August 1985, the sound moderator was not fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, at the time he loaded bullets into the magazine of the rifle in the kitchen that evening!
I can confirm that on the many occasions I personally raised this with Jeremy, he always responded in the negative!
Lets take a different approach...
On the 9th August 1985, on DS Jones own admittance, both he and DCI Jones raised the question about the sound moderator, 'was it fitted to the barrel of the gun' that evening?
'NO', said Jeremy....
-
Lets take a different approach...
On the 9th August 1985, on DS Jones own admittance, both he and DCI Jones raised the question about the sound moderator, 'was it fitted to the barrel of the gun' that evening?
'NO', said Jeremy....
If Jeremy had been involved, and he had used the sound moderator, what better timing for the police to warn him that they were interested in the sound moderator?
If, Jeremy had been involved, wouldn't he have sought the sound moderator out, and disposed of it altogether, rather than leave it where he supposedly concealed it, knowing that at any stage somebody was going to recover it?
Was Jeremy Bamber, that dumb?
-
Lets take a different approach...
On the 9th August 1985, on DS Jones own admittance, both he and DCI Jones raised the question about the sound moderator, 'was it fitted to the barrel of the gun' that evening?
'NO', said Jeremy....
Why did DS Jones and DCI Jones ask that question?
I thought 'the sound moderator' hadn't been found by then Friday the 9th August 1985
The sound moderator was not part of the equation on the 6th 7th 8th or 9th August 1985
-
For me it has to be a joint effort.
If the police fabricated the silencer, they would have to ask the relatives to lie in their witness statements & say they found it.
I don't agree with David & Buddy that the relatives acted independently and scrapped period blood off wet underwear into the silencer. Then scratched the aga without knowing what the crime scene pictures showed.
Hopefully NGB will give his view. He has been close to the case so may have a new view.
He won't. He never expresses a personal opinion about anything. He is above the fray, you see..
-
He won't. He never expresses a person opinion about anything. He is above the fray, you see..
That is a pity. Mike the other moderator talks about the silencer a lot. I was wondering if he agreed with Mike.
-
Why did DS Jones and DCI Jones ask that question?
I thought 'the sound moderator' hadn't been found by then Friday the 9th August 1985
The sound moderator was not part of the equation on the 6th 7th 8th or 9th August 1985
Ah, well...
I suppose it depends upon what you choose to believe..
DS Stan Jones took possession of the sound moderator from the scene on the 7th August 1985 ('SBJ/1')...
-
Ah, well...
I suppose it depends upon what you choose to believe..
DS Stan Jones took possession of the sound moderator from the scene on the 7th August 1985 ('SBJ/1')...
What?, please elaborate. Wednesday the 7th August 1985 the day of the murders?
-
If Stan Jones seized the sound moderator ('SBJ/1') from the scene on 7th August 1985, how did 'it' end up back in the relatives possession in time for David Boutflour to recover it from the scene on 10th August 1985?
-
If Stan Jones seized the sound moderator ('SBJ/1') from the scene on 7th August 1985, how did 'it' end up back in the relatives possession in time for David Boutflour to recover it from the scene on 10th August 1975?
Exactly....
-
Exactly....
The chain of custody is a mess. It is best to look at the forensics rather than the paperwork
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9070.msg428816.html#msg428816 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9070.msg428816.html#msg428816)
-
Mike is saying it was a joint effort.
Stan Jones giving the silencer to the relatives. Then the relatives handing the silencer back to Stan Jones with the blood, paint & hair on.
-
Mike is saying it was a joint effort.
Stan Jones giving the silencer to the relatives. Then the relatives handing the silencer back to Stan Jones with the blood, paint & hair on.
Yes, the paper trail supports this occurrence!
-
Yes, the paper trail supports this occurrence!
Then...
Relatives gave the sound moderator back to the police (Peter Eaton handed sound moderator to DS Jones, on evening of 12th August 1985), but on some day prior to 30th August 1985, Essex police handed the sound moderator back to the relatives, which in turn enabled Ann Eaton to hand back the sound moderator to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
Please...
What more really needs to be said?
-
Then...
Relatives gave the sound moderator back to the police (Peter Eaton handed sound moderator to DS Jones, on evening of 12th August 1985), but on some day prior to 30th August 1985, Essex police handed the sound moderator back to the relatives, which in turn enabled Ann Eaton to hand back the sound moderator to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
Please...
What more really needs to be said?
Somebody like me, does not need to make things up, the evidence is there for all to see, if you tamper with key evidence, you deserve everything that you and yours, have got coming to you!
-
Yes, the paper trail supports this occurrence!
I 100% agree with you.
The lack of scratches above the Aga on the Wednesady and the substantial 'inheritance' is damming.
-
Then...
Relatives gave the sound moderator back to the police (Peter Eaton handed sound moderator to DS Jones, on evening of 12th August 1985), but on some day prior to 30th August 1985, Essex police handed the sound moderator back to the relatives, which in turn enabled Ann Eaton to hand back the sound moderator to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
Please...
What more really needs to be said?
If the police had the silencer on the 7th August, why didn't they scratch the aga & put Sheila's blood in the silencer themselves ?
Seems very risky asking the relatives to do it & then hope the relatives do not crack under pressure.
-
I don't think the relatives are smart enough to put paint, blood and hair on sound Moderator. That just my personal opinion.
-
I don't think the relatives are smart enough to put paint, blood and hair on sound Moderator. That just my personal opinion.
Do you believe the police did that. Then asked the relatives to say in their witness statements they found the silencer ?
-
Do you believe the police did that. Then asked the relatives to say in their witness statements they found the silencer ?
I believe Stan Jones had a deep seated resentment, bordering on hatred towards Jeremy Bamber.
-
I don't think the relatives are smart enough to put paint, blood and hair on sound Moderator. That just my personal opinion.
Well they were smart enough to point it out to the police before the lab confirmed the paint was a match ;)
-
Well they were smart enough to point it out to the police before the lab confirmed the paint was a match ;)
Sure, but did not mean they 'planted it'. As I say just my theory.
-
I believe Stan Jones had a deep seated resentment, bordering on hatred towards Jeremy Bamber.
