UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Myster on January 17, 2013, 05:04:27 PM
-
A phoenix rises from the ashes of a failed appeal.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Any guesses who that is in the lie-detector's chair... Doesn't look like Bamber to me? (L...u....g....g)
Who's behind this site then ?
-
A phoenix rises from the ashes of a failed appeal.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Any guesses who that is in the lie-detector's chair... Doesn't look like Bamber to me? (L...u....g....g)
Who's behind this site then ?
They have some weird ideas of what an alibi is?? @)(++(*
Police logs, statements and photographs.....totally potty
-
A phoenix rises from the ashes of a failed appeal.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Any guesses who that is in the lie-detector's chair... Doesn't look like Bamber to me? (L...u....g....g)
Who's behind this site then ?
I think this should have its own topic thread.
This comment made on the blog is worthy of note...
"A flimsy shot at trying to use DNA evidence supposedly beloging [sic] to his sister, Sheila, to suggest Bamber's guilt purely by process of elimination was suggested back at trial but even as long as a decade ago, this was shown to be highly inconclusive and certainly not decisive."
Yes, contrary to the propaganda being promoted by Team Bamber, DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator some years after the trial which puts Jeremy Bamber right back into the frame.
The chances of this DNA belonging to anyone else is millions to one. The chances of anyone else having access to this sound moderator combined with the probability of the DNA results being Sheila's means that the odds that the DNA didn't belong to Sheila must be billions to one. I will take those odds any day!
Decisive? ...deffo!!
-
This bit at the end is also worth noting...
"Don’t take our word for it, though. Study the facts. The Campaign team never have anything to hide and have documents in abundance. Those who claim he is guilty, though? They hide behind non-disclosure and cover-ups."
I especially like the bit which claims the campaign team have nothing to hide. So why hide their identity? ?{)(**
I sometimes wonder at the mentality of people who make this stuff up? ...are they in need of medication? @)(++(*
-
This bit at the end is also worth noting...
"Don’t take our word for it, though. Study the facts. The Campaign team never have anything to hide and have documents in abundance. Those who claim he is guilty, though? They hide behind non-disclosure and cover-ups."
I especially like the bit which claims the campaign team have nothing to hide. So why hide their identity? ?{)(**
I sometimes wonder at the mentality of people who make this stuff up? ...are they in need of medication? @)(++(*
There is alot of rubbish on the main campaign website. Doesn't help Bamber to have so many mis-truths on there.
-
It's all BOLLOCKS, Bamber hasnt been able to prove his innocence after 27 YEARS!
He aint going to do it now, we all know why!
-
There was NO phone call from Nevile.
There was NO conversation about the children being taken away from their mum.
Bamber DID NOT take the gun the night before to shoot rabbits.
Sheila DID NOT bark like a dog to "confuse" the police.
Sheila was NOT found downstairs, she was murdered where she was photographed. See the bloodstains.
June didnt shoot anyone that night either.
Nevile would have called 999.
How would Sheila manage to carry all those bullets around with her? No pockets in nightdress.
How come Sheila's nightdress is only stained with her own blood?
Why is there no blood on the phone?
Why were there only minimal traces of Gun Residue found on Sheila?
Why were Sheila's feet clean?
Why were her nails in perfect condition?
-
I just can't see 'that' conversation happening either, the more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems.
The kids had a dad who was ever present in their lives, they had grandparents in their lives and extended family which I feel sure if Sheila needed someone to help her even the 'outer' members of the family would, as well as her friends.
If the conversation had have happened, why didn't Sheila grab the kids and leave if it upset her so much?
Mrs Bamber had been in a similar situation to Sheila but went on to adopt and keep the two children, so if anything, she was in a position to empathise.
I can imagine Jeremy made it up to either tie in with the 'bigger' picture of the night or because HE was ashamed that his sister had a mental health issue.
-
It's all BOLLOCKS, Bamber hasnt been able to prove his innocence after 27 YEARS!
He aint going to do it now, we all know why!
Totally agree with these sentiments.
8((()*/
-
I just can't see 'that' conversation happening either, the more I think about it, the more bizarre it seems.
The kids had a dad who was ever present in their lives, they had grandparents in their lives and extended family which I feel sure if Sheila needed someone to help her even the 'outer' members of the family would, as well as her friends.
If the conversation had have happened, why didn't Sheila grab the kids and leave if it upset her so much?
Mrs Bamber had been in a similar situation to Sheila but went on to adopt and keep the two children, so if anything, she was in a position to empathise.
I can imagine Jeremy made it up to either tie in with the 'bigger' picture of the night or because HE was ashamed that his sister had a mental health issue.
The conversation didnt take place, it was all part of bambers plan.
Had he left the gun out, Nevile would have put it away, 2 six year old twins were in the house.
How strange that JB reckons Sheila had a brainstorm that night, hmm it just so happens that he claims he left the gun out on the very same night! What are the odds?
-
We dont know how long he was planning these murders. He also had a month to get rid of any evidence.
-
We dont know how long he was planning these murders. He also had a month to get rid of any evidence.
Ooh er, I want to join in, but I only came in to find more gloves. Adam Ant's on the tv, he looks like someone shoved an airline up his ar$e. He used to be so pretty. 8(8-))
Catch you all later.
-
They all did-Boy George, Adam Ant, Gary Numan, Limahl......
-
Catch you later 8)-)))
-
Gary Numan married one of his fans, they are still together!
-
There was NO phone call from Nevile.
There was NO conversation about the children being taken away from their mum.
Bamber DID NOT take the gun the night before to shoot rabbits.
Sheila DID NOT bark like a dog to "confuse" the police.
Sheila was NOT found downstairs, she was murdered where she was photographed. See the bloodstains.
June didnt shoot anyone that night either.
Nevile would have called 999.
How would Sheila manage to carry all those bullets around with her? No pockets in nightdress.
How come Sheila's nightdress is only stained with her own blood?
Why is there no blood on the phone?
Why were there only minimal traces of Gun Residue found on Sheila?
Why were Sheila's feet clean?
Why were her nails in perfect condition?
*sigh*
b....r. The Wicker Man's head fell off, and now I can't sleep.
Apart from all the OBVIOUS evidence that Sheila was shot twice, beside the bed, imo it is impossible to envisage a moment when Ralph thought that it was a good idea to ring Bamber. Either it would be when Sheila was waving a gun about with the loaded magazine that Bamber said he'd left, or when Ralph had already suffered at least 3 shots, maybe 4. Bamber was knackered from Harvest, too far away, might not have heard the phone ringing at that time in the morning, and why would Ralph invite Bamber into certain danger? Wouldn't he have said "Get help, don't come to the house?" I know this has all been said before, but it would appear that it needs to be said again. The strange, small, blackened marks on Ralph's neck look old, there is no way to prove the provenance of them, and the dodgy Arizona stuff proves that heated marks, from whatever source, bear no resemblance. The image of Sheila's face, covered in blood, was a mortuary still, when the blood collected in the pouch in her neck was disturbed. In a way, I can understand why people desperately try to find a hot poker, or a reason why Bamber behaved like a complete shit before, during and after the funerals, or make June into some sort of religious maniac who drove the entire family crazy, but it just doesn't work. If Ralph reached the kitchen, bleeding heavily from his wounds, he would have needed 2 hands to make a phone call with an old-fashioned phone. If there wasn't blood on the receiver, there would have been blood on the main bit. Whoever shot the Bambers that night, it wasn't Sheila. And there is absolutely no proof that Ralph called Bamber. That was his alibi. Bamber so nearly got away with it. He should have smeared Ralph's blood on the phone.
-
And I've been reading about the Memphis 3 today. Patti on the blue is actually right about DNA. It can be shared.
-
One more thing, you blue ladies. Explain the circular blood marks, partly hidden by the bible. At one stage, Mike tried to say that it was a message, written in blood. Which was bollocks. Doesn't it look more like someone trying to wipe blood from something? >@@(*&)
-
Andrea
You are happy to go along with circumstantial evidence but I prefer to look at facts
1)
Police investigation completely flawed, we cannot believe half what we have been told
2)
Neville had numerous enemies and had threats made to him hence the panic alarm
3)
Anyone could have forced Neville to make that phone call to Jeremy to lure Jeremy to WHF
4)
If Sheila was responsible Neville would probably have not rung the police and tried to calm the situation knowing a phone call to the police would almost certainly have resulted in Sheila losing her children forever
5)
Mugford was a proven capable liar face to face i.e. the cheque fraud
6)
Mugford accepted she had said to Jeremy if I can't have you nobody will
7)
There was no evidence of any violent behaviour in Jeremy's past
8)
There were numerous other people that would benefit from the Bamber family all being killed but they were never fully investigated
9)
David Boutflour tried to mislead the jury by saying Sheila hadn't used/had no knowledge of guns
10)
The police investigation was so flawed police officers had time to climb up on the roof for some horseplay showing no respect for the dead bodies
11)
Police destroyed numerous evidence when they were told not to
12)
Numerous evidence still held under PII
13)
You only have to look at the case of the Guildford Four to see the implication of this
14)
Useful PII has come to light recently that there was no good reason for it to be withheld
15)
Trial by media, frowned on now, Jeremy was never going to buy a porche it was a kit
Jeremy's behaviour in the dock and after the murders was stupid and naive but does not make him a murderer
Without a shadow of a doubt those murders could have been carried out by anyone
-
Let's ignore the idea that given the invented phone call it is not possible that a Third Party not linked to Jeremy could have been responsible for the murders anyway for a moment. How did the murderers know how to get in and out of the property without leaving a trace? Why did they have to kill everybody? Someone with a grudge may wish to hurt Nevill but why kill two defenceless children as well as they slept? Finally if they wanted to implicate Jeremy why leave the rifle on Sheila suggesting she had done the murders and why make Nevill call Jeremy backing this idea up? Why not just leave the rifle away from Sheila thereby clearly implicating someone with something to gain from everybody's murder, namely Jeremy? How could they have guaranteed that Jeremy would even wake up to receive the call? And how would these people have known about Sheila's illness and that Jeremy would believe she could have gone crazy with a gun? To be honest, for someone who allegedly prefers to consider facts Jackie seem to be quite happy to invent crazy hypothetical scenarios with no basis in fact whatsoever. Finally, I believe the official campaign team and Jeremy himself stand by the murder/suicide theory so why is amateur detective work (with the emphasis firmly on "amateur") on wild theories that do not stand up to a second's scrutiny going to help Jeremy's cause?
-
Bamber said himself that he had never seen Sheila using a gun in adulthood.
As for JM being a liar, what does that make Bamber? he robbed Osea and NEVER gave a penny back, GREED.
Points 2&3 are irrelevant, the phone call left only Bamber and Sheila in the frame.
As for PII, you have no idea what is being with held.
-
Someone said the CCRC would have access to documents withheld under PII-is that true?
-
How did the murderers know how to get in and out of the property without leaving a trace?
Good point batman.
-
Someone said the CCRC would have access to documents withheld under PII-is that true?
I can't imagine the CCRC not having access to ALL documents involving this case.
Why would anything held under PII not be available to them?
