The Real Jeremy Bamber

[Caroline]

Well it lends credence to the whole 'Sheila ran amok' angle, albeit tenuously. Add to that the farming out (no pun intended) to boarding school at a young age; there's grounds for the genesis of a grudge.

The same conditions were also the case for Jeremy and he's the one who had to work on a farm he just wanted to sell.

[Caroline]

Interesting that June, herself, didn't teach Sheila domestic skills. I wonder why.

Do we know that Sheila was unhappy being taught by Ann?  Possibly she preferred being with her older cousin to being with her mother.

With all respect to June, she wasn't exactly house proud.

[The General]

The same conditions were also the case for Jeremy and he's the one who had to work on a farm he just wanted to sell.

I've just stated that above. The general concept works for both.

[Holly Goodhead]

Due to the current activity levels on the board we need to maintain the following rule set out on the homepage:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible

Going forward I will be removing all posts that are off topic.

Thanks.

[Nicholas]

It amazes me how people read what I have posted and then make up a lie to try and discredit me.

Well said AA yes Simon Mckay was acutely embarrassed when he took a man's word who promised to fund the Danny Nightingale Appeal.

Where can we read about Simon Mckay being ‘acutely embarrassed’ over this Daisy?

He was quite unpleasant and told me he had never liked me and would never want me as a friend, along with other very hurtful remarks. 

He told me himself that he had sacked Simon McKay.  I tried to talk some sense into him but he said "everyone plays to my tune or I dispose of them".   That appears to have been a lie as Simon claims to still be working for him.

I now realise I was there purely for the money.  I didn't turn up for the afternoon visit.

And why would Bamber say he ‘sacked’ Simon McKay & Mr McKay claim to still be working for him as you say?

What happened here Daisy

The crew abandoned ship several months ago when the short piece about Simon McKay representing Jeremy Bamber disappeared from the front page of the official site without any reason given - they all come to realise the truth in the end!

and why did the CT suddenly remove the short piece about Simon McKay from Bamber’s website?

Had Bamber sacked Simon McKay but not actually told him directly?

[Nicholas]

A few years after Simon McKays involvement with Bambers case he wrote and published the following on the Justice Gap website run by Jon Robins

”John Worboys: ‘Let the victims to have their say”

“Hold the parole Board decision in Worboys up to light and permit the voiceless victims to have their say, writes Simon McKay.
Read article in full here https://www.thejusticegap.com/john-worboys-let-victims-say/


Prior to the above in October 2012 he wrote and published an article headed, Judicial mischief

”There is an unjustifiably little known text book called Miscarriages of Justice: a review of justice in error. Its editors were the esteemed Professor Clive Walker and (then) junior barrister Keir Starmer, now the Director of Public Prosecutions. A review of its pages ought to make uncomfortable reading for British judges since it includes references to various cases that were then considered on appeal to be safe convictions but which later, sometimes much later, resulted in those convictions being quashed.

The paradigm example is R v Mills and Poole where in 1997 the Court of Appeal recognised ‘a risk of injustice’ as a result of material non-disclosure but upheld the convictions. What followed was an appeal to the House of Lords, a reference to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, a partially successful judicial review, a reconsideration of the application for a reference, a reference and eventually, in 2003, a successful appeal.

A renaissance
There was a period from around the late 1980s and lasting for about two decades where the British criminal justice system seemed to enter a renaissance. This article is not the place to examine its causes. However I  was struck by the characteristic eloquence of Geoffrey Robertson QC who (in a foreword to his  biography of Sir William Garrow)  lamented that in the 1970s ‘ferocious judges would intimidate counsel who defended aggressively by describing them as “loud speakers for a maladjusted set”, whilst those barristers who accepted briefs for bomb trials (were) described as “members of the alternative Bar”’. Perhaps this was a metaphorical flapping of a butterfly’s wings and a hurricane of sorts was coming.

But the renaissance that witnessed such unforgettable moments such as the release of the Birmingham Six, Guildford 4 and many other wrongly convicted individuals, it seems is like the passing of an emperor.

