Campaign to get original contents of PS Woodcock statement, set to solve case...

[Caroline]

Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced? 

[guest154]

Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced?

If Mike knew about the daughter, then xxxxx knew about the daughter. And when has xxxxxx EVER kept ANYTHING quiet.

I just don't believe it.

[Jane]

I know. but I don't like the way it drags the family into another 'situation' with posts about.unknown 'heiress in waiting' etc. even if unproven. 

Maggie, sadly I don't think the family will find themselves "Jeremy-free" for SEVERAL generations and I don't think that anything said on a forum will be considered to have contributed to that. IF the alleged child had, as Mike said, been acknowledged in Granny Speakman's will, the family clearly know of her existence and who are we to say that they haven't made provision for her? On the other hand, should the alleged child turn out to be no more than "alleged," I think the family, IF they ever hear about it and IF they're bothered, will shrug it off. They have had to cope with much worse.

[Caroline]

If Mike knew about the daughter, then xxxxx knew about the daughter. And when has xxxxx EVER kept ANYTHING quiet.

I just don't believe it.

You don't think? 

[guest154]

You don't think? 

Oh my god. 

[Jan]

No, it makes no difference to guilt of innocence but if he lied about having a daughter would you still defend him?

I would only judge what I would feel if I knew he had lied and the reason for it?

At the moment she could be as mythical as a unicorn so its hard to judge any feelings whatsoever 

[Jan]

I know but it's still 'ikky' imo.

Yes a trail of place of birth and age etc was laid - and I don't think that was fair. IF it was true then clues were being given .

[Jane]

Yes a trail of place of birth and age etc was laid - and I don't think that was fair. IF it was true then clues were being given .

Not only do I believe it to have been unfair. IF she exists? and IF any of what has been said is true? given that it's been alleged that steps had been taken to protect her from any publicity, I consider it to be a gross breach of confidentiality.

[maggie]

Maggie, sadly I don't think the family will find themselves "Jeremy-free" for SEVERAL generations and I don't think that anything said on a forum will be considered to have contributed to that. IF the alleged child had, as Mike said, been acknowledged in Granny Speakman's will, the family clearly know of her existence and who are we to say that they haven't made provision for her? On the other hand, should the alleged child turn out to be no more than "alleged," I think the family, IF they ever hear about it and IF they're bothered, will shrug it off. They have had to cope with much worse.

I am always being told by some that I am happy to see the family slagged off.....  surely this shows that I am not.

[susan]

I am always being told by some that I am happy to see the family slagged off.....  surely this shows that I am not.

Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite

[maggie]

Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite

Thank you susan, I do my best to keep things even handed.

It is difficult because this is a pro Jeremy Bamber website and because relatives were involved in the conviction they are bound to be part of the story, however they have a right to privacy about their personal business. imo

[mike tesko]

Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced?

I first met her in 2002, after the fàiled appeal hearing in London. She gave me a lot of inside informaton about Jeremy's life before he was taken into custody. I visited people and places of interest based on what she told me, which turned out to be very helpful in helping me to know Jeremy better than I already thought I did. She proved to be a powerful source of information and support to me for around 3 years whilst I trudged back and forth to visit Jeremy, and liaise weekly with Ewen Smith, and eventually, GDS...

[guest154]

Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite

 

Has this always been your opinion, Susan. Or just your current opinion?

[guest154]

I first met her in 2002, after the fàiled appeal hearing in London. She gave me a lot of inside informaton about Jeremy's life before he was taken into custody. I visited people and places of interest based on what she told me, which turned out to be very helpful in helping me to know Jeremy better than I already thought I did. She proved to be a powerful source of information and support to me for around 3 years whilst I trudged back and forth to visit Jeremy, and liaise weekly with Ewen Smith, and eventually, GDS...

Mike, why is now a good/appropriate time to reveal?

[mike tesko]

As most will have noted, there does not appear to be a defining moment mentioning the exact time in the police logs about when the raid team first set foot upstairs, and leaving the downstairs rooms already fully searched. This is odd. In operations like this, police almost always record events by reference to specific time. But in this instance, the content of police logs makes no such distinction, other than stating, at 7.37am, "THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE", and " THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY", then at 8.10am, "AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE PREMISES, A FURTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL"...

I for one, do not accept that a great deal of time had passed between the reported discovery, of " the body of one dead male", occurring, and the mention in the same breath, as " and the body of one dead female, found upon entry", was made. The gap between the finding of "the body of the dead male", and the finding of " the body of the dead female", seems minimal, not drawn out. The alleged sequence of events spoken about in the contents of the dodgy Woodcock, 13 page, witness statement, dated, 20th September, 1985,  seem to be referring to a long drawn out sequence of events, between entry into the main kitchen and the discovery of Ralph Bambers body, (a) the search of the spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, (b) the exit of the main kitchen and searches of the laundry room, and downstairs office, (c) up the back stairs, into a storeroom, (d) search the upstairs office, (e) be confronted by a locked door panel leading to the other part of the upstairs side of the house (bolted on other side of panel), (f) force open a locked storeroom door, (g) climb into the loft space and search it, (h) go back downstairs, (I) re-enter the main kitchen, (j) enter the dining room and search it, (k) enter the living room and search it, (l) force open the cellar door and search it, (M) enter the downstairs toilet and search it, before the raid team was even ready to go up the main stairs at the front of the house using a mirrored device to enable them to see (n) the body of June Bamber in the doorway of the main bedroom...