-
Andrea
You are happy to go along with circumstantial evidence but I prefer to look at facts
1)
Police investigation completely flawed, we cannot believe half what we have been told
2)
Neville had numerous enemies and had threats made to him hence the panic alarm
3)
Anyone could have forced Neville to make that phone call to Jeremy to lure Jeremy to WHF
4)
If Sheila was responsible Neville would probably have not rung the police and tried to calm the situation knowing a phone call to the police would almost certainly have resulted in Sheila losing her children forever
5)
Mugford was a proven capable liar face to face i.e. the cheque fraud
6)
Mugford accepted she had said to Jeremy if I can't have you nobody will
7)
There was no evidence of any violent behaviour in Jeremy's past
8)
There were numerous other people that would benefit from the Bamber family all being killed but they were never fully investigated
9)
David Boutflour tried to mislead the jury by saying Sheila hadn't used/had no knowledge of guns
10)
The police investigation was so flawed police officers had time to climb up on the roof for some horseplay showing no respect for the dead bodies
11)
Police destroyed numerous evidence when they were told not to
12)
Numerous evidence still held under PII
13)
You only have to look at the case of the Guildford Four to see the implication of this
14)
Useful PII has come to light recently that there was no good reason for it to be withheld
15)
Trial by media, frowned on now, Jeremy was never going to buy a porche it was a kit
Jeremy's behaviour in the dock and after the murders was stupid and naive but does not make him a murderer
Without a shadow of a doubt those murders could have been carried out by anyone
You are so wrong Jackie.
You may have had a point except for two crucial factors...
1. The farmhouse was not broken into. Only one person living outside the farm knew how to get into it and that person was Jeremy Bamber.
2. Jeremy said that his father called him and said that Sheila had the gun. Strange thing to do if an outsider did it!
You can't get away from the fact Jackie that the so-called evidence which you so easily quote is actually proof that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. May I remind you Jackie that police conduct after the event has absolutely no bearing on the guilt of Jeremy Bamber. You of all people know that the police for the most part thought he was a victim that morning and not the perpetrator. As such they had no reason whatsoever to set Jeremy up. 8(0(*
Semantics Jackie...pure semantics will never make him innocent! @)(++(*
-
Someone said the CCRC would have access to documents withheld under PII-is that true?
Yes, the CCRC have almost unlimited powers to access documents, photos. Statements and all other evidence. The only time they can not do so is when it effects national security or is covered under the Official Secrets Act.
-
Bamber said himself that he had never seen Sheila using a gun in adulthood.
As for JM being a liar, what does that make Bamber? he robbed Osea and NEVER gave a penny back, GREED.
Points 2&3 are irrelevant, the phone call left only Bamber and Sheila in the frame.
As for PII, you have no idea what is being with held.
Hope you got the bed sorted Andy! 8(0(*
Jackie has still not come to terms with the fact that 'pretty boy' could be such a monster regardless of the evidence. Face it Jackie, all the propaganda in the world won't prove him innocent.
-
[quote
*sigh*
b....r. The Wicker Man's head fell off, and now I can't sleep.
Apart from all the OBVIOUS evidence that Sheila was shot twice, beside the bed, imo it is impossible to envisage a moment when Ralph thought that it was a good idea to ring Bamber. Either it would be when Sheila was waving a gun about with the loaded magazine that Bamber said he'd left, or when Ralph had already suffered at least 3 shots, maybe 4. Bamber was knackered from Harvest, too far away, might not have heard the phone ringing at that time in the morning, and why would Ralph invite Bamber into certain danger? Wouldn't he have said "Get help, don't come to the house?" I know this has all been said before, but it would appear that it needs to be said again. The strange, small, blackened marks on Ralph's neck look old, there is no way to prove the provenance of them, and the dodgy Arizona stuff proves that heated marks, from whatever source, bear no resemblance. The image of Sheila's face, covered in blood, was a mortuary still, when the blood collected in the pouch in her neck was disturbed. In a way, I can understand why people desperately try to find a hot poker, or a reason why Bamber behaved like a complete shit before, during and after the funerals, or make June into some sort of religious maniac who drove the entire family crazy, but it just doesn't work. If Ralph reached the kitchen, bleeding heavily from his wounds, he would have needed 2 hands to make a phone call with an old-fashioned phone. If there wasn't blood on the receiver, there would have been blood on the main bit. Whoever shot the Bambers that night, it wasn't Sheila. And there is absolutely no proof that Ralph called Bamber. That was his alibi. Bamber so nearly got away with it. He should have smeared Ralph's blood on the phone.
Some excellent points Shona. As you have already stated many have been previously mentioned but you are right to restate them again.
You make a good point about the blood which was all over Sheila's face when she was photographed later in the mortuary. This emphasises the point that much of the blood had welled up in her mouth and was only displaced by movement. I'm surprised the conspiracy theorist's aren't suggesting that she was alive in the body bag.
-
[quote
*sigh*
b....r. The Wicker Man's head fell off, and now I can't sleep.
Apart from all the OBVIOUS evidence that Sheila was shot twice, beside the bed, imo it is impossible to envisage a moment when Ralph thought that it was a good idea to ring Bamber. Either it would be when Sheila was waving a gun about with the loaded magazine that Bamber said he'd left, or when Ralph had already suffered at least 3 shots, maybe 4. Bamber was knackered from Harvest, too far away, might not have heard the phone ringing at that time in the morning, and why would Ralph invite Bamber into certain danger? Wouldn't he have said "Get help, don't come to the house?" I know this has all been said before, but it would appear that it needs to be said again. The strange, small, blackened marks on Ralph's neck look old, there is no way to prove the provenance of them, and the dodgy Arizona stuff proves that heated marks, from whatever source, bear no resemblance. The image of Sheila's face, covered in blood, was a mortuary still, when the blood collected in the pouch in her neck was disturbed. In a way, I can understand why people desperately try to find a hot poker, or a reason why Bamber behaved like a complete shit before, during and after the funerals, or make June into some sort of religious maniac who drove the entire family crazy, but it just doesn't work. If Ralph reached the kitchen, bleeding heavily from his wounds, he would have needed 2 hands to make a phone call with an old-fashioned phone. If there wasn't blood on the receiver, there would have been blood on the main bit. Whoever shot the Bambers that night, it wasn't Sheila. And there is absolutely no proof that Ralph called Bamber. That was his alibi. Bamber so nearly got away with it. He should have smeared Ralph's blood on the phone.
Some excellent points Shona. As you have already stated many have been previously mentioned but you are right to restate them again.
You make a good point about the blood which was all over Sheila's face when she was photographed later in the mortuary. This emphasises the point that much of the blood had welled up in her mouth and was only displaced by movement. I'm surprised the conspiracy theorist's aren't suggesting that she was alive in the body bag.
To be quite honest that wouldn't surprise me if Tesko were to come up with that theory.
-
Andrea you are totally wrong there was no real evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber and I don't think it's a laughing matter either that millions of pounds has been spent on this case and there is no conclusion.
The CCRC has seen far more evidence in this case than anyone on this forum. They haven't spent years looking at different evidence. I cannot believe that you are not looking for all the PII evidence surrounding this case should be released once and for all. Surely this would be beneficial to everyone and tie up some loose ends. As I have said before even John himself says Jeremy could be the unluckiest man alive.
That means John thinks there is a chance Jeremy could be innocent.
Maybe John should visit Jeremy himself and ask the questions face to face.
I am sure the CCRC will look at the new submissions very very carefully and I am sure there will definately be some longer more in depth documentaries aimed at getting the case more into the public arena.
I hope more evidence is uncovered one way or another. Jeremy told me himself he was looking forward to the aga being forensically examined so he must be expecting a good result from that when they have the funds
-
Andrea you are totally wrong there was no real evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber and I don't think it's a laughing matter either that millions of pounds has been spent on this case and there is no conclusion.
The CCRC has seen far more evidence in this case than anyone on this forum. They haven't spent years looking at different evidence. I cannot believe that you are not looking for all the PII evidence surrounding this case should be released once and for all. Surely this would be beneficial to everyone and tie up some loose ends. As I have said before even John himself says Jeremy could be the unluckiest man alive.
That means John thinks there is a chance Jeremy could be innocent.
Maybe John should visit Jeremy himself and ask the questions face to face.
I am sure the CCRC will look at the new submissions very very carefully and I am sure there will definately be some longer more in depth documentaries aimed at getting the case more into the public arena.
I hope more evidence is uncovered one way or another. Jeremy told me himself he was looking forward to the aga being forensically examined so he must be expecting a good result from that when they have the funds
And that's why as far as the CCRC are concerned the Jeremy Bamber case is over.
You will never get a straight answer from him, in just the same way no-one got a truthful answer from Ted Bundy, until shortly before his execution.
The truth is.... the public have only a passing interest in Jeremy Bamber, and any documentary, as the last ITV one has shown would have little if any influence on the outcome.
What's the point of 'forensically examining the AGA' twenty-eight years after the event?
(Evidence from it would have no relevance anyway, as it's been converted to oil)
-
Andrea you are totally wrong there was no real evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber and I don't think it's a laughing matter either that millions of pounds has been spent on this case and there is no conclusion.
The CCRC has seen far more evidence in this case than anyone on this forum. They haven't spent years looking at different evidence. I cannot believe that you are not looking for all the PII evidence surrounding this case should be released once and for all. Surely this would be beneficial to everyone and tie up some loose ends. As I have said before even John himself says Jeremy could be the unluckiest man alive.
That means John thinks there is a chance Jeremy could be innocent.
Maybe John should visit Jeremy himself and ask the questions face to face.
I am sure the CCRC will look at the new submissions very very carefully and I am sure there will definately be some longer more in depth documentaries aimed at getting the case more into the public arena.
I hope more evidence is uncovered one way or another. Jeremy told me himself he was looking forward to the aga being forensically examined so he must be expecting a good result from that when they have the funds
Jackie....why do you delude yourself so?? >@@(*&)
The case against Jeremy has been well and truly proven by a mountain of real evidence given by lots of real people and deliberated on by a real jury who came to the real conclusion that he was guilty. Really!!
How much realer do you require it to be??
-
Jack, if Bamber himself ever decided to come clean and admit to blowing holes in his family for money, you still wouldnt belive it, you would say it was beaten out of him, or he was forced in another way to confess.
Look at Sheila, i mean c'mon do you really think she caused the carnage that went on in WHF that night/morn?
You are blinkered, Jack. He is guilty. GUILTY AS SIN. The only time he will come out of prison is in a coffin.
But on the other hand, he can think himself quite lucky, had he committed this crime in some other parts of the world he would have swung.
-
Jack, if Bamber himself ever decided to come clean and admit to blowing holes in his family for money, you still wouldnt belive it, you would say it was beaten out of him, or he was forced in another way to confess.
Look at Sheila, i mean c'mon do you really think she caused the carnage that went on in WHF that night/morn?
You are blinkered, Jack. He is guilty. GUILTY AS SIN. The only time he will come out of prison is in a coffin.
But on the other hand, he can think himself quite lucky, had he committed this crime in some other parts of the world he would have swung.
That's a thought!!
I don't think that anyone can compare Julie's cheque book fraud with the decimation of 3 generations of a family. And why would Julie choose to come back in 2002? That was one hell of a gamble for someone whose original evidence was apparently a pack of lies. She risked losing everything.
And another thing. Bamber, who recently wrote so movingly (it certainly got me moving) about family life at WHF, at the time couldn't even be ar$ed to show his face at their church memorial service. He tried to pretend that he didn't know about it (how could he NOT, the whole village knew) when he had, in fact, had plenty of notice and reminders from his cousins. Absolutely despicable, but so typical.
-
Jack, if Bamber himself ever decided to come clean and admit to blowing holes in his family for money, you still wouldnt belive it, you would say it was beaten out of him, or he was forced in another way to confess.
Look at Sheila, i mean c'mon do you really think she caused the carnage that went on in WHF that night/morn?
You are blinkered, Jack. He is guilty. GUILTY AS SIN. The only time he will come out of prison is in a coffin.
But on the other hand, he can think himself quite lucky, had he committed this crime in some other parts of the world he would have swung.
