J B Campaign Ltd - Much Ado About Nothing...

[Holly Goodhead]

There’s no need to speculate Holly when Aunt Agatha is capable of answering; as is Bamber.

Where did the alleged rifle originate from?

She was handed a wetsuit as well apparently and a Cartier watch that she claimed was an original - where did that come from?

It's not speculation Nicholas.  The police obviously would not hand over a firearm that required a licence to someone who didn't have one.  To do so would be a criminal offense.

The police probably seized many items from JB's cottage which were subsequently found to be of no interest to the investigation. When the trial was over they were returned to JB who was not in a position to take ownership given he was detained at HMP therfore he made arrangements for AA to take ownership.

[Nicholas]

This creates problems for Bamber and his solicitor Mark Newby, especially given the fact he’s publicly claimed Bamber’s narrative has stayed the same. Aunt Agatha clearly states Bamber claimed to once believe ‘the silencer was used.’

And given Bamber is allegedly godparent to her children the problems get bigger - there will be a record of this

Sorry, my mistake - it was more to do with having EP investigated re: the destruction of material. The CCRC were 'apparently' willing to investigate why exhibits had been destroyed (at their expense) but Jeremy declined the offer.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html

“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

[Nicholas]

It's not speculation Nicholas.  The police obviously would not hand over a firearm that required a licence to someone who didn't have one.  To do so would be a criminal offense.

The police probably seized many items from JB's cottage which were subsequently found to be of no interest to the investigation. When the trial was over they were returned to JB who was not in a position to take ownership given he was detained at HMP therfore he made arrangements for AA to take ownership.

What year did Aunt Agatha say the police gave her these items?

[Nicholas]

What year did Aunt Agatha say the police gave her these items?

Holly you claimed the wetsuit was ‘examined by EP’

AA has said in the past she received JB's wetsuit which I understand was examined by EP although I haven't seen any formal docs to this effect.  I don't believe AA received anything which was included in trial.

[Holly Goodhead]

What year did Aunt Agatha say the police gave her these items?

Don't know.

[Nicholas]

“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Wonder how many of Bamber’s past supporters/aquaitances may be too afraid to speak out like Daisy did?

In September he phoned me and said he and the Campaign Team wanted me to pay for the new forensics tests.  He demanded I send him £4,000.  Before answering "no" I asked him who the scientists were as I wanted to check out their credentials.  He told me to mind my own business and just pay up.  He said if I didn't have the funds available then I should take out a bank loan.  He was very threatening and abusive.  When I started getting upset he shouted at me "stop playing the F*****ng victim."  I was so worried and concerned, I phoned the prison and discussed this call.  For anyone out there who thinks I may be telling lies, the prison confirmed that this call was recorded and retained so I have the proof.
I had already arranged a visit for October and went as planned and intended to discuss this matter with him.  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.
Back home, I wrote to Jeremy telling him how devastated I was that our friendship was a complete farce on his behalf and I was heartbroken that I was forced to walk away from him.  I have given him three months to reply and all I wanted was an apology and an explanation as to why he had lied to me for three years, pretending he was my friend.  This is why I have decided to tell my story as I don't want anyone else to be hurt by Jeremy.  I feel so guilty abandoning him but what choice did I have?  Andrea and Goatboy have got it absolutely spot on when they say Jeremy uses and abuses friends and then tosses them aside.  I feel desperately sorry for him.

I hear what you are saying Holly but there is a difference between offloading on friends and being controlling, manipulative and abusive.  No one treats their friends like that.  This is certainly not the way to behave if you claim to be a MOJ.  Jeremy comes from a decent family and had an excellent education and should have been taught basic manners.
Also you say you would never become involved with a person in his position.  Well, he is no different to the rest of us - he is just locked away.  If we didn't become emotionally involved with our friends then we would all be robots!

When we look back at his life before and shortly after the murders he was described as arrogant and controlling.  It seems he hasn't changed and is losing friends left right and centre.  I have been to the highest level and take it from me MOJ or not, Jeremy is never ever going to be released.

In response to Bubbles35, I am afraid you know nothing.  Jeremy betrayed us as he has so many other people when he used us and tossed our friendship aside.   We went the extra mile and way beyond that to help him.  Are you going to provide him with the funds as you obviously hold him in such high esteem?