Why do you believe Stan Jones had these feelings ?
-
The chain of custody is a mess. It is best to look at the forensics rather than the paperwork
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9070.msg428816.html#msg428816 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9070.msg428816.html#msg428816)
The forensics have already been looked at. The authorities were able to apply their own 'due process' in order to shut-down any progress for the defence. By insisting that further tests were required, which the defence could not financially commission, they were able to effectively 'time-out' the defence. Adding further salt to the wounds, they were able to con the public and media in to accepting that they had 'bent over backwards' to accommodate the defence.
What is needed in a documentary is a kind of 'massive assault' on the sound moderator. The anomalies re the discovery; the custodial record; and the forensics.
The police and relatives can be invited to take part for the sake of 'balance'. I'll vouch that their contributions on this aspect of the case will be extremely muted.
-
Mark Williams-Thomas was introduced to the case initially through Jackie Preece's twitter campaign. He then joined this forum and read the material and decided to make a documentary. He was put in contact with Simon MacKay who cooperated with him. He did have material for a further documentary but that is another story.
Neil, in your opinion, can / should anything be attempted to re-engage Mr Williams-Thomas in revisiting the case? Is the 'story' you refer to one of 'politics' behind the scenes (of the original documentary) or material discovered but not yet used?
-
Neil, in your opinion, can / should anything be attempted to re-engage Mr Williams-Thomas in revisiting the case? Is the 'story' you refer to one of 'politics' behind the scenes (of the original documentary) or material discovered but not yet used?
There was material discovered but not used - the documentary was far too short to cover multiple aspects of the case. That material was very interesting and significant and would have featured in the grounds of appeal if the CCRC had referred the case in 2012. A further documentary was contemplated but as you suggest "politics" behind the scenes was the major factor in that not happening.
-
There was material discovered but not used - the documentary was far too short to cover multiple aspects of the case. That material was very interesting and significant and would have featured in the grounds of appeal if the CCRC had referred the case in 2012. A further documentary was contemplated but as you suggest "politics" behind the scenes was the major factor in that not happening.
Neil, do you agree with the sentiment of my other post above? If a new documentary focussed solely on the sound-moderator as an exhibit - it could effectively close-down the scope for any accusations of 'imbalance' towards the producers. The reason for this is that the only information sought by program-makers from any contributor, would relate to sound-moderator. There would be no opportunity for a Boutflour or ex-EP to express their belief in guilt - any more than there would be an opportunity for Eric Allison to express his belief in innocence (as such personal opinions would not fall within the remit of the program). The program would be evidence-based and could feature paperwork. It could even explain the circs of the rejected CCRC referral and the US/UK tests.
The police and relatives would have as much opportunity as anybody else to contribute... but would be doing so at their own peril!
-
Neil, do you agree with the sentiment of my other post above? If a new documentary focussed solely on the sound-moderator as an exhibit - it could effectively close-down the scope for any accusations of 'imbalance' towards the producers. The reason for this is that the only information sought by program-makers from any contributor, would relate to sound-moderator. There would be no opportunity for a Boutflour or ex-EP to express their belief in guilt - any more than there would be an opportunity for Eric Allison to express his belief in innocence (as such personal opinions would not fall within the remit of the program). The program would be evidence-based and could feature paperwork. It could even explain the circs of the rejected CCRC referral and the US/UK tests.
The police and relatives would have as much opportunity as anybody else to contribute... but would be doing so at their own peril!
A documentary based solely upon the sound moderator would be interesting, as it was one of the two key planks of the prosecution case. If the evidence relating to the sound moderator is undermined the convictions are unsafe. However, the second plank is the Jullie Mugford evidence. Some of the additional material related to that, as does some of the undisclosed material held under PII. A documentary on that could be as powerful as one on the silencer evidence in my view.
-
A documentary based solely upon the sound moderator would be interesting, as it was one of the two key planks of the prosecution case. If the evidence relating to the sound moderator is undermined the convictions are unsafe. However, the second plank is the Jullie Mugford evidence. Some of the additional material related to that, as does some of the undisclosed material held under PII. A documentary on that could be as powerful as one on the silencer evidence in my view.
A documentary based solely upon the sound moderator would be interesting, as it was one of the two key planks of the prosecution case. If the evidence relating to the sound moderator is undermined the convictions are unsafe. However, the second plank is the Jullie Mugford evidence. Some of the additional material related to that, as does some of the undisclosed material held under PII. A documentary on that could be as powerful as one on the silencer evidence in my view.
So basically, all we need is 60 mins :)).
1st Quarter... JM
Ad Break.
2nd Quarter... JM
Ad Break
3rd Quarter... Sound-moderator
Ad Break
4th Quarter... Sound-moderator
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/7YppVCocVbI/0.jpg)
Bob's your uncle! ::)
-
So basically, all we need is 60 mins :)).
1st Quarter... JM
Ad Break.
2nd Quarter... JM
Ad Break
3rd Quarter... Sound-moderator
Ad Break
4th Quarter... Sound-moderator
(http://img.youtube.com/vi/7YppVCocVbI/0.jpg)
Bob's your uncle! ::)
It would be even better without the adverts!
-
It would be even better without the adverts!
Yes, I was trying to be a realist regarding how TV channels work.
But Neil.. if the likes of me and you can work this out between us... how has the full machinary that has been behind JB not managed to get something 'of this ilk' off the ground in the last five years? It's not like there's no sympathy for his cause!
You would only have to base the program around these two aspects in order to score a direct hit! If the relatives and Essex Constabulary were cooperative enough to provide opinions that were relevant to the remit of the program, then you include that input in the program. If they are non-cooperative or uncommunicative, then you simply, repeatedly advertise the fact that they have been invited to take part but have declined to do so.
This case is so frustrating. The decyaing prosecution case is just waiting to be knocked-down but the means to achieve this is being kept beyond reach.
-
Yes, I was trying to be a realist regarding how TV channels work.
But Neil.. if the likes of me and you can work this out between us... how has the full machinary that has been behind JB not managed to get something 'of this ilk' off the ground in the last five years? It's not like there's no sympathy for his cause!