That's a thought!!
I don't think that anyone can compare Julie's cheque book fraud with the decimation of 3 generations of a family. And why would Julie choose to come back in 2002? That was one hell of a gamble for someone whose original evidence was apparently a pack of lies. She risked losing everything.
And another thing. Bamber, who recently wrote so movingly (it certainly got me moving) about family life at WHF, at the time couldn't even be ar$ed to show his face at their church memorial service. He tried to pretend that he didn't know about it (how could he NOT, the whole village knew) when he had, in fact, had plenty of notice and reminders from his cousins. Absolutely despicable, but so typical.
I never heard about that Shona. Was it long after the funerals?
-
An interesting blog from Jeremy Bamber re the PPI issues, for me I would live to see any recordings released even if it is a matter of Simon McKay getting to listen to them without them being released.
"New Submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission."
Firstly thank you to all who have sent me Christmas and Birthday cards and gifts which provided a much needed boost to a very mercurial year for my case. Producing the text for “A Life of Less Liberty” made me vividly remember some of the happiest times with my family that I lost. We all, at Christmas time look back, and owing to the recent loss of a friend to cancer, I was reminded of the issues of my own existence and the struggle for freedom, but all of us have to look forward, and pull together to achieve the justice which we are entitled to in our democratic society.
January has been a really busy month and I’ve had my head down working through material for McKay Law, and the new submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We have also obtained a further 23 folders of legal material and this is currently being scanned and scheduled with the help of a number of campaigners working hard, which is brilliant so thank you to those people who directly contribute to my case as the material is essential for proving our attempts at disclosure from Essex Police.
March and April will see a writing campaign; “Disclosure; Transparency; Justice; Freedom.” We have had many responses from MP’s offering to help regarding the non-disclosure of material. A detailed report is currently being prepared which will specifically reference Home Office police evidence that we know exists, but has been denied to me for 27 years. There are no laws which prevent this material from being handed over so there should be no problem with this issue in theory.
Secondly, we are also going to tackle the issue of documents which we know exist (again according to Home Office records and CCRC confirmation) that are held under Public Interest Immunity. It is almost 30 years and there can no longer (and never has been) a legitimate reason for the immunity of this material, and we are asking campaigners to support our request for the evidence by contacting their local MP’s, who can currently become involved directly as the case is no longer with the CCRC. So watch this space for the start of the campaign and relevant material you will need to send to your MP.
The updates on the web site are slowly happening and all material is either being re-written or academically referenced to case documents specifically. Keep an eye out on all pages of the site as all new/updated pages will have a date of the last update, this is because as new evidence becomes uncovered the text will be added to with further citations.
The next step of my televised interview will be through the lawyers and progress will be slow. I have been approached by 3 television companies wanting to carry out the interview and have selected a particularly experienced and established documentary maker to interview me.
This will come after footage of prisoner Luke Mitchell, convicted of killing Jodi Jones, passing a lie detector test was placed onto you tube with permission from The Ministry of Justice. During my time in prison I have met no other prisoners maintaining innocence who are willing to sit the test and I believe that it will go a long way to helping Mitchell with his innocence campaign.
January also saw the launch of a new blog by one of my campaigners, it makes for great reading so catch up with the frequent updates at
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk
Jeremy
Jeremy Bamber at Friday, February 01, 2013
-
He can look through files and folders until the cows come home but it does not change any thing. Sheila was murdered and the only person who could have done it is still alive and well.
-
but its the same old same old every time. i could post stuff going back years where he was claiming the same naff progress but nothing ever ever comes of it. sad but true. 8(8-))
He can look through files and folders until the cows come home but it does not change any thing. Sheila was murdered and the only person who could have done it is still alive and well.
-
but its the same old same old every time. i could post stuff going back years where he was claiming the same naff progress but nothing ever ever comes of it. sad but true. 8(8-))
He can look through files and folders until the cows come home but it does not change any thing. Sheila was murdered and the only person who could have done it is still alive and well.
I just get deja vu when I see this tripe. It is all whistling in the dark. There is no chance that Sheila was guilty . That's it .
-
You are correct Shona, I stand corrected. In mitigation I can only say that it has been a long day.
-
I'll do this one more time, because it matters to me. If Sheila had lived, or breathed for even 2 seconds after the first shot, which stunned her and knocked her out, she would have coughed, gagged, panicked, her face, chin, neck, would be splattered with blood. Nothing. Just the tracks from the second shot. The first shot, by the bed, was a knock-out punch. When Bamber (or whoever) tried to stage the "suicide" they found a faint pulse. Then had to re-load again. It's mighty convenient that Sheila, crazy with meds, had one bullet left, then needed another one. So. A small, slight young woman, with so many problems, had the wherewithall to shoot herself to the side of her neck, with all the agony and shock that it entails, after she'd killed her lovely twins, battered her Dad, and shot June between the eyes. Without a single sign of evidence. For God's sake. It's not Midsummer Murders.
-
I am looking out for NN who has left the blue forum and told me we might see her here.....bring it baby!
8()-000(
-
I am looking out for NN who has left the blue forum and told me we might see her here.....bring it baby!
8()-000(
Gosh, really? Was she overwhelmed by the waves of HRT over there? I look forward to sparring with the Nunnage. If she dares!! 8)-)))
-
Why has NN left blue?
-
I'll do this one more time, because it matters to me. If Sheila had lived, or breathed for even 2 seconds after the first shot, which stunned her and knocked her out, she would have coughed, gagged, panicked, her face, chin, neck, would be splattered with blood. Nothing. Just the tracks from the second shot. The first shot, by the bed, was a knock-out punch. When Bamber (or whoever) tried to stage the "suicide" they found a faint pulse. Then had to re-load again. It's mighty convenient that Sheila, crazy with meds, had one bullet left, then needed another one. So. A small, slight young woman, with so many problems, had the wherewithall to shoot herself to the side of her neck, with all the agony and shock that it entails, after she'd killed her lovely twins, battered her Dad, and shot June between the eyes. Without a single sign of evidence. For God's sake. It's not Midsummer Murders.
That's spot on Shona. I've always struggled to believe it was Sheila given the very last bullet just happened to be the fatal one. But anyway, as you say it just beggars belief that she could have got up and shot herself again with quite a serious wound (a non fatal one we accept, but pretty serious and enough to knock you out).
-
Why has NN left blue?
I'm sure she'll be more than happy to tell you when she joins.
-
Why has NN left blue?
I'm sure she'll be more than happy to tell you when she joins.
Ho ho!! I would imagine it has something to do with the latest "moderator appointment!!"
-
Why has NN left blue?
I'm sure she'll be more than happy to tell you when she joins.
If NN HAS left the blue, maybe it might make them realise that a really good forum has turned into a cross between a looney's playground and a comfy sitting room for a handful of climacteric ladies who all titter and nudge each other whenever steve uk logs on. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Why has NN left blue?
I'm sure she'll be more than happy to tell you when she joins.
If NN HAS left the blue, maybe it might make them realise that a really good forum has turned into a cross between a looney's playground and a comfy sitting room for a handful of climacteric ladies who all titter and nudge each other whenever steve uk logs on. Just my opinion, of course.
@)(++(* Climacteric? Had to Google that one Shona. Do you think Lugg is so old? @)(++(*
-
Why has NN left blue?
I'm sure she'll be more than happy to tell you when she joins.
If NN HAS left the blue, maybe it might make them realise that a really good forum has turned into a cross between a looney's playground and a comfy sitting room for a handful of climacteric ladies who all titter and nudge each other whenever steve uk logs on. Just my opinion, of course.
@)(++(* Climacteric? Had to Google that one Shona. Do you think Lugg is so old? @)(++(*
John, I don't really want to think about that, I'm eating a pikelet. ?8)@)-)
-
I dont think you even need to bother to explain. This case is so clear-cut its frankly astonishing the way that Mckay ( if its true) is carrying on with it. I can understand the Bamber supporters continuing to support him as there are always such people who have absolutely nothing else in their lives and have quite complex issues ( Myra Hindley had similiar support). However Mckay is a different matter. I wont say what I think of him but Id like to see how many decent cases he has, as I cant envisage any other half-decent human rights lawyer touching it with a barge pole.
I'll do this one more time, because it matters to me. If Sheila had lived, or breathed for even 2 seconds after the first shot, which stunned her and knocked her out, she would have coughed, gagged, panicked, her face, chin, neck, would be splattered with blood. Nothing. Just the tracks from the second shot. The first shot, by the bed, was a knock-out punch. When Bamber (or whoever) tried to stage the "suicide" they found a faint pulse. Then had to re-load again. It's mighty convenient that Sheila, crazy with meds, had one bullet left, then needed another one. So. A small, slight young woman, with so many problems, had the wherewithall to shoot herself to the side of her neck, with all the agony and shock that it entails, after she'd killed her lovely twins, battered her Dad, and shot June between the eyes. Without a single sign of evidence. For God's sake. It's not Midsummer Murders.
-
Frank I don't believe things are as clear cut as you think. The CCRC have spent thousands and thousands of pounds and hours and years looking into this case.
Why?
I find it particularly strange that the CCRC had told Jeremy he more or less had as much time as HE needed to put forward his case before a decision was made by them but enter Simon McKay and they shut down the case very quickly before all the tests were completed.
This were have only taken a few months.
You don't know if Jeremy is guilty or not like me but our idea of unreasonable doubt differs.
I have also had the unfortunate experiance of being a jury member on a murder trial.
I was not impressed with how some of the other jury members came to the decision the man on trial was guilty.
Juries make mistakes as we all know.
At least with Simon McKay still on board he can finish what he started with regard to the tests
I will keep searching for the truth which could be held under PII (like material withheld from the jury Guildford Four) until I change my stance on the case
-
Frank I don't believe things are as clear cut as you think. The CCRC have spent thousands and thousands of pounds and hours and years looking into this case.
Why?
I find it particularly strange that the CCRC had told Jeremy he more or less had as much time as HE needed to put forward his case before a decision was made by them but enter Simon McKay and they shut down the case very quickly before all the tests were completed.
This were have only taken a few months.
You don't know if Jeremy is guilty or not like me but our idea of unreasonable doubt differs.
I have also had the unfortunate experiance of being a jury member on a murder trial.
I was not impressed with how some of the other jury members came to the decision the man on trial was guilty.
Juries make mistakes as we all know.
At least with Simon McKay still on board he can finish what he started with regard to the tests
I will keep searching for the truth which could be held under PII (like material withheld from the jury Guildford Four) until I change my stance on the case
It's a clear cut case Jackie. There was only two people in that house that night or morning who could have done it and it wasn't Neville June Nicholas or Daniel. The forensics don't lie Jackie and Sheila was clean on so many factors that even you cannot dispute. That only leaves on other person and that fake telephone call places him in the frame. I have no doubt whatsoever that Jeremy did it Jackie. End off.
-
David for one I dont necessarily believe 100% that nobody else could not have been responsible for the murders and I don't trust the police accounts of whatever their take on what happened that night.
John with regards PII in the film 'Name of the Father'eventually after years and years Gareth Pierce found the file in the vaults that eventually freed the Guildford Four and this file had pinned to the front 'do not show to the defence'
I am interested in this building where Gareth Pierce found the file by mistake while going through others files she was allowed to view.
Do these vaults /buildings still exist in exactly the same way, is this how the CCRC keep information, files like 'do not show to the defence' could still be commonplace because NO charges were ever bought against the people involved in that case of corruption
Who wrote that on that file?
Why were no charges bought against him/her?
Is there any evidence anything has changed since then?