Last week the High Court rejected, on the papers at least, an application by Jeremy Bamber, convicted in 1986 of the murder of his entire family. The reasons included a rejection that the often cited authority of R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Pearson did not create a two-staged approach to considering miscarriage of justice cases and in any event even if it did, the CCRC did not have to follow it. It was also critical of a throw away remark Mr Bamber made to a journalist several years ago that he may not have been showing all of his hand.

Mr Bamber relied on what appeared to be an unambiguous statement of the Court of Appeal in ex parte Pearson and which he says the CCRC did not apply where it said:

He has renewed his application for permission to be one of the first to successfully judicially review the Commission but, perhaps understandably, is not optimistic.

Criticisms of the CCRC (see HERE on the JusticeGap), particularly its failure to use its investigatory powers effectively, will continue. There is a very serious tension emerging between this failure and the recent decision in Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary which constrained the need for the police to make available exhibits and other evidence to defence lawyers for the purposes of conducting their own inquiries. The Administrative Court is a blunt instrument in terms of challenging the Commission’s decision-making leaving applicants little choice but to investigate cases with, following Nunn, one hand tied behind their backs.

It is difficult not to reflect on the case of Stefan Kiszko wrongly convicted for the murder of Lesley Molseed in 1975 and freed in 1993. He died the later same year, living less than half as many months after his release as he served in years for a crime he did not commit. His mother who had campaigned doggedly to prove her son’s innocence said on his death that there were certain people she could not forgive for the way they treated her son. There is no greater indictment of a system’s failings than this case and no more compelling case that legal challenges against the body created to refer cases back ought to be capable of effective review by the courts. It is, as Tennyson wrote, a case of ‘authority forgets a dying king’.

A natural ending to this brief article would be to look elsewhere for a system of justice that works better than ours. The successful appeal of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher seemed a good recent example. It is rueful that it took her Italian lawyer to quote a quintessential Englishman, Sir Isaac Newton in his final submissions to the court saying, with the eloquence of an aged past, that ‘truth is ever to be found in simplicity and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things’. That was of course before a court sitting in the ancient city of L’Aquila found three scientists criminally culpable of failing to predict the unpredictable. The only hope is that somewhere, in some distant place, a butterfly gently flaps its wings.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/judicial-mischief/

A comment at the foot of the article reads:

Poppy Ann Miller says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Thanks to the CCRC and their cronies, Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for 27 years for a crime he could not possibly have committed. The CCRC would do well to refer to the definition of Occam’s razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[Nicholas]

Prior to the above in October 2012 he wrote and published an article headed, Judicial mischief
https://www.thejusticegap.com/judicial-mischief/

A comment at the foot of the article reads:

Poppy Ann Miller says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Thanks to the CCRC and their cronies, Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for 27 years for a crime he could not possibly have committed. The CCRC would do well to refer to the definition of Occam’s razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

April 2012

“Bamber's solicitor Simon McKay said he was considering applying for a judicial review.

He claimed the CCRC had "improperly" dismissed "eminent scientific opinion" relating to the gunshot wounds found on the bodies of some of the victims.

He said: "In my view, the commission have not applied the proper test for determining whether a case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17851314


Déjà vu

https://www.thejusticegap.com/ben-geen-statisticians-back-former-nurses-in-last-chance-to-clear-name/

Wonder if Simon McKay has since come to recognise innocence fraud ?

[Caroline]

April 2012

“Bamber's solicitor Simon McKay said he was considering applying for a judicial review.

He claimed the CCRC had "improperly" dismissed "eminent scientific opinion" relating to the gunshot wounds found on the bodies of some of the victims.

He said: "In my view, the commission have not applied the proper test for determining whether a case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17851314


Déjà vu

https://www.thejusticegap.com/ben-geen-statisticians-back-former-nurses-in-last-chance-to-clear-name/

Wonder if Simon McKay has since come to recognise innocence fraud ?

I think Simon McKay was fair, he put forward only arguments that would constitute new evidence, not a rehash of the old bollocks that has been parroted for what seems like centuries. Simon McKay refused to put forward much of what Bamber wanted him to - I believe that may be why they parted ways.

[Nicholas]

I think Simon McKay was fair, he put forward only arguments that would constitute new evidence, not a rehash of the old bollocks that has been parroted for what seems like centuries. Simon McKay refused to put forward much of what Bamber wanted him to - I believe that may be why they parted ways.