You would only have to base the program around these two aspects in order to score a direct hit! If the relatives and Essex Constabulary were cooperative enough to provide opinions that were relevant to the remit of the program, then you include that input in the program. If they are non-cooperative or uncommunicative, then you simply, repeatedly advertise the fact that they have been invited to take part but have declined to do so.
This case is so frustrating. The decyaing prosecution case is just waiting to be knocked-down but the means to achieve this is being kept beyond reach.
One of the problems of the case has been the fact that the efforts to secure a fresh appeal for JB have been reliant on a fairly transient group of volunteers, some legally qualified and some not. The legal team has been changed several times. This has not always been consistent or coordinated and sometimes avenues have been pursued but not seen through to their conclusion. Internal politics has been a factor unfortunately. I am always careful what I say about this publicly, but I do have views on various aspects and I have expressed my concerns about defence focus and efforts in the past, including directly to JB. Things may have changed recently. We will see.
-
One of the problems of the case has been the fact that the efforts to secure a fresh appeal for JB have been reliant on a fairly transient group of volunteers, some legally qualified and some not. The legal team has been changed several times. This has not always been consistent or coordinated and sometimes avenues have been pursued but not seen through to their conclusion. Internal politics has been a factor unfortunately. I am always careful what I say about this publicly, but I do have views on various aspects and I have expressed my concerns about defence focus and efforts in the past, including directly to JB. Things may have changed recently. We will see.
To what extent would you cast opprobrium on yourself for not at times being as tenacious as you might have been in defending a child murderer..
-
Yes, I was trying to be a realist regarding how TV channels work.
But Neil.. if the likes of me and you can work this out between us... how has the full machinary that has been behind JB not managed to get something 'of this ilk' off the ground in the last five years? It's not like there's no sympathy for his cause!
You would only have to base the program around these two aspects in order to score a direct hit! If the relatives and Essex Constabulary were cooperative enough to provide opinions that were relevant to the remit of the program, then you include that input in the program. If they are non-cooperative or uncommunicative, then you simply, repeatedly advertise the fact that they have been invited to take part but have declined to do so.
This case is so frustrating. The decyaing prosecution case is just waiting to be knocked-down but the means to achieve this is being kept beyond reach.
A possible reason for not even trying to expose the conspiracy is that the allegations which the evidence clearly gives support to are of conduct on the part of the police and the relatives which is so appalling that such accusations would invite ridicule and a routinely dismissive attitude towards conspiracy theories. Bamber's lawyers seem to have adapted to the political reality of the case.
Some naive supporters still think that the relatives faked the silencer evidence and managed to fool the police.
The truth is that prosecution witnesses were given instructions by the police. Speaking dismissively of conspiracy theories doesn't change the evidence.
Suppose Bamber's lawyers have figured out that the relatives did not really find the silencer on August 10th. Suppose they know quite well that the police found it on the day of the killings and that the reports of finding it were retracted with the purpose creating the fiction that the relatives found it? They still might prefer to avoid making such allegations even when they have proof because of all the ramifications.
The above was the main substance of the Allegation document in which it is claimed that the police and not the relatives found the silencer and that the police told the relatives to say that they had found it. It appears now that Bamber's lawyers don't want to try to expose the conspiracy, possibly through fear of being dismissed as cranks.
Here is a summary of the contents of the allegation document.
http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1071015626/the-case-of-jeremy-bamber-condensed-from-jeremy
"Documental evidence has emerged revealing that after Essex Police seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from White House Farm shortly after the crime took place and before the 9th August 1985, a second sound moderator was found at White House Farm on the 11th September 1985, given to Essex Police and submitted for forensic examination. A conspiracy was then entered into by DI Ron Cook, DS Stan Jones, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Forensic Scientist Malcolm Fletcher to deceive the prosecuting authorities, the Defence and the Courts by amalgamating evidence from these two sound moderators making it appear that there was only ever one sound moderator in this case.
Both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton stated that the Police were told about their discovery of the red paint on a sound moderator at White House Farm on the 10th and 12th August 1985 (Doc P20 and Doc P5). Robert Boutflour’s notes (Doc P4) reaffirm this. A further entry in Robert Boutflour’s notes for the12th August 1985 also states “Went to Maldon Police, they rang Witham Police and arranged for meeting about silencer, collected from Oak Farm later that evening”.
However, had Ann Eaton telephoned Essex Police on the 10th and 12th August 1985 regarding the finding of a sound moderator there would be a police telephone message report saying so, and there is not. Nor is there a police record of the aforementioned meeting. This is because the sound moderator was not found by Ann, David and Robert until the 11th September 1985. This is evident in Document P31 a phone message log dated the 11th September 1985 stating that “David Boutflour has found a silencer”. Document P35 Action report 88: “Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey”.
These references make it quite clear that the sound moderator was found on the 11th September 1985 and not the 10th August 1985 as stated in Court. The original finding of the first sound moderator SJB/1 was then concealed to give the impression that only one sound moderator was ever found, on the 10th August 1985. Document P7 DI Cook appears to have swapped the forensic reference number from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and finally to DRB/1 in order to confuse the identity of the first sound moderator with the other: being the same make and model this was easy for the police to do."
-
It is, in fact, possible to prove that the silencer evidence was fabricated. The police are known to have found it on August 7th. That is a proven fact. So it's also a proven fact that the relatives did not find it on August 10th. The only rational way to explain the false witness statements of the relatives concerning the finding of the silencer is to maintain that the police told them to lie. It's no use just asking repeatedly "Why should the police want to frame Bamber?"
It's possible to figure out their motives. The basic idea is that the police had given the relatives
information concerning the crime scene which was inconsistent with the crime scene photographs. ACC Peter Simpson knew that the relatives could expose police wrongdoing, so in response to Robert Boutflour's complaints, he made the decision to keep them on board and give them what they wanted, namely changing the course of the investigation so that Bamber became the prime suspect.
The decision to fabricate the silencer evidence was taken after Julie Mugford came forward. Mugford lied out of fear. The relatives lied out of greed. But the important thing to understand is that the police were calling all the shots and telling those people what to say in their statements.