There were no charges bought against the person who wrote on that file even though their actions were responsible for keeping numerous people in prison for years???
This is not your normal murder case this is probably the biggest murder case ever in Essex and I believe the general public have a right to all PII information (unless it is highly sensitive) being released as soon as possible
-
The Bamber case is not a complex case Jackie. All the pieces fit into place without any difficulty. Jeremy had a history of criminal activity, like it or not that is what he was predisposed to taking part in. There are many reasons for this but we will never know for sure. His psychological make up and learning that he was given away as a baby may have had something to do with it. Being rejected a second time by his natural parents would have had a dire effect on him.
Jackie, many things can be hidden but those initial photos of Sheila tell their own story. Shona possibly labours the point about Sheila and the facial blood but she is spot on. Sheila never moved after the first shot so she couldn't have fired the second. You have to face facts Jackie, all the evidence says guilty I'm afraid.
-
The Bamber case is not a complex case Jackie. All the pieces fit into place without any difficulty. Jeremy had a history of criminal activity, like it or not that is what he was predisposed to taking part in. There are many reasons for this but we will never know for sure. His psychological make up and learning that he was given away as a baby may have had something to do with it. Being rejected a second time by his natural parents would have had a dire effect on him.
Jackie, many things can be hidden but those initial photos of Sheila tell their own story. Shona possibly labours the point about Sheila and the facial blood but she is spot on. Sheila never moved after the first shot so she couldn't have fired the second. You have to face facts Jackie, all the evidence says guilty I'm afraid.
You're absolutely right, David, I DO labour that point, because sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. All that blood swilling about in the poor girl's throat and mouth, undisturbed except for the tracks forced out by the second shot. Photographic proof that she didn't move, wasn't moved (except pulled down slightly by her feet or ankles). She was shot, twice, exactly where she was found, BY THE BED.
-
I obviously know nothing about blood, forensics etc but if things were that simple couldn't the CCRC chuck the case out on a point as simple as that
Even the CCRC must have to account why they are spending years/thousands on the Bamber case
If things were that simple do you think a proper reconstruction would make things easier to see the guilty/innocence point in the case
-
If things were that simple do you think a proper reconstruction would make things easier to see the guilty/innocence point in the case
A proper reconstruction of what, Jackie?... there is NO way the Eatons would give permission for any more intrusion into their private lives, or traipsing by all and sundry through Whitehouse farm.
-
The Bamber case is not a complex case Jackie. All the pieces fit into place without any difficulty. Jeremy had a history of criminal activity, like it or not that is what he was predisposed to taking part in. There are many reasons for this but we will never know for sure. His psychological make up and learning that he was given away as a baby may have had something to do with it. Being rejected a second time by his natural parents would have had a dire effect on him.
Jackie, many things can be hidden but those initial photos of Sheila tell their own story. Shona possibly labours the point about Sheila and the facial blood but she is spot on. Sheila never moved after the first shot so she couldn't have fired the second. You have to face facts Jackie, all the evidence says guilty I'm afraid.
You're absolutely right, David, I DO labour that point, because sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. All that blood swilling about in the poor girl's throat and mouth, undisturbed except for the tracks forced out by the second shot. Photographic proof that she didn't move, wasn't moved (except pulled down slightly by her feet or ankles). She was shot, twice, exactly where she was found, BY THE BED.
Imagine being shot in the throat once, by a searing hot bullet which rips through your neck muscle, tears open your right jugular, then shatters your fourth neck vertebra... the pain would be unbearable and if you did faint then wake up there is no way you would be in any condition to get up and slip past any police to make your way upstairs from the kitchen... blood would be all over the place - neck, breast, nightie front, fingers, hands, top of feet. You only have to look at the amount of blood pooled between Sheila's right arm and chest to realise this.
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
-
I obviously know nothing about blood, forensics etc but if things were that simple couldn't the CCRC chuck the case out on a point as simple as that
Even the CCRC must have to account why they are spending years/thousands on the Bamber case
If things were that simple do you think a proper reconstruction would make things easier to see the guilty/innocence point in the case
I don't think the CCRC have spent all that much money or time on the case Jack. Why don't you put in a Freedom of Information request and confirm the sum involved?
-
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
Who is this Myster?
-
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
Who is this Myster?
The same one at the beginning of this thread.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
-
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
Who is this Myster?
The same one at the beginning of this thread.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Sorry...thought you meant some muppet on the blue forum was at it. @)(++(*
-
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
Who is this Myster?
The same one at the beginning of this thread.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Sorry...thought you meant some muppet on the blue forum was at it. @)(++(*
I particularly liked the reference to "in the wacky world of the police dead bodies can move". Well, in the wacky world of the Bamber supporter somebody inexperienced at using a firearm can load a rifle 2 or 3 times, go on a brutal killing spree firing twenty five bullets which hit the target every time but once, batter a fit and healthy man almost twice her size, shoot themselves in the jugular, get up, run upstairs and shoot themselves again (what luck there was only one bullet left) and look more or less like they just stepped out of a salon afterwards. Oh, and bark like a dog.
-
And now we have an anonymous blogger making facetious throw-away remarks and treating the Bamber case as one BIG joke.... unbelievable !!!
Who is this Myster?
The same one at the beginning of this thread.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Blimey, they're still going with the "running upstairs with a bullet hole in her neck" shtick. Not much to worry about there, then! 8((()*/
-
I particularly liked the reference to "in the wacky world of the police dead bodies can move". Well, in the wacky world of the Bamber supporter somebody inexperienced at using a firearm can load a rifle 2 or 3 times, go on a brutal killing spree firing twenty five bullets which hit the target every time but once, batter a fit and healthy man almost twice her size, shoot themselves in the jugular, get up, run upstairs and shoot themselves again (what luck there was only one bullet left) and look more or less like they just stepped out of a salon afterwards. Oh, and bark like a dog.
I must admit you have it down to a tee goatboy. 8@??)(
Sheila wasn't even distressed in the first photos taken at the scene. Had the police knew the full story then about the fight in the kitchen then they would not have jumped to the wrong conclusions about sheila but then again Jeremy had been filling their heads with nonsense from the very off.
I have posted this before but it is worth doing so again. When someone is shot and assuming they are still conscious the first reaction is to touch the stinging wound. This will result in the smearing of blood all around the wound and contamination of the fingers with blood. It is notable that neither of these things happened in the case of Sheila thus leaving us with only one conclusion and that is that she was unconscious after the first shot.
-
That Campaign Blog is the work of a blithering idiot that's for sure.
One comment in relation to the rifle goes as follows...
'How we know version one is "the truth."
The murder weapon, they say, was never off the body of Sheila.
Kay then. What's it doing by this window, then?'
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/
OK...lets see...the undertaker took the body to the morgue with the rifle still on top of it? NOT!
Of course the rifle was off the body and was set against the window and is clearly seen photographed there later.
Do these morons get up in the morning and think to themselves what pish will we spout today?
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jan2011/0/9/jeremy-bamber-image-1-323329004.jpg)
-
I don't think Bamber supporters get out much if the truth be known. They appear to invent and fantasise with the most ridiculous scenarios to the exclusion of the known facts. Certainly there will be discrepancies and conflicts in coppers statement of what happened that morning because frankly every person has their own unique interpretation of events. If you ask three people standing on the kerb what was the colour of the last car which passed them you will invariably get three different answers. Human nature I'm afraid.
-
I don't think Bamber supporters get out much if the truth be known. They appear to invent and fantasise with the most ridiculous scenarios to the exclusion of the known facts. Certainly there will be discrepancies and conflicts in coppers statement of what happened that morning because frankly every person has their own unique interpretation of events. If you ask three people standing on the kerb what was the colour of the last car which passed them you will invariably get three different answers. Human nature I'm afraid.
Whoever writes that garbage really needs to have a long hard look at themself. This was an entire family including two young boys who were effectively executed by Jeremy Bamber. Sympathy is something he certainly isn't entitled to.
-
Watching Stephanie squirm.
http://freesimonhall.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/lets-make-this-clear/comment-page-1/#comment-36
Ouch. That's got to hurt! Trying not to rant and rave when she's being asked perfectly reasonable questions! IMO, there is no way to explain why Simon didn't offer the information that he was thieving from Zenith when apparently he was murdering Mrs Albert. IT WAS HIS ALIBI!! However much Frizzbomb messes with the timescale. For 11 years, he had the opportunity (fingerprints, other evidence) to prove that he was somewhere else. Bit late now to do a Jackanory.
Oh, and one more thing (massive big-up to Columbo) .....it was Bamber who put himself or Sheila into the frame for the WHF murders. He left a loaded gun out, apparently. Bollocks. Ralph would have found it and put it safely away. Ralph called him, and asked him to "come quick."But he didn't. He rang Julie (why? It was a shared house, another 4 people could have answered, what a gamble), and at no point did Ralph ask him to call the police. So, why did Bamber call the police? Why did he waste precious minutes thumbing through the local phone book, when he could have either phoned 999, or "come quick" as Ralph apparently begged?
None of this works. I could go on, forever, about his disgraceful behaviour during and after the funerals. Or, I could labour my particular point that Sheila didn't breathe, cough or gag after the first shot. But, and I came to this case truly believing that Bamber was innocent, until I saw the image that Mike posted, why is Sheila so pristinely clean? Apparently, she (5ft 6) stood above Ralph (6ft 4) and battered the last few breaths out of his body. When he reached the kitchen, he only had a shoulder wound.
QED.
-
Watching Stephanie squirm.
http://freesimonhall.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/lets-make-this-clear/comment-page-1/#comment-36
Ouch. That's got to hurt! Trying not to rant and rave when she's being asked perfectly reasonable questions! IMO, there is no way to explain why Simon didn't offer the information that he was thieving from Zenith when apparently he was murdering Mrs Albert. IT WAS HIS ALIBI!! However much Frizzbomb messes with the timescale. For 11 years, he had the opportunity (fingerprints, other evidence) to prove that he was somewhere else. Bit late now to do a Jackanory.
Oh, and one more thing (massive big-up to Columbo) .....it was Bamber who put himself or Sheila into the frame for the WHF murders. He left a loaded gun out, apparently. Bollocks. Ralph would have found it and put it safely away. Ralph called him, and asked him to "come quick."But he didn't. He rang Julie (why? It was a shared house, another 4 people could have answered, what a gamble), and at no point did Ralph ask him to call the police. So, why did Bamber call the police? Why did he waste precious minutes thumbing through the local phone book, when he could have either phoned 999, or "come quick" as Ralph apparently begged?
None of this works. I could go on, forever, about his disgraceful behaviour during and after the funerals. Or, I could labour my particular point that Sheila didn't breathe, cough or gag after the first shot. But, and I came to this case truly believing that Bamber was innocent, until I saw the image that Mike posted, why is Sheila so pristinely clean? Apparently, she (5ft 6) stood above Ralph (6ft 4) and battered the last few breaths out of his body. When he reached the kitchen, he only had a shoulder wound.
QED.
Sorry, wrong thread. It's still true, though. If there was serious danger at WHF, Ralph would have tried to protect JB. He would have said "stay away. Get help."
-
Oh My God. Someone wrote "Special Branch" in blood on the carpet.
I think this lunacy has gone far enough.
-
Oh My God. Someone wrote "Special Branch" in blood on the carpet.
I think this lunacy has gone far enough.