It amazes me how people read what I have posted and then make up a lie to try and discredit me.  Where, Alias have I said that I kept the copy of the document Jeremy sent me?  He usually sent me copies to keep as I needed these to refer to when writing regularly to the Prime Minister and other Government departments.  He wanted it returned swiftly as he had to send it on for someone else to read so I had little time to photocopy it.

Also, where has all this information come from regarding new submissions being made?  Even his Campaign team have no knowledge of it.  Jeremy is not going to the CCRC as they have such a backlog of work that they will take 5 or 6 years to consider his case.  He does not want to wait that long so is going directly to the Court of Appeal.

Well said AA yes Simon Mckay was acutely embarrassed when he took a man's word who promised to fund the Danny Nightingale Appeal.  The promise of a large sum was made and when Simon made contact for this to be paid, the man had disappeared.  The company he claimed to work for had never heard of him.  This is precisely the point I am making - do checks first before proceeding!! If an experienced lawyer can be "had" then Jeremy certainly can.

On the point of Jeremy's health he is not a well man.  He has several serious health problems and is in constant pain.  He has also lost a lot of weight (intentionally or not I don't kinow).  Whatever our differences have been I feel he should be released on compassionate grounds

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly you claimed the wetsuit was ‘examined by EP’

I also said I hadn't seen any formal docs to this effect but even it was examined by EP what point are you making?

[Nicholas]

Holly you claimed the wetsuit was ‘examined by EP’

I also said I hadn't seen any formal docs to this effect but even it was examined by EP what point are you making?

I guess only if they were deemed relevant to the investigation.  In any event clear rules surround exhibits exhibited at trial which isn't the case for items not not exhibited at trial.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits

[Holly Goodhead]

What if anything is being alluded to?

[steve_trousers]

As ever, Nicholas your thorough research is invaluable and shines a light into the dirty little corner that some of his cheerleaders inhabit. I'm still reeling from the suggestion from one of them that he be "released on compassionate grounds" some 6 years ago..

I was never wholly convinced that he wore a wetsuit on the night. We know he owned one but why keep it when he had so much time to dispose of it. In theory, yes he could have showered in it to wash blood and residue off, but being a porous and dark material he would need to have been thorough about that.

[Holly Goodhead]

As ever, Nicholas your thorough research is invaluable and shines a light into the dirty little corner that some of his cheerleaders inhabit. I'm still reeling from the suggestion from one of them that he be "released on compassionate grounds" some 6 years ago..

I was never wholly convinced that he wore a wetsuit on the night. We know he owned one but why keep it when he had so much time to dispose of it. In theory, yes he could have showered in it to wash blood and residue off, but being a porous and dark material he would need to have been thorough about that.

.

The idea he could or should be released on compassionate grounds is absurd.  He will only be released on sound forensic evidence undermining the key plank of the prosecution case ie the blood/silencer.

[steve_trousers]

.

The idea he could or should be released on compassionate grounds is absurd.  He will only be released on sound forensic evidence undermining the key plank of the prosecution case ie the blood/silencer.

It will be viewed with deep scepticism, and I can't understand how it could be anywhere near as sound as you seem to think.
Open to interpretation and conjecture, and doomed to be batted away in short shrift.

[Nicholas]

What year did Aunt Agatha say the police gave her these items?

Was it 2006

I see that June's bible was returned to her family in 2006

The Bible was a material exhibit and was available at the time of Bambers trial

Roch
‘”The police have hidden or destroyed possible suicide note and a bible with a bloodied palm print.”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10191.msg477947.html#msg477947

“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Still waiting on Bamber’s answer to this

Do the CT or current legal team know the answer to this? Aunt Agatha?

And what about that rifle given to AA? What was it’s relevance to the murders?

[Nicholas]

The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.

“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html?PHPSESSID=b0ec4j7f9nr92o1j9hnh1t20e6#msg9287

[Nicholas]

“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.

The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.

So I think the matter should be addressed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html?PHPSESSID=b0ec4j7f9nr92o1j9hnh1t20e6#msg9287

The above question was posed in 2011 and to date has yet to be answered by Bamber or the CT

Had these exhibits not been destroyed against police protocol they would almost certainly either exonerate JB or seal his fate:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

Above is from:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Holly let’s us know if you have any luck finding out what year the police visited Aunt Agatha to give her the rifle, watch and wetsuit etc.

Oh and maybe ask her if she received any paperwork with it? I’m presuming she wouldn’t have thrown anything away?

And have you managed to find out what type of rifle it was and where it originated from ie, WHF or Bamber’s place