The police eventually retracted reports of finding a silencer for an obvious reason. If they already had it in their possession, the relatives could not have found it afterwards, unless the police had returned it to them in the meantime.
It appears that the police had considered two ways of getting round the problem. They could say that reports of finding a silencer had been mistaken, or they could say that the silencer they found had been returned "covertly" in time for David Boutflour to find it on August 10th. The latter somewhat ridiculous alternative probably explains the fake documentation which Mike Tesko has posted.
It would also explain Anthony Pargeter's statement in which he says that Boutflour had told him in a phone call that the police had "returned" the silencer to the relatives. But the police eventually settled for a simple retraction. But we know they did find it.
The police set up the finding of another identical silencer by David Boutflour in September with the intention of messing around with the documentation to make it appear that Boutflour had found a silencer on August10 and that the relatives had handed it in to the police straight after. But that never happened.
One telling detail in particular points to the deception. The fact that Glynis Howard did not report finding any paint on the silencer (which the police had sent to the laboratory on August 13th) gives it away that at that stage no paint was on it. Yet David Boutflour states in his evidence that he noticed the paint on the silencer he allegedly found before Glynis Howard had examined it.
Of course we know now that the silencer at that stage had no paint on it and that it was the police who later scratched the aga with the second silencer. The police must have told told the relatives to say that they were the ones who first noticed the scratches.
Reading between the lines, they told Robert Boutflour to say in a statement that DS Jones had asked "What silencer?" when Boutflour allegedly told Jones the relatives had found a silencer. A crude way of implying that the police first found out about the silencer from the relatives.
This case is really just ridiculous. My guess is that Bamber's lawyers have decided to withdraw from making these allegations because they are of such an extraordinary nature. They think that the powers that be will simply refuse to listen. But if allegations can be proven, so that the truth becomes obvious to people with average intelligence, the refusal will be seen as dishonest and the deception will be exposed in the media. Only then will Bamber have any chance at all.
The real trouble is that Bamber's pessimistic lawyers refuse even to try to expose the corruption involved and above all want to keep the case "in house". They still want to push a naive view of the case where Julie Mugford lied as a "woman scorned" seeking revenge and that the relatives faked the silencer evidence and in effect managed to fool the police. Mugford fooled the police and the relatives fooled the police. Hopeless!
-
Some naive supporters still think that the relatives faked the silencer evidence and managed to fool the police.
And some naive supporters still think Nevill rang the police.
The truth is that prosecution witnesses were given instructions by the police. Speaking dismissively of conspiracy theories doesn't change the evidence.
There is no evidence to support this.
Relatives had the blood and the silencer in their possession. Relatives pointed out the scratch marks. Relatives came up with the window entry exit. The only cop involved was S Jones.
Essex police only began to cover up after the guilty verdict to avoid the embarrassment.
-
To what extent would you cast opprobrium on yourself for not at times being as tenacious as you might have been in defending a child murderer..
What on earth is your point?
-
The only cop involved was S Jones.
S Jones was working underneath Ainsley. Ainsley had oversight of the framing.
There is no evidence to support this.
I think there is evidence of police coaching regarding prosecution witness testimony
-
What on earth is your point?
Neil I think this may be an oblique reference to your apparent position on Jeremy's guilt vs innocence. As far as I am aware, your belief is that Jeremy had an unfair trial and has subsequently experienced a great deal of stonewalling and negative practices employed by the judicial system. I think you feel that on- balance, the evidence tends towards Jeremy's sister as having been responsible for the kilings - but - you prefer to err on the side of caution and not totally dismiss any evidence or behaviour that could indicate involvement from Jeremy.
-
S Jones was working underneath Ainsley. Ainsley had oversight of the framing.
I dont believe so. That would mean Taff Jones just sat idly and let the framing happen.
If the police had oversight of the framing they would have produced a much better array of evidence. The conspiracy would not be sustainable as too many people would be involved.
Evidence that was used against Jeremy is as follows
- Silencer not found by police.
- Bitter Ex girlfiend who testimony contradicts the facts of the prosecution case.
This is not the work of any oversight by the police.
-
I dont believe so. That would mean Taff Jones just sat idly and let the framing happen.
If the police had oversight of the framing they would have produced a much better array of evidence. The conspiracy would not be sustainable as too many people would be involved.
Evidence that was used against Jeremy is as follows
- Silencer not found by police.
- Bitter Ex girlfiend who testimony contradicts the facts of the prosecution case.
This is not the work of any oversight by the police.
How could the police produce a 'much better array of evidence' if Jeremy didn't commit the killings?
I think the framing is well 'imagined' here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906
-
What on earth is your point?
You've just proved it to those conversant with the modus operandi of this forum.
-
You've just proved it to those conversant with the modus operandi of this forum.
"There was one woman who was like 90 pounds soaking wet. She threw a Lutheran deacon who was about 200 pounds across the room," he says. "That's not psychiatry. That's beyond psychiatry."
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/exorcism-doctor/index.html
-
I dont believe so. That would mean Taff Jones just sat idly and let the framing happen.
If the police had oversight of the framing they would have produced a much better array of evidence. The conspiracy would not be sustainable as too many people would be involved.
Evidence that was used against Jeremy is as follows
- Silencer not found by police.
- Bitter Ex girlfiend who testimony contradicts the facts of the prosecution case.
This is not the work of any oversight by the police.
No it fitted hand in glove, which is why the Defence barristers were so gloomy and why Bamber was ultimately convicted.
-
No it fitted hand in glove, which is why the Defence barristers were so gloomy and why Bamber was ultimately convicted.
What did Julie do with her £25,000?
you are so knowledgeable, I'm sure you know the answer.
-
What did Julie do with her £25,000?
you are so knowledgeable, I'm sure you know the answer.
"All I can say is: I bought a flat."
-
I dont believe so. That would mean Taff Jones just sat idly and let the framing happen.
If the police had oversight of the framing they would have produced a much better array of evidence. The conspiracy would not be sustainable as too many people would be involved.
Evidence that was used against Jeremy is as follows
- Silencer not found by police.
- Bitter Ex girlfiend who testimony contradicts the facts of the prosecution case.
This is not the work of any oversight by the police.