Yes this lunacy has to stop. The case is straightfoward and Sheila could not possibly have been responsible. Quite honestly, you have to be incredibly stupid to ignore the obvious . This is just a really silly game played by the Bamber supporters on the Tesko forum or the so called official campaign. It is incredibly unfair to actually very decent, hard working members of the family, like the Eatons, who do not live extravagant lives and after all these years should be spared this constant regurgitation of the minutiae of the case which are essentially irrelevant in determining Sheila's innocence and hence Bamber's guilt. If these people are really interested in miscarriages of justice, there are far more deserving causes out there for them to pursue.
-
Oh My God. Someone wrote "Special Branch" in blood on the carpet.
I think this lunacy has gone far enough.
He appears to be having one of his sessions again. Totally bananas!!
-
John I wasn't sticking up for GS and I believe he was definately a very bad choice as JB's solicitor and probably did more harm than good what ever anyone's stance is on the case but there are failings in the judicial system/jury system and if GS 's 'games/fraudulent behaviour' exposes these failings it's a good thing
-
John I wasn't sticking up for GS and I believe he was definately a very bad choice as JB's solicitor and probably did more harm than good what ever anyone's stance is on the case but there are failings in the judicial system/jury system and if GS 's 'games/fraudulent behaviour' exposes these failings it's a good thing
Sorry if I interpreted your post wrongly Jack. It appeared to me that you were making the point that he is some sort of scapegoat or just being made an example of? I certainly agree that he has connections and has been clever in manipulating the legal systems in several countries but it was done illegally and now the chickens have come home to roost.
-
I believe there is more than enough material to make another documentary, especially giving the general public clearer facts about Julie Mugford and if she should have been believed or not???
Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was Jeremy Bamber’s girlfriend at the time of the tragedy. Originally from a working class background she must have felt that she had done very well on the social scale when she dated the good looking, intelligent, wealthy and public school educated Jeremy Bamber. At the time Julie was studying to be a teacher at Goldsmith’s college in London, during the summer she worked with young children on a nursery project.(1)
________________________
After the shootings she even went to the mortuary to identify the bodies of Nevill, June, Sheila and Nicholas and Daniel Caffell on the 7th of August 1985. (2)
________________________
Julie had not been very happy in her relationship with Jeremy and towards the end of August she had realized that it was all but over after Jeremy had publicly announced that he would not be getting engaged to her when Brett Collins had jokingly announced that they would be betrothed. Collins was a Homosexual friend of Jeremy’s whom Julie disliked intensely. Collin’s believed that Julie wanted the relationship with Jeremy to move on to a commitment and that Jeremy had not felt the same way. (3)
________________________
In her 17th December 1985 statement she states that by the 1st September she had said to Jeremy; “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that that night “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
________________________
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. He was making arrangements to meet her and Julie was furious.
________________________
Julie had realized that her relationship with Jeremy was over and smashed a mirror by throwing an ornament at it in a fit of rage, she then physically attacked Jeremy. Jeremy finished their relationship and Julie found this difficult to accept and denied that it ever happened.
________________________
After this she saw Jeremy only once more
________________________
when he and Brett helped her move house in London and she described the parting as being on a “reasonable happy note.”
________________________
Although clearly Julie had not felt happy about the parting at all. (4)
________________________
On the 8th September attended witham police station, after Stan Jones had ensured she was ”reported for process” she was charged with burglary as detailed by Mr Adams of the DPP the charge was then curiously withdrawn on the 5th of December 1985,
________________________
he said in a handwritten addendum: “I also agree the burglary charge can be withdrawn”.
______________________
She went from Witham police station to the police training School in Chelmsford, in the process claiming expenses from police, where
she made statements claiming that Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man called Matthew McDonald to kill the family for the payment of £2,000. (5) But previously on the 8th August 1985 she made a statement to the police saying quite the opposite. Her story now shifted to say that Jeremy had called her at home after the hit man had called him to tell him he had committed the killings.
________________________
She said that when Jeremy rang he just said that there was something wrong at the farm. She took that to mean that the murders had been committed.
________________________
The tone of the call had changed in Julie’s new description, and in this version the time of the call had now shifted from 3:30am in her original statement to 3:12am. The Defence believe this was done to put Jeremy’s call to her prior to him calling the police. (6)
Julie now claimed that Jeremy had mentioned many times that he intended to kill his family, and yet according to her –
________________________
she did nothing, even after the killings were carried out, she did nothing.
________________________
Julie, a trainee school teacher, who had been working with children went and identified the bodies of 6 year old murdered children and said nothing.
________________________
For a whole month Julie Mugford did nothing.
________________________
She would have us believe that she still loved, slept with, ate with and took money off of a man who had murdered his whole family in cold blood and her excuse for this was that she “felt sorry for him” and that she “couldn’t believe it was real.” (7)
________________________
Julie Mugford told the court that the hit man told Jeremy that Nevill Bamber had been shot 7 times.(8). The newspapers had reported that Nevill Bamber had been shot 7 times and
________________________
yet the truth was that Nevill Bamber had been shot 8 times. Julie Mugford’s evidence came from local gossip about the tragedy, newspaper articles, and from Ann Eaton who had been given information by police officers.
________________________
The court was aware of this, and unconvinced by her evidence the trial jury could not reach a verdict.
________________________
After deliberations the judge asked if they wanted to see any evidence again which might help them make a decision,(9) they asked to see the evidence of the blood in the moderator, when they did they found Jeremy Bamber guilty by a 10-2 majority.
________________________
Julie Mugford had been approached by various newspapers with offers of money for her story.
_______________________
She instructed a solicitor months before the trial to negotiate a deal with the highest bidder which was the News of The World.
________________________
She was already in a hotel with (DS Jones and another police officer) paid for by The News of The World as the verdict was given,
________________________
where she posed for photographs provocatively dressed and smiling for the camera then accepting a cool sum of £25,000 for her story
________________________
which even by today’s standards is a lot of money, in 1985 this would have been a princely sum. She states that she spent the money on an apartment.
________________________
If Julie Mugford had signed the contract before giving her evidence she would have been in contempt of court.
________________________
The fact that she arranged this contract pre-trial did not break the letter of the law. It shows that Mugford had pre-meditated to obtain money, and all but signed a contract for her story upon a guilty verdict this in an unsuitable action by a key prosecution witness.(10)
________________________
In 2002 for the appeal (the Metropolitain police investigation being headed under the supervision of John Yates), the Defence tried to obtain a copy of the contract she signed. Apparently her solicitor no longer held a copy of the document and neither did the News of The World. Nevertheless, she made a statement to the police about this contract under her married name of Julie Smerchanski, and states “I clearly skim read the contract and missed a lot of the detail today I read all the small print.” This would be interpreted by you or I that on the day she wrote the statement she read a copy of the contract. But the CPS argued that this is not what she meant. Paul Close of the CPS states in a letter on the 22nd of July 2002 to Jeremy’s Defence lawyer:
‘The witness is clearly saying that in 1986 she “skim read” the document but today (as she is no doubt older and wiser) she would always read the small print. “I read” is clearly in the present tense and a general observation. She is not saying “today I have read”.’
________________________
The CPS maintains that the contract was NOT in existence in 2002 and that it could not be established when Julie signed the contract, indeed Julie herself says that she “couldn’t remember when it was signed.”
________________________
Back in 1987 the Press Council had ruled that the News of the World had broken their declaration of principle on cheque book journalism.
________________________
Anyone can see that in this instance the media interfered with the judicial process as Julie’s money spinning deal was signed upon a guilty verdict.
________________________
After the trial Julie Mugford went on to live in Canada and in 2006 she even took up a post as the Vice Principal of a primary school in Winnipeg. She is currently Director of Assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.
Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)
________________________
DCI Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence.
________________________
The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that
_______________________
there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence.
______________________
Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan.
________________________
For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials?
________________________
The Defence has also suggested that Julie’s statements were not written in the first person, senior police officers even questioned why she was writing in the third person. The grammar used in many of the statements is well below the standard of a student doing a degree at Masters level which further suggests that Julie didn’t write all of the statements herself.
_______________________
For example she told police “Matthew done it.” (13)
________________________
During the period when Julie and her friend gave statements she was put up by police at their training centre and claimed expenses.Quite incredibly she was also seen by DS Jones the principal detective in this case no less than 32 times. (14)
We will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of evidence supplied by Julie Mugford. Whatever you decide, there can be no doubt about how much financial benefit she gained from the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, money she would not have received had the jury’s verdict been ‘not guilty.’
-
What's your point Jack? 8-)(--)
We all accept that Julie was no angel but she also isn't a murderer! You of all people surely understand that it is the BIG PICTURE which counts in any police investigation. So what if Julie dabbled in cannabis, bought a pile of clothes with her friend on bounced cheques or signed a deal with the then News of the World?
Certainly she was effectively given immunity for her cooperation, its called turning Queens Evidence and it is accepted practice.
You forgot to mention in your post the £100,000 deal Jeremy wanted for his story with the same newspaper or the same amount he and his gay pal Collins were touting semi-nude pictures of Sheila around Fleet Street.
At the end of the day they were both as bad as each other but Mugford was no killer, that dubious honour goes firmly to Jeremy Bamber.
DNA testing which was unavailable in 1986 at the time of the trial shows almost beyond doubt that Sheila's DNA was found deep within the sound moderator which had been fitted to the rifle. This confirms the findings that her blood was almost certainly found there too. The forensics on Sheila were negative for her having used any rifle that morning so we are only left with one proposition and that is that Jeremy is guilty as charged.
Letting Julie off was a small price to pay for catching a killer,
-
Jackie. She told police Matthew done it because that is what Jeremy told her.
-
I believe there is more than enough material to make another documentary, especially giving the general public clearer facts about Julie Mugford and if she should have been believed or not???
The general public couldn't give a damn about whether Julie Mugford was believed or not, in just the same way the last ITV documentary had no effect on their views... they are simply NOT interested!. The only people that had any concern were those jurors who did believe her testimony under oath 27 years ago.
There's never going to be any great movement to get Jeremy Bamber released, no matter how much you might wish for it, Jackie.
-
John I am quite happy to debate any point of the JB case but its the main prosecution witness Julie Mugford I have a problem with. I personally do not believe her.
If Jeremy was in fact guilty and considering any part she had in the cover up (not telling the police rightaway) the least she could have done is give her £25,000 to some children's charity
If Jeremy was guilty that might have redeemed her in some way.
If I don't believe Mugford I am left with the tampered silencer evidence and a very very bad police investigation
-
I believe the general public are always interested in freedom of information
Being open and transparent is what the general public should demand and expect
-
John I am quite happy to debate any point of the JB case but its the main prosecution witness Julie Mugford I have a problem with. I personally do not believe her.
If Jeremy was in fact guilty and considering any part she had in the cover up (not telling the police rightaway) the least she could have done is give her £25,000 to some children's charity
If Jeremy was guilty that might have redeemed her in some way.
If I don't believe Mugford I am left with the tampered silencer evidence and a very very bad police investigation
Mugford's evidence isn't even necessary Jack. Bamber put himself in the frame the moment he spun the story about his father telephoning him and saying Sheila had the gun. From that moment the suspicion fell fairly and squarely on Jeremy and Sheila alone.
The forensic evidence in relation to Sheila is the clincher Jack. Mugford's testimony was simply the cream that got the cat burglar! @)(++(*
-
I believe the general public are always interested in freedom of information
Being open and transparent is what the general public should demand and expect
It's called being in the public interest Jack.
-
Jackie, if Julie was lying to get him put in prison why didn't she just say Bamber had confessed to committing the murders himself? Why invent a story about a hitman?
-
Goatboy I have thought about this and maybe she made up a story (she is after all a liar and actress re her behaviour after the murders) and never realised the full consequences of her actions. Once she had started she set the ball rolling.
She made it clear how jealous she was and that is a dangerous trait.