Depends what angle you view it from - this wasn’t ‘fair’

Fresh from the disaster ITV documentary Mckay continues to use the press and media to promote pro Bamber propaganda. In his latest exercise he is basically harassing and threatening Julie (Mugford) Smerchanski with arrest and extradition.  What the hell does Mckay think he is playing at?  He is out to wreck Julie's life and career in the most distasteful and underhand manner.  It was Julie's right not to cooperate with his spoof documentary.

You can read the Canadian article here.

http://t.co/DLad3AW4

It seems that McKay's approach to boost his own reputation try to free Bamber is to look at any aspect of the case and twist it in any possible way to get himself on the Legal Aid gravy train!

Now Nelly the spare barrister discloses even more accusations of police corruption, collusion and lies. We find that Julie was actually arrested and forced to lie about Bamber being a child murderer! I think the Oscar should go to Mckay for Best Work Of Fiction rather than Mugford for Best Actress!

A lot about this has come to light recently.  It is an aspect of the case which is likely to form one of the major grounds of appeal if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal.  In essence what the defence now are confident they can prove is that Julie Mugford did not go to the police voluntarily.  She was in fact arrested and interviewed under caution at length.  She was put under intense pressure, not just in connection with the cheque frauds, drug importation and supplying and burglary, but as an accessory to murder.  She was faced with the real prospect of being charged with murder but was offered a way out in the form of total immunity from prosecution provided that she gave evidence against Jeremy.   She was trapped.  The rest is history.
The jury were presented with a false account of the circumstances surrounding Julie Mugford "coming forward".

Twist and Shout!

Attention: Simon McKay esq., McKay Law
 
Re: Jeremy Bamber case
 
Dear Mr. McKay,
 
I was very idsappointed to learn you have recently made comments in the Canadian press regarding Julie Smerchanski nee Mugford in connection with the Jeremy Bamber case.
 
You seemed to assume that there would be an appeal court hearing at which you would want to call her to give evidence. You must have know these comments were premature even if you did expect the CCRC to refer Bamber's case to the Court of Appeak.
 
The following comments attributed to you I found most disturbing:
 
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her and that extradition treaties would force her to testify".
 
Besides assuming a court case that was never likely to happen, you directly imply Julie would have to be forced to attend requiring a subpoena and extradition. Julie voluntarily attended the last 2002 Bamber appeal and you have absolutely no right to imply that Julie would have to be forced to attend your hoped for appeal.
 
In my opinion your sole purpose for making these comments was to damage Julie's reputation in her home town and you should be thoroughly ashamed of your behaviour. I trust now you have failed miserably at the CCRC you will leave Julie alone.
 
How would you like it if for instance I contacted certain people about your personal history and let them know you are working pro bono for Jeremy Bamber when you have two current IVA's in your name. I am sure your creditors who agreed to the IVA's would wonder why you are working for a proven child killer for nothing when you should be trying to pay back your debts.
 
There might also be a lot of interest in the fact you didn't disclose your current insolvency agreements when trying to obtain funding in the USA for your failed get rich quick scheme. Just as there might be a lot of interest in the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) judgement against you; mishandling of clients funds wasn't it?
 
I think you have been led by the nose to the Canadian press by one Miss Jackie Preece and I strongly advise you not to be associated with this woman in any way, shape or form. Miss Preece not only stalks anyone who dare suggest that her idol Bamber is guilty, she spends hours researching their children and using private Facebook photos of their family's to try and hurt her victims. She uses the private information gained and photos in her  nasty emails which she freely distributes.
 
She has also done the same with Anne Eaton and her daughter who was about 7 years old at the time of the murders. Miss Jackie Preece also researched the suicide death of the partner of a member of Bamber's Official Campaign Team and used this information on Twitter to again hurt her victim. I understand Bamber himself is aware of at least this last instance and is rightly furious with Miss Preece's behaviour.
 
If you doubt anything I have said please feel free to check with Neil who I understand worked closely with you on the resent failed CCRC submission. Neil knows chapter and verse about all Miss Preece's vile stalking activities.
 