From the allegation document
47. On the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it. (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself."
The police told the relatives to say they had found a silencer. They told the relatives to say that they had noticed the scratches on the mantel shelf and the paint on the silencer.
Glynis Howard did not find paint on the silencer.
Peter Sutherst saw no paint fragments visible on the carpet in photographs of the crime scene. Because the scratches were added later by the police.
The whole thing is a charade but you refuse to see through it.
-
I dont believe so. That would mean Taff Jones just sat idly and let the framing happen.
If the police had oversight of the framing they would have produced a much better array of evidence. The conspiracy would not be sustainable as too many people would be involved.
Evidence that was used against Jeremy is as follows
- Silencer not found by police.
- Bitter Ex girlfiend who testimony contradicts the facts of the prosecution case.
This is not the work of any oversight by the police.
Demonizing Julie Mugford is a real retrograde step. She didn't even go to the police. She just talked some crap to Liz Rimmington which she thought would be of no account, but then Liz got the police who, with Ainsley in charge and with his stooge Stan Jones doing the dirty work, threatened her with a long jail term, if she didn't tell them what she knew about Bamber's involvement in the killings.
She was there when the police told Ann Eaton about Sheila being on the bed with a bible on her chest, so she just did the best she could to save herself. The police knew she was lying-because they knew Sheila was not found on the bed and that it was they who gave the relatives that wrong information.
Ann Eaton relates that the police told her that June was on the bed next to Sheila with the rifle between them. But in Mugford's story June's body is said to be on the floor. The explanation is probably that Mugford remembered the bible on the chest bit from when she was with Ann Eaton at Goldhanger, but got the description of June on the floor from newspaper reports.
-
Demonizing Julie Mugford is a real retrograde step. She didn't even go to the police. She just talked some crap to Liz Rimmington which she thought would be of no account, but then Liz got the police who, with Ainsley in charge and with his stooge Stan Jones doing the dirty work, threatened her with a long jail term, if she didn't tell them what she knew about Bamber's involvement in the killings.
She was there when the police told Ann Eaton about Sheila being on the bed with a bible on her chest, so she just did the best she could to save herself. The police knew she was lying-because they knew Sheila was not found on the bed and that it was they who gave the relatives that wrong information.
Ann Eaton relates that the police told her that June was on the bed next to Sheila with the rifle between them. But in Mugford's story June's body is said to be on the floor. The explanation is probably that Mugford remembered the bible on the chest bit from when she was with Ann Eaton at Goldhanger, but got the description of June on the floor from newspaper reports.
Julie had told 5 people before Liz Rimington rang the police.
It was Liz Rimington's house & phone so can't see what the big deal was about her making the call to the police while Julie was with her.
No person would dare perjure themselves to such a serious extent, by accusing an innocent man of murdering 5 people. A month after the massacre. Bamber's one reason for her doing this is that he apparently 'jilted her'.
A lot of what is in Julie's WS she could have only got from Bamber. Claims that the relatives told her this falls flat as the relatives wouldn't alert Bamber's girlfriend they were digging. They would not have had the information or the opportunity to tell Julie anyway. The only other option is the police told Julie to include all of it in their WS.
Neither the police or relatives would have told Julie to include Matthew Macdonald on her WS. Matthew Macdonald came from Bamber.
It is a simple case that Bamber committed the massacre . Then his girlfriend told the police everything she knew in a 34 WS, a month later.
-
How could the police produce a 'much better array of evidence' if Jeremy didn't commit the killings?
Lots of ways.
- Give mugford accurate information that corroborates the scene of crime and does not include fictional assasins with cast iron alibis.
- Obtain Jeremys fingerprints in a silicone mould then use paraffin wax to plant Jeremy's finger prints over the bible, silencer and rifle for DI Cook to disover later on.
- Obtain the same make size and type of shoe Jeremy had and leave mud/dirt or even bloody shoe prints on the bathroom floor etc.
- Plant text books in Jeremys place on altruistic familicide, mental illness and supicous deaths. That the police will then "discover"
- Take blood samples from the lab and plant some on Jeremys clothes, house and car.
- Obtain the pargeter rifle then plant blood on it then plant it in Jeremys house.
- Take blood samples from the lab and purchase a pair of gloves, cover the both gloves in the victims blood and leave one glove at WHF and plant the other at Jeremys house.
-
No it fitted hand in glove, which is why the Defence barristers were so gloomy and why Bamber was ultimately convicted.
Fitted hand in glove? Shelia was ordered to lay on the bed and shoot herself under the orders of Mathew McDonald who then placed the bible on her chest. Said Julie
(http://i.imgur.com/r5SkwHH.jpg?1)
Is this your idea of how a glove should fit?
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/young-man-with-rubber-glove-over-head-studio-shot-picture-idsb10069350n-001)
-
From the allegation document
The police told the relatives to say they had found a silencer. They told the relatives to say that they had noticed the scratches on the mantel shelf and the paint on the silencer.
Glynis Howard did not find paint on the silencer.
Peter Sutherst saw no paint fragments visible on the carpet in photographs of the crime scene. Because the scratches were added later by the police.
The whole thing is a charade but you refuse to see through it.
The allegation document is not evidence.
Glynis Howard was from the biology department and was tasked to perform blood tests on the silencer. Why would she report finding paint? That was done by Brian Elliot under a micro-scope.
-
Fitted hand in glove? Shelia was ordered to lay on the bed and shoot herself under the orders of Mathew McDonald who then placed the bible on her chest. Said Julie
(http://i.imgur.com/r5SkwHH.jpg?1)
Is this your idea of how a glove should fit?
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/young-man-with-rubber-glove-over-head-studio-shot-picture-idsb10069350n-001)
Yes Julie was quoting a congenital liar. Why did she need to concoct such an incongruous story at all..
-
The allegation document is not evidence.
Glynis Howard was from the biology department and was tasked to perform blood tests on the silencer. Why would she report finding paint? That was done by Brian Elliot under a micro-scope.
Just saying the Allegation document is not evidence is a very poor response. It obviously is concerned with very important evidence. You should clarify your own basic position instead of just relying on quips which avoid the point at issue.