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and mentioned Mugford many times and he doesn't seem to hate her at all which surprises me but he did tell me when he wanted to split with Mugford she went mad because her mothers husband used to treat his wife very badly (violence) and Jeremy had put a stop to it by having words with him.
Mugford said to Jeremy if he wasn't around anymore the trouble would start again.
-
For f..k sake Jackie Stan Jones knew Bamber was a wrong un the day after the murders and when Colin and the rest of the relatives found out the details of the murders they knew Sheila couldn't have done it ..... Julie got mixed up with a psycho and through blind love made some bad mistakes but she finally did the right thing and told the truth!
Since the murders and the tacky NOTW deal she has led an impeccable life as a teacher ....... a benefit to society where as many who cast stones live off benefits from society! You seem to spend half your life attacking decent hard working family people; perhaps you should cast the evil eye of yours in the mirror just once and ask yourself what good you have ever done!
What makes you think you know better than the law, the courts, the police who dealt with the case and ALL Bamber's surviving relatives! Bamber is a vicious killer .... End of!
-
You want to debate the issues again Jack so be it. 8((()*/
I can only add to what Tim has posted, Julie didn't ask for any of this to be brought down upon her head. This was all Jeremy's doing and Julie had no choice in it.
Julie has indeed made a life for herself and a very successful one too. You have tried to bring her down on several occasions Jack by attempting to expose her life in Canada. That stands to your eternal shame my dear!
-
Here, here John! Absolutely shameful what Preece and McKay did and tried to do to Julie in Canada; if McKay tries that again his own dodgy past will be equally exposed! Nasty bits of work and they are not even doing it for misguided but good reasons; McKay is using Bamber as a meal ticket and Jackie is desperate for a man and doesn't care if he just happens to be a child killer!
-
Here, here John! Absolutely shameful what Preece and McKay did and tried to do to Julie in Canada; if McKay tries that again his own dodgy past will be equally exposed! Nasty bits of work and they are not even doing it for misguided but good reasons; McKay is using Bamber as a meal ticket and Jackie is desperate for a man and doesn't care if he just happens to be a child killer!
Didn't mike tesko try the same thing with the policeman who was in charge of the case and who is now retired in Australia?
-
John and Tim I had nothing to do with exposing Mugford because I only found out about her from reading the forums and I should think you could google her to find out more about her.
NOBODY knows if she was telling the truth or telling lies about Jeremy Bamber it's all about what you choose to believe
-
John and Tim I had nothing to do with exposing Mugford because I only found out about her from reading the forums and I should think you could google her to find out more about her.
NOBODY knows if she was telling the truth or telling lies about Jeremy Bamber it's all about what you choose to believe
Come off it Jack, you know that isn't true. You posted all her details in Canada and bragged about speaking to the Press in Winnipeg. I am sure it is all saved on the old forum files which I still have.
-
John please find it and post it because I have never spoken to the press in Canada?
Unless I said it messing about to wind you up?
Try and find it for me
At the time of the documentary I didn't even know what was going on to much with the case or having hardly any contact with Simon
-
Jackie, remember when you used to post on blue? You would say that there is 'exciting new evidence' or 'jeremy will be out in a matter of weeks' what was this exciting new evidence? He's still in prison. Or am i missing the point!
-
Goatboy I have thought about this and maybe she made up a story (she is after all a liar and actress re her behaviour after the murders) and never realised the full consequences of her actions. Once she had started she set the ball rolling.
She made it clear how jealous she was and that is a dangerous trait.
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and mentioned Mugford many times and he doesn't seem to hate her at all which surprises me but he did tell me when he wanted to split with Mugford she went mad because her mothers husband used to treat his wife very badly (violence) and Jeremy had put a stop to it by having words with him.
Mugford said to Jeremy if he wasn't around anymore the trouble would start again.
If she was going to lie about what had happened why not be creative? If Jeremy himself was on trial for murder and she wanted to ensure his conviction it made no sense to make something up which didn't involve his direct confession. I see you trumpet the Tesko theory that when the lie starts it spirals out of control. A concept of which, without doubt, he is familiar. Well, let he who is without sin etc...Lots of people accuse Julie Mugford of being a liar, but have they never told lies themselves? You have denied contacting the Canadian press over Mugford but as John states you once boasted of doing this very thing on the blue forum. So either (a) you were lying when you claimed to have done this on the blue forum and you are telling the truth now, or (b) you were telling the truth then and lying now. Either way, YOUR veracity is in doubt. Also didn't Bamber also blatantly lie to the police? During the first interview he claimed to have phoned Julie first after the alleged phone call from his father then called the police, during the second he claimed it was the other way round. He told the police the caravan park burglary was done purely to highlight the lack of security on the site. Were this true he would have told the board about it and paid the money back. As far as I am aware he did neither. The fact he doesn't hate Julie for allegedly lying in court is another indicator of his guilt to me. A truly innocent man would not be able to contain his anger at such a thing. Finally, whatever you think of Julie she has had plenty of opportunities to milk her role in the story for all that is worth. Apart from the ill advised NOTW story she has never done this. I know to Bamber supporters this shows that she cannot live with the guilt and the lies. However, if she had sold her story and done interview after interview about it for money would that have made you feel she was genuine or she was just motivated by greed? Nevertheless, it's good to be able to have genuine debate about the case.
-
All this talk of JM doing the NOTW piece, what was Bamber demanding for his story? £40.000 was it? What was his asking price for the pictures of his sister? The sister he murdered, by the way. The Osea office robbery, he claims he did it to expose 'poor security', why didnt he hand the money back? He was greedy 'its important to have money when you're young' he was no angel jack. He couldnt wait to get his hands on money that would have been his, had he let nature take its course. Instead he grew impatient, greedy and resentful and murdered them all.
-
I'm sure thats what the burglars say round here "I was checking for poor security and the TV fell into my hands", unfortunately the last one got 4 years.
-
Andrea I was just repeating what I was told but as you know the CCRC closed the enquiry down very quickly when Simon came on board and the tests put forward were not completed in the time scale.
Why the CCRC would close the case down like that when the tests could have been completed fully I have no idea especially when they had more or less led Jeremy to believe he had plenty of time to complete what submissions he wanted to put forward.
As I have said before Vic thought the case would be referred to the COA
Jeremy also 100% believed his case would be referred
I don't think he would be so definate if he was guilty
He had great faith in the tests being carried out
-
Thank you Goatboy
-
Andrea I was just repeating what I was told but as you know the CCRC closed the enquiry down very quickly when Simon came on board and the tests put forward were not completed in the time scale.
Why the CCRC would close the case down like that when the tests could have been completed fully I have no idea especially when they had more or less led Jeremy to believe he had plenty of time to complete what submissions he wanted to put forward.
As I have said before Vic thought the case would be referred to the COA
Jeremy also 100% believed his case would be referred
I don't think he would be so definate if he was guilty
He had great faith in the tests being carried out
Jack, you are missing the point and I believe Shona expressed this quite succinctly a while back. Tests on a dead pig skin 27 years after the event with a rifle which isn't the actual murder weapon are useless. No wonder the CCRC binned it.
Let's face it Jack, he is guilty.
-
Andrea I know Jeremy was no angel but nobody knows the truth of what happened that night/day at WHF.
This could all become a lot clearer if the defence were made aware of everything held under PII
This should not be a case of the usual 'do not show this file to the defence' unless their is a 'real' reason for withholding information
It seems most MOJ victims are sentanced because of evidence withheld from their defence
Nobody has ever been charged because of this behaviour
It's time to put a stop to this now for everyone in the future that has been wrongly imprisoned
I believe Mugford should have received a prison sentance like Maxine Carr and her history of dishonesty was far worse than Jeremy's (re the cheque fraud)
I also do not believe she should have been allowed to have been a teacher because of certain stuff that she said in her statements re violence towards Jeremy
-
Goatboy I have thought about this and maybe she made up a story (she is after all a liar and actress re her behaviour after the murders) and never realised the full consequences of her actions. Once she had started she set the ball rolling.
She made it clear how jealous she was and that is a dangerous trait.
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and mentioned Mugford many times and he doesn't seem to hate her at all which surprises me but he did tell me when he wanted to split with Mugford she went mad because her mothers husband used to treat his wife very badly (violence) and Jeremy had put a stop to it by having words with him.
Mugford said to Jeremy if he wasn't around anymore the trouble would start again.
If she was going to lie about what had happened why not be creative? If Jeremy himself was on trial for murder and she wanted to ensure his conviction it made no sense to make something up which didn't involve his direct confession. I see you trumpet the Tesko theory that when the lie starts it spirals out of control. A concept of which, without doubt, he is familiar. Well, let he who is without sin etc...Lots of people accuse Julie Mugford of being a liar, but have they never told lies themselves? You have denied contacting the Canadian press over Mugford but as John states you once boasted of doing this very thing on the blue forum. So either (a) you were lying when you claimed to have done this on the blue forum and you are telling the truth now, or (b) you were telling the truth then and lying now. Either way, YOUR veracity is in doubt. Also didn't Bamber also blatantly lie to the police? During the first interview he claimed to have phoned Julie first after the alleged phone call from his father then called the police, during the second he claimed it was the other way round. He told the police the caravan park burglary was done purely to highlight the lack of security on the site. Were this true he would have told the board about it and paid the money back. As far as I am aware he did neither. The fact he doesn't hate Julie for allegedly lying in court is another indicator of his guilt to me. A truly innocent man would not be able to contain his anger at such a thing. Finally, whatever you think of Julie she has had plenty of opportunities to milk her role in the story for all that is worth. Apart from the ill advised NOTW story she has never done this. I know to Bamber supporters this shows that she cannot live with the guilt and the lies. However, if she had sold her story and done interview after interview about it for money would that have made you feel she was genuine or she was just motivated by greed? Nevertheless, it's good to be able to have genuine debate about the case.
An excellent post Goatboy.
It would indeed be so much easier for Julie to frame Jeremy if she had just said that he admitted to shooting them. She didn't say that however. And only repeated what he had told her about it. Jeremy misjudged Julie in so many ways. He crossed her when he went off with homosexual Collins so he only has himself to blame.
-
Goatboy I have thought about this and maybe she made up a story (she is after all a liar and actress re her behaviour after the murders) and never realised the full consequences of her actions. Once she had started she set the ball rolling.
She made it clear how jealous she was and that is a dangerous trait.
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and mentioned Mugford many times and he doesn't seem to hate her at all which surprises me but he did tell me when he wanted to split with Mugford she went mad because her mothers husband used to treat his wife very badly (violence) and Jeremy had put a stop to it by having words with him.
Mugford said to Jeremy if he wasn't around anymore the trouble would start again.
If she was going to lie about what had happened why not be creative? If Jeremy himself was on trial for murder and she wanted to ensure his conviction it made no sense to make something up which didn't involve his direct confession. I see you trumpet the Tesko theory that when the lie starts it spirals out of control. A concept of which, without doubt, he is familiar. Well, let he who is without sin etc...Lots of people accuse Julie Mugford of being a liar, but have they never told lies themselves? You have denied contacting the Canadian press over Mugford but as John states you once boasted of doing this very thing on the blue forum. So either (a) you were lying when you claimed to have done this on the blue forum and you are telling the truth now, or (b) you were telling the truth then and lying now. Either way, YOUR veracity is in doubt. Also didn't Bamber also blatantly lie to the police? During the first interview he claimed to have phoned Julie first after the alleged phone call from his father then called the police, during the second he claimed it was the other way round. He told the police the caravan park burglary was done purely to highlight the lack of security on the site. Were this true he would have told the board about it and paid the money back. As far as I am aware he did neither. The fact he doesn't hate Julie for allegedly lying in court is another indicator of his guilt to me. A truly innocent man would not be able to contain his anger at such a thing. Finally, whatever you think of Julie she has had plenty of opportunities to milk her role in the story for all that is worth. Apart from the ill advised NOTW story she has never done this. I know to Bamber supporters this shows that she cannot live with the guilt and the lies. However, if she had sold her story and done interview after interview about it for money would that have made you feel she was genuine or she was just motivated by greed? Nevertheless, it's good to be able to have genuine debate about the case.