I have no problem with you representing Bamber although I do question your motives. I do have a problem with your harassing of Julie for no other possible purpose than to cause her distress. That was way below the belt Mr. McKay!
 
I would suggest you have nothing more to do with Miss Preece and play by the rules of decency in future.
 
Yours truly,
 
 
Jennifer Terry
 
CC: 
Jeremy Bamber at Full Sutton Prison by mail
Mark Williams-Thomas by email

[Nicholas]

Wonder if Simon McKay has since come to recognise innocence fraud ?

In early 2013 Simon McKay was still speaking about the Bamber case

Cardiff Law School : Public lectures: Innocence Week. 1: The White House Farm Murders: the Case of Jeremy Bamber (on 25 Feb 6pm); 2 The Shieldfield Nursery Libel Trial (on 28 Feb 6pm) Open to all.

The third Cardiff Law School Innocence week will be held 25th - 28 February 2013.

All week students, staff and members of the public will be raising awareness of the problem of wrongful convictions while at the same time raising funds for South Wales Against Wrongful Conviction.

As part of the week, two lectures will be held at Cardiff Law School, These events are open to the public and further details can be found on their events page (linked below)

Lecture 1: The White House Farm Murders: the Case of Jeremy Bamber
The first of two two main public events which are free and open to the public will be on Monday 25th February at 6pm. Simon McKay solicitor for Jeremy Bamber will be talking about the case.

http://t.co/zt46O6gJ

[Nicholas]

Jeremy had No gay relationships before his imprisonment.

During the period I knew him him, he did not fancy men, either as a bisexual or gay.

Do you believe this because he told you so?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Do you believe this because he told you so?

Did Aunt Agatha ask JB if he was gay/bisexual?

Or did he volunteer that he was straight?

Seems an odd thing to volunteer, and indeed ask...

Few closeted gays will admit it, although he did admit it to Julie when she became suspicious and said he had had a gay relationship in the past, but wasn’t having gay sex whilst with her. Then bringing Brett into the picture, who’s openly gay, it builds a picture.

Whatever he gets up to in prison is of no interest to anyone, but as Jeremy admitted he’d once had a gay affair (and he also had an affair with Brett’s gay friend), he’s simply demonstrated that he finds men sexually attractive. What’s the problem in admitting that? Unless it to deceive...

[Nicholas]

https://www.thejusticegap.com/judicial-mischief/

A comment at the foot of the article reads:

Poppy Ann Miller says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Thanks to the CCRC and their cronies, Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for 27 years for a crime he could not possibly have committed. The CCRC would do well to refer to the definition of Occam’s razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Did Bamber tell Poppy Ann Miller this?

‘By the 4th of September 1985 the reality of the relationship ending had become all too real for Julie when she discovered Jeremy talking on the phone to another woman called Virginia, with whom he had planned to start a relationship with.

(Above excerpt from Poppy Ann Miller’s blogspot ‘Read my lips’)

Bamber had started a relationship with Virginia’s sister Anji - when did he plan to start one with Virginia?

[Nicholas]

Did Bamber tell Poppy Ann Miller this?

‘By the 4th of September 1985 the reality of the relationship ending had become all too real for Julie when she discovered Jeremy talking on the phone to another woman called Virginia, with whom he had planned to start a relationship with.

(Above excerpt from Poppy Ann Miller’s blogspot ‘Read my lips’)

Bamber had started a relationship with Virginia’s sister Anji - when did he plan to start one with Virginia?

Who did Bamber tell this to?

“To make matters worse, one of Jeremy’s old flames - and there had been a few - made a chance reappearance. Virginia Greaves hadn’t seen Jeremy for over a year and the two reacquainted themselves in Jeremy’s bed. For Julie Mugford’s troubled heart and even more troubled mind it was the last straw.

Jeremy had arranged to visit Julie in London the following morning. Instead, he called her with an excuse and said he’d been held up. He had lunch with Virginia and phoned Julie at 3 p.m. with another excuse. Julie was seething by the time Jeremy finally arrived at Julie’s flat just after 8 p.m.

http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html

[Nicholas]

Does anyone know why Bamber allegedly lost his enhanced prisoner status end of 2013?