"47. On the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it. (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself."
There is no mention of finding a silencer in Ann Eaton's first statement. That should have been the most important part of it, if the relatives really had found a silencer.
There was no mention of it because it never happened. The plan to fake the silencer evidence was only thought up by the police after Julie Mugford came forward. The police realised that Mugford's evidence alone was most likely not enough to secure a conviction. They needed something of a "forensic" nature to go with it. So what basically happened is that when it came to their attention that the relatives had another identical silencer they saw the chance to perform a deception.
The handing in of the second silencer by the relatives on September 11th is evidence. It is clearly recorded. But they don't admit to handing in two silencers do they? That would defeat the whole object, which was for the police to fake documentation to make it appear that the silencer which the police found on August 7th and which they sent to the laboratory to be examined was the same one David Boutflour allegedly "found" about a month later.
The story of the relatives finding a silencer on August 10th was made up. The police, specifically Stan Jones, literally invited the relatives to take part in faking the silencer evidence to frame Bamber. It was a case of "You help us and we'll help you." The police were helping them write their statements with lying witnesses corroborating the testimony of other lying witnesses, but none of that happened before Ann Eaton's first statement which was made before Julie Mugford came forward.
-
Julie had told 5 people before Liz Rimington rang the police.
It was Liz Rimington's house & phone so can't see what the big deal was about her making the call to the police while Julie was with her.
No person would dare perjure themselves to such a serious extent, by accusing an innocent man of murdering 5 people. A month after the massacre. Bamber's one reason for her doing this is that he apparently 'jilted her'.
A lot of what is in Julie's WS she could have only got from Bamber. Claims that the relatives told her this falls flat as the relatives wouldn't alert Bamber's girlfriend they were digging. They would not have had the information or the opportunity to tell Julie anyway. The only other option is the police told Julie to include all of it in their WS.
Neither the police or relatives would have told Julie to include Matthew Macdonald on her WS. Matthew Macdonald came from Bamber.
It is a simple case that Bamber committed the massacre . Then his girlfriend told the police everything she knew in a 34 WS, a month later.
There is a difference between lying to the police and lying for the police.
There is in this case plenty of evidence of witnesses lying according to instructions given to them by the police. It is not always possible to prove when that happened, but sometimes it is. The accounts given by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby of their visit to the Bank are proven to be lies. They said they went there of their own volition, but the manager when interviewed said a policeman was present.
There is also much circumstantial evidence in the case of witnesses being coached.
When Ann Eaton changed the time Susan Battersby gave for when Julie Mugford received Jeremy's call she almost certainly changed it according to the instructions given to her by the police. The reason we know that is that when Susan Battersby changed the time herself, she changed Ann Eaton's time and not the time she originally gave.
1 When Susan Battersby was asked the time when Jeremy called, she originally said 03:30am. Ann Eaton made a note of that time, but later wrote a second fake note in which the time was changed to 03:15.
2 Later Susan Battersby (obviously having been got at) said that her clock was fast by about 10 minutes and changed the time she gave to just after 03:00. You see when she changed the time, allegedly because her clock was fast, she based the new time on the time given in Ann Eaton's fake note. If not she would have changed the time to 03:20.
Conclusion.
DS Stan Jones told Ann Eaton to change the time of Jeremy's call and he also told Susan Battersby to knock another 10 minutes off it. She obviously based her new time on the one which he told Ann Eaton to write down in a fake note. So the time at which Jeremy called Londen got changed from 03:30 to 03:00 or just after.
This has led to guilty supporters repeatedly trying to make out that Jeremy called Julie Mugford at 03:00 which is earlier than when he said his father called, proving him a liar.
There is a lot of evidence of the police coaching witnesses. The trouble is that most people don't have the time to look at the details.
-
There is a difference between lying to the police and lying for the police.
There is in this case plenty of evidence of witnesses lying according to instructions given to them by the police. It is not always possible to prove when that happened, but sometimes it is. The accounts given by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby of their visit to the Bank are proven to be lies. They said they went there of their own volition, but the manager when interviewed said a policeman was present.
There is also much circumstantial evidence in the case of witnesses being coached.
When Ann Eaton changed the time Susan Battersby gave for when Julie Mugford received Jeremy's call she almost certainly changed it according to the instructions given to her by the police. The reason we know that is that when Susan Battersby changed the time herself, she changed Ann Eaton's time and not the time she originally gave.
1 When Susan Battersby was asked the time when Jeremy called, she originally said 03:30am. Ann Eaton made a note of that time, but later wrote a second fake note in which the time was changed to 03:15.
2 Later Susan Battersby (obviously having been got at) said that her clock was fast by about 10 minutes and changed the time she gave to just after 03:00. You see when she changed the time, allegedly because her clock was fast, she based the new time on the time given in Ann Eaton's fake note. If not she would have changed the time to 03:20.
Conclusion.
DS Stan Jones told Ann Eaton to change the time of Jeremy's call and he also told Susan Battersby to knock another 10 minutes off it. She obviously based her new time on the one which he told ann Eaton to write down in a fake note. So the time at which Jeremy called Londen got changed from 03:30 to 03:00 or just after.
This has led to guilty supporters repeatedly trying to make out that Jeremy called Julie Mugford at 03:00 which is earlier than when he said his father called, proving him a liar.
There is a lot of evidence of the police coaching witnesses. The trouble is that most people don't have the time to look at the details.
Is that the best you can do after 33 years? Have you thought that maybe the girls showed up in Alan Dovey's office and a policeman in plain clothes was on the premises when they arrived?
As for Jeremy's call, have you ever asked yourself why he telephoned her at all at two o' clock in the morning..
-
Is that the best you can do after 33 years? Have you thought that maybe the girls showed up in Alan Dovey's office and a policeman in plain clothes was on the premises when they arrived?
As for Jeremy's call, have you ever asked yourself why he telephoned her at all at two o' clock in the morning..
So you believe that the girls just happened to decide upon a day and an hour when the manager just happened to have a policeman in his office. But your comment is obviously not meant seriously.
Susan Battersby said Jeremy called at 03:30, not at 02:00.