An excellent post Goatboy.
It would indeed be so much easier for Julie to frame Jeremy if she had just said that he admitted to shooting them. She didn't say that however. And only repeated what he had told her about it. Jeremy misjudged Julie in so many ways. He crossed her when he went off with homosexual Collins so he only has himself to blame.
Jackie can I ask you what Julie Mugford's career has to do with Jeremy Bamber?
-
Sometimes I think Jackie wants Jeremy to be innocent...and doesn't let facts get in the way of that.
-
Sometimes I think Jackie wants Jeremy to be innocent...and doesn't let facts get in the way of that.
I don't post very often but Jackie always reverts to the fail safe position of PII and Julie is a liar.
-
Sometimes I think Jackie wants Jeremy to be innocent...and doesn't let facts get in the way of that.
I have yet to see Jackie provide any hard evidence in support of jeremy. How about it Jackie??
She totally ignores the forensic evidence showing that Sheila is innocent.
-
Show me the evidence jack that points to Sheila's guilt.
-
Andy there are still a million questions need to be answered in the Bamber case and I certainly haven't given up looking for the answers.
I will catch up with Shona later and see if she is still going with the 3rd party scenario
John I would like to know what circumstances/scenario you believe Jeremy Bamber could be innocent as you have said its a possibility.
Could Neville have been forced to make the call to Jeremy?
-
Andy there are still a million questions need to be answered in the Bamber case and I certainly haven't given up looking for the answers.
I will catch up with Shona later and see if she is still going with the 3rd party scenario
John I would like to know what circumstances/scenario you believe Jeremy Bamber could be innocent as you have said its a possibility.
Could Neville have been forced to make the call to Jeremy?
There was no intruder Jack, no forced entry, no broken windows. An inside job.
I cannot see any circumstances where Jeremy isn't guilty. Even if he brought someone in to do it and let them into the farmhouse via his 'secret window', he is still guilty. I stand by my 99% guilty and leave 1% on the basis he could be the unluckiest man in the world and all the factors conspired against him. I doubt it though!
-
Andy there are still a million questions need to be answered in the Bamber case and I certainly haven't given up looking for the answers.
I will catch up with Shona later and see if she is still going with the 3rd party scenario
John I would like to know what circumstances/scenario you believe Jeremy Bamber could be innocent as you have said its a possibility.
Could Neville have been forced to make the call to Jeremy?
I see what you're saying jack, but could you tell me what points to Sheila's guilt? 1 fingerprint on the gun, that's it.
-
Could Neville have been forced to make the call to Jeremy?
I hope your not going to ask the same million questions you've asked before, Jackie, because on this forum at least, it's unlikely that you'll get anyone agreeing with your point of view... you're an idealist in a realist's world.
Nevill was maimed in the face and jaw upstairs in his bedroom (about 10 -12 cartridge shells located there, only 3 in the kitchen - from 3 of the 4 bullet head shots which finally killed him), ergo he was incapable of speaking coherently and he would have been spitting blood even if he attempted to... you've seen the pathology reports.
Peter Vanezis noted that "there were gross fractures and disruptive injuries to the left side of the jaw and nearby teeth associated with two bullets and associated soft tissue injuries to the larynx... extreme pain would have been caused by these wounds... the victim's ability to speak would be completely impaired... at best he would only be able to produce audible groans and even then this would be painful".
Jeremy Bamber claimed that when he heard Nevill speak, he felt that his father had been really hurt (in other words Nevill had already been seriously injured upstairs). If that was so, how come he managed to make out what he was supposed to have said - "Sheila's/she's got the gun, etc.", in direct contradiction to the view of an experienced doctor and pathologist.
Furthermore, there would have been blood sprayed all over the worktop and handset even if he tried to speak... it wasn't there, Jackie... you've seen the photo.
-
Good points, Myster.
-
Yes, excellent points Myster.
For the sake of clarity and to help Jackie, here is a schedule of exactly who was shot where and how many times. Please note this is fact and not fiction!
Nevill Shot 8 times (4 in master bedroom, 1 on landing/stair and 3 in kitchen) (1 exit wound)
June Shot 7 times in master bedroom (3 exit wounds)
Daniel Shot 5 times in back of head in twins bedroom (2 exit wounds)
Nicholas Shot 3 times in face in twins bedroom (1 exit wound)
Sheila Shot twice in the throat/neck in the master bedroom.
-
Anyone who has read the Bamber case and still states he is innocent is either a fantasist, a liar or someone looking for an angle to feather their own nest.
For the record Jackie, you would come under the least offensive of the above .... a fantasist! You still want to sit on GMTV with Jeremy having saved him from the wicked world that framed him and then you both ride off into the sunset on your motorability scooter! Obviously it will be the young Jeremy circa 1986!
You showed your true colours Jackie when Bamber took you off his rotating phone list! I remember well you stating you wonder if he is in fact guilty! Bamber is just an emotional crutch for you and you will never let the facts or the blindingly obvious get in the way of your crusade! Someone made Neville call Jeremy! You don't even care how ludicrous that sounds do you?
Oh and I too well remember you stating you had spoken to a reporter in Winnipeg!
-
I think Jackie like most of us would just love it if Jeremy was in fact innocent and not guilty of such a heinous crime as murdering an entire family including two innocent babes. In an ideal world Jackie I agree it would be so nice to think he was innocent but i fear reality always sets in.
Like you, many years ago I also once thought how could such a nice boy possibly have done such a dreadful deed. Even when the Bamber forum first came to my attention I couldn't bring myself to believe he was guilty. Mike Teskowski had me going for a while but the evidence began to mount the other way and before long I could see that there was a sinister background to Jeremy.
The rest as they say is history.
-
Anyone who has read the Bamber case and still states he is innocent is either a fantasist, a liar or someone looking for an angle to feather their own nest.
For the record Jackie, you would come under the least offensive of the above .... a fantasist! You still want to sit on GMTV with Jeremy having saved him from the wicked world that framed him and then you both ride off into the sunset on your motorability scooter! Obviously it will be the young Jeremy circa 1986!
You showed your true colours Jackie when Bamber took you off his rotating phone list! I remember well you stating you wonder if he is in fact guilty! Bamber is just an emotional crutch for you and you will never let the facts or the blindingly obvious get in the way of your crusade! Someone made Neville call Jeremy! You don't even care how ludicrous that sounds do you?
Oh and I too well remember you stating you had spoken to a reporter in Winnipeg!
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Jeremy Bamber and the murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case CLOSED by CCRC. NO APPEAL REFERRAL. / Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Last post by Tim Invictus on Today at 12:09:40 AM »
Anyone who has read the Bamber case and still states he is innocent is either a fantasist, a liar or someone looking for an angle to feather their own nest.
For the record Jackie, you would come under the least offensive of the above .... a fantasist! You still want to sit on GMTV with Jeremy having saved him from the wicked world that framed him and then you both ride off into the sunset on your motorability scooter! Obviously it will be the young Jeremy circa 1986!
You showed your true colours Jackie when Bamber took you off his rotating phone list! I remember well you stating you wonder if he is in fact guilty! Bamber is just an emotional crutch for you and you will never let the facts or the blindingly obvious get in the way of your crusade! Someone made Neville call Jeremy! You don't even care how ludicrous that sounds do you?
Oh and I too well remember you stating you had spoken to a reporter in Winnipeg!
My Reply
Tim I have not a fantasist I look at the actual facts of the case which we are 'allowed' to have access too, and I do not believe they prove Jeremy Bamber to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Everything is circumstantial and the police added to the mysteries in this case by destroying evidence they were told categorically NOT to destroy.
Even on this forum members range from 'Jeremy carried out the murders' to a hit man was responsible.
Nobody knows what happened that night at WHF, maybe not even Jeremy
Neville had his enemies, he was a magistrate. He put people in prison.
I find it inconceivable that Jeremy Bamber with NO history of violence would murder all his family in cold blood when he was not desperate for money. He had savings, he was due an inheritance from his grandmother.
He wasn't buying a porche, police found that out for definate.
I have no aspirations of sitting on any GMTV sofa and in fact when MWT contacted me I made it clear any help I gave in this case was behind the scenes.
I did not take an interest in this case to be 'famous' or 'make money'
I took an interest in this case because its local to me and something does not ring true.
It is possible Jeremy is innocent because John says so.
Even if its 1% for John he knows its a possibility.
As for circumstances about me being 'taken off' Jeremy's phone list that's between me and him but I have learnt especially in the light of recent events how people can be manipulated in prison and fed stuff that's not true.
I am glad I am away from all the jealousy and bitterness of the Bamber circus and I don't need to be part of it to still want to find out the truth of what happened the night of the murders.
More PII will be released
Tim this is a forum to debate the case albeit members are 99% Bamber guilty
I have never ever spoken to any reporter in Winnipeg
Mugford was given the opportunity to speak on the MWT documentary but she chose not to which is her prerogative
-
The evidence is not merely circumstantial Jackie. Jeremy's statement is very real as is that of Julie Mugford. The forensics evidence is also very real and all taken together points directly at Jeremy Bamber.
Why do you constantly fail to address these issues Jackie or is it a case of you not wanting to face reality?
-
David there is not a single piece of evidence that proofs Mugford was telling the truth. Nothing. She has a long record of dishonesty i.e. cheque fraud on numerous occasions and the caravan robbery.
Who knows when she tells the truth?
She was hardly destitute when she carried out the cheque fraud it was pure greed.
Who knows what she would do or say for money ?
I will never believe she would have gone anywhere near that mortuary to see her boyfriends handiwork.
Never in a million years
I don't believe a word she said
If the jury had know Mugford had done a deal with a newspaper IF JB WAS FOUND GUILTY I believe the jury would have doubted her testimony against Jeremy
Knowing she was due a payment on conviction
Forensic tests on tampered evidence????
-
David there is not a single piece of evidence that proofs Mugford was telling the truth. Nothing. She has a long record of dishonesty i.e. cheque fraud on numerous occasions and the caravan robbery.
Who knows when she tells the truth?
She was hardly destitute when she carried out the cheque fraud it was pure greed.
Who knows what she would do or say for money ?
I will never believe she would have gone anywhere near that mortuary to see her boyfriends handiwork.
Never in a million years
I don't believe a word she said
If the jury had know Mugford had done a deal with a newspaper IF JB WAS FOUND GUILTY I believe the jury would have doubted her testimony against Jeremy
Knowing she was due a payment on conviction
Forensic tests on tampered evidence????
What about Jeremy's deal for £40,000? or his attempt to flog nude photos to the local rags in Fleet Street?
Julie wouldn't have been anywhere near Osea caravan park if it hadn't been for Bamber. When he was caught out he lied about his reasons for robbing it. Worst of all he trashed the place to make it look like a burglar had been in.
How can you possibly support such a warped fellow Jackie?
-
Have the photos of Sheila lying on the floor been tampered with Jackie?
The answer is an emphatic no because if they had been the blood pattern would have shown a change of direction and been smeared. The argument that Sheila was moved before those first photos was taken is rubbish.
You have summarily failed to prove any evidence that Sheila was the killer Jackie.