-
Just saying the Allegation document is not evidence is a very poor response. It obviously is concerned with very important evidence. You should clarify your own basic position instead of just relying on quips which avoid the point at issue.
"47. On the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it. (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself."
There is no mention of finding a silencer in Ann Eaton's first statement. That should have been the most important part of it, if the relatives really had found a silencer.
There was no mention of it because it never happened. The plan to fake the silencer evidence was only thought up by the police after Julie Mugford came forward. The police realised that Mugford's evidence alone was most likely not enough to secure a conviction. They needed something of a "forensic" nature to go with it. So what basically happened is that when it came to their attention that the relatives had another identical silencer they saw the chance to perform a deception.
The handing in of the second silencer by the relatives on September 11th is evidence. It is clearly recorded. But they don't admit to handing in two silencers do they? That would defeat the whole object, which was for the police to fake documentation to make it appear that the silencer which the police found on August 7th and which they sent to the laboratory to be examined was the same one David Boutflour allegedly "found" about a month later.
The story of the relatives finding a silencer on August 10th was made up. The police, specifically Stan Jones, literally invited the relatives to take part in faking the silencer evidence to frame Bamber. It was a case of "You help us and we'll help you." The police were helping them write their statements with lying witnesses corroborating the testimony of other lying witnesses, but none of that happened before Ann Eaton's first statement which was made before Julie Mugford came forward.
From The Allegation document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWM2FlYjUzNjAtNTZjNi00MzVmLWIzZmQtYjg5ODAwYTk2NDlh/view
"The provenance (continuity) of the sound moderator
27. The original finding of a sound moderator that was labelled SBJ/1 occurred, according to the investigating officers and prosecution witnesses, on 10th August 1985. Namely, it was discovered by a David Boutflour. It was asserted at trial that it was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS 21 Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Peter Eaton. Then on 13th August 1985 it was submitted for forensic testing at Huntingdon laboratories on by DI Cook.
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985, ‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The Essex Gazette,’ ‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
30. The enquiry that was ‘reopened,’ provided suspicion that Jeremy Bamber had committed murder and killed five members of his family, his motive being for his inheritance making it appear that his mentally ill sister had in fact murdered the family members, including her two children."
-
The fact that it was ACC Simpson who told the press that the police had found a silencer on the day of the killings shows clearly that the later retraction of those reports must have had been authorised by him and that he must have authorised the framing of Bamber or at least connived.
If the police had found the silencer sent to the laboratory only days after the murders and they later tried to deny it, the motive behind the lie seems plain enough. The relatives could not have found the silencer on August 10 if the police already had it in their possession.
It looks as if the police had considered two different ways of getting round the problem of how the relatives could have have found the silencer. They could say that they had returned it to the farm before August 10, or they could simply say that the report of the police finding it had been mistaken.
The fake documentation in which DS Jones says he returned the silencer "covertly" suggests that they wanted to cover themselves just in case the defence discovered the proof that would contradict a retraction. But they settled for a retraction and that is still the official position, though obviously false.
I find it strange that nobody on this forum is willing to comment on this matter. Even people who think Bamber is innocent won't give up on the notion that the relatives really did find a silencer on August 10th. The fallback response to the refutation of that, insofar as it can be detected, seems to be nothing more than thoughtless expressions like "How could all those people be lying? or "Somebody would have talked by now".
It's been suggested that two silencers were found, one by the police on the August 7 and another by the relatives on August 10. That is not credible. If two silencers had been found why would the police send only one to the laboratory. There is no record of two silencers being examined at that stage, but only one. The silencer found by the police was said to be bloodstained. Why would they not have sent the one they found themselves?
More to the point why would they deny finding a silencer and also claim in obviously fake reports which were suppressed that it had been returned to the farm by DS Jones.
It seems to me that whole silencer conspiracy would be exposed if it was clearly proven that the police found a silencer on August 7th. It appears that it has been, but nothing is happening.
-
The fact that it was ACC Simpson who told the press that the police had found a silencer on the day of the killings shows clearly that the later retraction of those reports must have had been authorised by him and that he must have authorised the framing of Bamber or at least connived.
Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him. The fact this is not mentioned in any other major newspaper suggests the latter.
The whole thing is based on a quote from a down-market gossip tabloid with a long history of poor fact-checking and skewed reporting.
This is just embarrassing.
-
Yes Julie was quoting a congenital liar. Why did she need to concoct such an incongruous story at all..
You don't understand women.
-
So you believe that the girls just happened to decide upon a day and an hour when the manager just happened to have a policeman in his office. But your comment is obviously not meant seriously.
Susan Battersby said Jeremy called at 03:30, not at 02:00.
No I'm saying that both girls admitted the cheque book fraud under separate interrogation and that at a later date they arranged an appointment with the bank manager Alan Dovey in consultation with the police. So a policeman in plain clothes may well have been waiting at the bank when the girls arrived at the branch but had not accompanied them to the premises.
-
You don't understand women.
She didn't need to embellish. She had the salient points of the story anyhow, shocking as they were.
-
Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him. The fact this is not mentioned in any other major newspaper suggests the latter.
The whole thing is based on a quote from a down-market gossip tabloid with a long history of poor fact-checking and skewed reporting.
This is just embarrassing.
"Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him."
All you keep doing is saying that reports which contradict the position you have committed yourself to supporting must be mistaken. There is no reason to believe Simpson was mistaken or that he was misquoted in two different newspapers.
If further evidence corroborates reports, the best you can do is to say that those reports must also be mistaken.
The position you are defending is simply not credible. You think that the relatives scratched the mantelpiece only a day or two after allegedly finding the silencer and then straight after that they told the police about the scratches.
So the relatives fooled the police! They found the silencer on the 10th and on the 13th they are showing the police the scratches they made themselves to frame Bamber!
What really happened is that the police made up those reports of the relatives pointing out the scratches to the police. The police made the scratches after Julie Mugford came forward and told the relatives to say that they had found them.
It very much appears that the police found the silencer, the police made the scratches, the police told the relatives to lie.
The reports of the relatives telling the police about the scratches are fake and backdated.
It's no accident that the scratches are made at a place which is not visible in the crime scene photographs and must have been made by people who had studied them carefully. The relatives messing around like that at such an early stage with little thought or preparation is not a credible theory.
They may not be all that brainy, but they are not completely stupid.
Is it correct you believe that the relatives hatched a plot to frame Bamber and went ahead with scratching the mantelpiece before 13th of August? That is when they supposedly told the police about the scratches.
-
http://jeremybamber.tumblr.com/post/1071015626/the-case-of-jeremy-bamber-condensed-from-jeremy
"Documental evidence has emerged revealing that after Essex Police seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from White House Farm shortly after the crime took place and before the 9th August 1985, a second sound moderator was found at White House Farm on the 11th September 1985, given to Essex Police and submitted for forensic examination. A conspiracy was then entered into by DI Ron Cook, DS Stan Jones, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Forensic Scientist Malcolm Fletcher to deceive the prosecuting authorities, the Defence and the Courts by amalgamating evidence from these two sound moderators making it appear that there was only ever one sound moderator in this case.
Both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton stated that the Police were told about their discovery of the red paint on a sound moderator at White House Farm on the 10th and 12th August 1985 (Doc P20 and Doc P5). Robert Boutflour’s notes (Doc P4) reaffirm this. A further entry in Robert Boutflour’s notes for the12th August 1985 also states “Went to Maldon Police, they rang Witham Police and arranged for meeting about silencer, collected from Oak Farm later that evening”.
However, had Ann Eaton telephoned Essex Police on the 10th and 12th August 1985 regarding the finding of a sound moderator there would be a police telephone message report saying so, and there is not. Nor is there a police record of the aforementioned meeting. This is because the sound moderator was not found by Ann, David and Robert until the 11th September 1985. This is evident in Document P31 a phone message log dated the 11th September 1985 stating that “David Boutflour has found a silencer”. Document P35 Action report 88: “Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey”.
These references make it quite clear that the sound moderator was found on the 11th September 1985 and not the 10th August 1985 as stated in Court. The original finding of the first sound moderator SJB/1 was then concealed to give the impression that only one sound moderator was ever found, on the 10th August 1985. Document P7 DI Cook appears to have swapped the forensic reference number from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and finally to DRB/1 in order to confuse the identity of the first sound moderator with the other: being the same make and model this was easy for the police to do."
My own summary of what I see as implied by the above
1 The police found a silencer on the day of the killings.
2 The relatives did not hand in a silencer until after September 11th
3 The police told the relatives to say that they had found a silencer on 10th of august.
4 The deception was to maintain that the silencer examined by Glynis Howard was the one found by the relatives. The truth is the police had found that silencer on the day of the killings.
5 The police made fake backdated reports of the relatives finding the silencer and of them finding blood and paint on it. The paint only got on a silencer after the police deliberately contaminated it in September after Julie Mugford came on the scene.
-
No I'm saying that both girls admitted the cheque book fraud under separate interrogation and that at a later date they arranged an appointment with the bank manager Alan Dovey in consultation with the police. So a policeman in plain clothes may well have been waiting at the bank when the girls arrived at the branch but had not accompanied them to the premises.
Julie Mugford states explicitly that there was no appointment. She said that she and Battersby went to the bank just when they felt like going. I suppose the policeman must have been psychic.
This is what Julie Mugford says in her statement
"We did this alone we weren't prompted to go by police. Whenever we did go it was our
decision. There was no appointment made.
I think we stood outside the bank for I0 minutes, building ourselves up. Susan was a basket case, very nervous. I would have to do the initial talking."
-
"Either ACC Simpson got it wrong or the Mirror is misquoting him."
All you keep doing is saying that reports which contradict the position you have committed yourself to supporting must be mistaken.
Just my observations..
David is a valuable poster on the forum, who often goes in to significant detail and can be persuasive when advancing a certain view. However, among 'supporters' he seems to try and go it alone to an extreme. Sometimes against the grain of a common consensus and sometimes closed-minded against new suggestions. I think HG does a similar thing on the red - though I think in her case, she tries to pander and give succour to the idiotic guilty brigade that surrounds her.
-
Julie Mugford states explicitly that there was no appointment. She said that she and Battersby went to the bank just when they felt like going. I suppose the policeman must have been psychic.
This is what Julie Mugford says in her statement
"We did this alone we weren't prompted to go by police. Whenever we did go it was our
decision. There was no appointment made.
I think we stood outside the bank for I0 minutes, building ourselves up. Susan was a basket case, very nervous. I would have to do the initial talking."
I think you're splitting hairs. The girls had both admitted the cheque fraud under separate interrogation, which was the important point. Without this the affair might never have seen the light of day. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.msg35977.html
-
Sheila's 'bed sock'(s) torn (see red arrow) caused by 'Crispy' the dog during the fateful night, proving it was Sheila.
The sock in question would have been on her Right foot as 3rd image is showing underneath/sole of sock.
Crispy was trying to stop Sheila and bite at sock arrowed.
-
socks
-
Blood on underneath/sole of Sheila's Right 'bed sock', yellow arrows show blood stains.
-
Sheila's 'bed sock'(s) torn (see red arrow) caused by 'Crispy' the dog during the fateful night, proving it was Sheila.
The sock in question would have been on her Right foot as 3rd image is showing underneath/sole of sock.
Crispy was trying to stop Sheila and bite at sock arrowed.
Those are Nevills socks!
-
Those are Nevills socks!
How can you be 100% sure of that?
-
This is how Neville's body was positioned PRIOR to Raid Team entering
thanks @mike tesko
Wounded Neville was blocking door to prevent Sheila entering Kitchen for second time.
-
1)
Here PC Myall is talking about the Box Room (room adjoining Parent's bedroom and Twins room) side of house.
PC MYALL must have been taking about the wall arrowed.. I have estimated a cars length at 5 yards with 5 to 6 cars length from house to wall. Hence MAYALL'S '30 yards'
Box room is also arrowed.
-
bump
-
Was no conclusion ever made as to who the bloodspots belonged to ?
-
Was no conclusion ever made as to who the bloodspots belonged to ?
On the sock and carpet? Junes
-
On the sock and carpet? Junes
Oh right,so it was June's--------along with the Bible prints too !