-
David there is not a single piece of evidence that proofs Mugford was telling the truth. Nothing. She has a long record of dishonesty i.e. cheque fraud on numerous occasions and the caravan robbery.
Who knows when she tells the truth?
She was hardly destitute when she carried out the cheque fraud it was pure greed.
Who knows what she would do or say for money ?
I will never believe she would have gone anywhere near that mortuary to see her boyfriends handiwork.
Never in a million years
I don't believe a word she said
If the jury had know Mugford had done a deal with a newspaper IF JB WAS FOUND GUILTY I believe the jury would have doubted her testimony against Jeremy
Knowing she was due a payment on conviction
Forensic tests on tampered evidence????
You know Jackie, what you have just said there applies to Jeremy Bamber umpteen times over.... whose idea was the Osea robbery in the first place? I suppose that wasn't motivated by greed.... no, it was only to demonstrate to the family that security was poor. Did he give the £900+ back???
As for the mortuary, he wasn't all that keen on going to see his own handiwork... he was too busy visiting his accountant and getting to know how much he was worth, and that just after the murders to boot!!!
And what if the jury had known about Bamber's very own lucrative NOW deal if he was aquitted... £40,000, and even then he complained that it wasn't enough!
What tampered evidence?... photo on the bed with one wound, blood planted in the moderator, scratching of the AGA surround?... you've been brainwashed by Teskowski's madcap theories.
Ok, that's it then... shut the shop... we might as well not bothering answering any more questions, because it's obvious that there is no way of convincing you of his guilt, and I don't think any of us here want to spend the next "million" years trying to do so.
-
Ok, that's it then... shut the shop... we might as well not bothering answering any more questions, because it's obvious that there is no way of convincing you of his guilt, and I don't think any of us here want to spend the next "million" years trying to do so.
Myster
You are wrong John very much wants to debate this case hence him posting he would like to visit Jeremy (I have no idea how this is progressing so far because I would like it to happen).
I am not supporting Jeremy as such, more the case.
I have never ever asked to visit Jeremy.
None of us really know where the idea came from to rob the caravan park because he was with Mugford who was already an experianced theif. As far as I know there is no record of Jeremy stealing anything before.
As for Jeremy having a newspaper deal if he was in fact innocent he should have been allowed to put his side of events out in the public domain.
Mugford sold her story when she was guilty of cheque fraud, burglary and covering up multiple murders
-
Ok, that's it then... shut the shop... we might as well not bothering answering any more questions, because it's obvious that there is no way of convincing you of his guilt, and I don't think any of us here want to spend the next "million" years trying to do so.
Myster
You are wrong John very much wants to debate this case hence him posting he would like to visit Jeremy (I have no idea how this is progressing so far because I would like it to happen).
I am not supporting Jeremy as such, more the case.
I have never ever asked to visit Jeremy.
None of us really know where the idea came from to rob the caravan park because he was with Mugford who was already an experianced theif. As far as I know there is no record of Jeremy stealing anything before.
As for Jeremy having a newspaper deal if he was in fact innocent he should have been allowed to put his side of events out in the public domain.
Mugford sold her story when she was guilty of cheque fraud, burglary and covering up multiple murders
Where does all of the above point to sheila's guilt jack? can you tell me, in your opinion, how you think Sheila killed her family?
-
Andy to be honest I don't know if Sheila, Jeremy or a third party is responsible but I am sure there will be evidence hidden that would give us a clearer picture
-
The alleged phone call rules out a third party. This is what i cant understand, why dont supporters sing from the same hymn book as Bambers defence team? I realise his campaign team do, but anyone else that supports him dont seem to.
-
Jackie, Julie may have been guilty of cheque fraud, assisting a burglar and of selling and couriering cannabis but covering up for a murderer...never.
Julie was told by Jeremy that McDonald had done it for a fee of £2000. She was prepared to accept this but it weighed heavily with her. She didn't have to speak to anyone about the case but she did. This in turn resulted in her being interviewed at length by Essex Police. Do you honestly think she would have lied to the police knowing what was at stake?
Julie does join us from time to time but is unable to comment for obvious reasons.
-
John have you taken things any further re visiting Jeremy?
-
Andy if there was a third party nobody and not even the defence know what really happened the night of the murders
-
Andy if there was a third party nobody and not even the defence know what really happened the night of the murders
There was a third party but he wasn't there that morning.
-
John have you taken things any further re visiting Jeremy?
Yes, I have made the request,
-
I doubt any documents withheld would prove definitively what happened that night or cast doubt on the conviction.
Also people on the blue forum do put forth the allegation that Nevill in his position as magistrate had made enemies by putting people in prison to support the possibility of a third party involved. Let's be clear that magistrates do have the power to put people in prison, but the maximum jail sentence they can give is 6 months. They can in extreme circumstances give two 6 month sentences to be served consecutively. However, in almost all cases with good behaviour etc a criminal will only serve 3 months of a six month sentence. Any more serious case will always be referred by the magistrate to Crown Court. I don't believe for a second that anyone would bear such a grudge against a magistrate for sending someone down for 3 months that they would be willing to murder 2 six year old boys. And why would they then look to show Sheila had done it yet at the same time try to frame Jeremy? Makes no sense. It was either Sheila or Jeremy.
-
The thing is Goatboy you used the words 'you doubt' regarding PII in the Bamber case but none of us know what's really withheld.
Time and time the criminal justice system is let down by 'someone' playing god and deciding what gets withheld.
It's time this problem is highlighted to stop further MOJ case.
In the Bamber case everything possible needs to be released to stop speculation about this case once and for all.
-
The thing is Goatboy you used the words 'you doubt' regarding PII in the Bamber case but none of us know what's really withheld.
Time and time the criminal justice system is let down by 'someone' playing god and deciding what gets withheld.
It's time this problem is highlighted to stop further MOJ case.
In the Bamber case everything possible needs to be released to stop speculation about this case once and for all.
The only people who speculate are Bamber's supporters. Bamber has had more than his fair crack at the CCRC, they have spent thousands of hours looking at his case, and time and time again he fails to submit anything that will prove his conviction wrong.
-
The thing is Goatboy you used the words 'you doubt' regarding PII in the Bamber case but none of us know what's really withheld.
Time and time the criminal justice system is let down by 'someone' playing god and deciding what gets withheld.
It's time this problem is highlighted to stop further MOJ case.
In the Bamber case everything possible needs to be released to stop speculation about this case once and for all.
The only people who speculate are Bamber's supporters. Bamber has had more than his fair crack at the CCRC, they have spent thousands of hours looking at his case, and time and time again he fails to submit anything that will prove his conviction wrong.
In an ideal world, I think that EP should release an inventory of what they still hold in their archives with justification for each category of documentation as to why they consider PII to be applicable. However, I suspect that this might be quite an expensive complex task and like most Police Forces they are strapped for cash. They probably can't justify it to satisfy a few people like Jackie. EP may well have obtained statements from a range of people in order to gain a better understanding of JB's background and character... eg School and college teachers, more distant relatives etc and would wish to protect such individuals from unwanted media attention. Some of this material may cast JB in a less then favourable light, for example it is rumoured that a school teacher informed the Police that the only things JB had been good at whilst a pupil at Greshams had been shooting and lying !
-
Quote
for example it is rumoured that a school teacher informed the Police that the only things JB had been good at whilst a pupil at Greshams had been shooting and lying !
Come on Dillon another rumour!!!
-
Andy I think you are wrong about no interest in the case because MWT believes JB to be innocent and I don't think he is finished work on the case yet but would probably do a much longer in depth documentary next time
I think he wants to get to the bottom of some of the mysteries in the case. He spent hours and days reading up on the case but I don't think he had enough time to complete the job the way he wanted.
He worked on the Saville case for months
He is also looking at the case through a police officers eyes
-
MWT is one person jack. After the doc that was shown i didnt see any headlines in the papers the next morning screaming for the case to be reffered, i havent seen a rise in people interested in the case.
There is a handful of people think he's innocent, thats it. He's guilty, theres no getting away from that. Even Mike knows Sheila didnt kill herself and that her body was stage managed, he just thinks the police are responsible.
Dont forget, Bamber isnt going anywhere, he has all the time in the world to pester the CCRC, and claim innocence, he's got nothing left to lose, or nothing else to do!
-
I thought that MWT's documentary was relatively balanced and did not come over as that supportive of JB's cause . Does MWT REALLY beleive JB is innocent ? As an ex Police Officer who has studied the evidence and apparently quite a sensible sort of guy it is hard to understand how he could beleive that Sheila was responsible . He makes his living out of things like these documentaries rather then being some sort of crusader for justice.
Anyway just to be irritating and speculative , on the subject of involvement of a third person and to feed the conspiracy theorists, how about the possibility that JB 's close mate, BC, who seemed to appearconveniently so soon after the murders might not have had such a water tight alibi as I beleive some sources reckon that he had several passports . Also does anyone know anything about the circumstances of his brother's death and was it straightfoward. I have long felt that the mysterious BC knows a lot about what really happened .
-
He spent hours and days reading up on the case but I don't think he had enough time to complete the job the way he wanted.
******************************
He is also looking at the case through a police officers eyes
MWT didn't make such a good job of the last documentary... he couldn't even get the proper barrel length right.
So why then put out a rushed documentary and dodgy, unfinished firearms tests costing thousands, or more likely tens of thousands when a man's freedom depended on them? I don't think members of the CCRC who saw it and examined the two measly quarter pages from the U.S. were too impressed.
*****************************************************
And so is Mick Gradwell... "I feel from looking at the overall circumstances of the case that it is a safe conviction and that Jeremy Bamber in a cold blooded, calculated way killed his family, and I think the evidence does point that way quite significantly".
-
Mick gradwell was also an ex cop wasnt he?
-
Mick gradwell was also an ex cop wasnt he?
Certainly was, Andy...., http://www.sri-forensics.com/about_sri_forensics_epe_video_facial_forensics/board/police__and__client_liason/ (http://www.sri-forensics.com/about_sri_forensics_epe_video_facial_forensics/board/police__and__client_liason/)
-
I doubt any documents withheld would prove definitively what happened that night or cast doubt on the conviction.
Also people on the blue forum do put forth the allegation that Nevill in his position as magistrate had made enemies by putting people in prison to support the possibility of a third party involved. Let's be clear that magistrates do have the power to put people in prison, but the maximum jail sentence they can give is 6 months. They can in extreme circumstances give two 6 month sentences to be served consecutively. However, in almost all cases with good behaviour etc a criminal will only serve 3 months of a six month sentence. Any more serious case will always be referred by the magistrate to Crown Court. I don't believe for a second that anyone would bear such a grudge against a magistrate for sending someone down for 3 months that they would be willing to murder 2 six year old boys. And why would they then look to show Sheila had done it yet at the same time try to frame Jeremy? Makes no sense. It was either Sheila or Jeremy.
Exactly goatboy. It takes a certain kind of a sick son of a bitch psycho to kill someone else's children in cold blood. This is probably why people find it difficult to believe that such a nice looking lad as Jeremy was 27 years ago could do such a terrible deed. I found it hard to believe and I have studied the case so I can understand why the uninformed are sometimes sceptical.
-
Interesting points Dillon re the third party/bc
See there is still lots to discuss about the case
-
See the quotes from one of the leading experts in their field re Jeremy's history/character
Pathologist's Views
Dr Vanezis, the pathologist who examined the bodies had not detailed a time of death for any of the deceased in his report. He provided the police with statements written long after the post mortem, the first during September and others during November 1985 and May 1986 when he used his notes and scene photographs to assist him.
The Dickinson review then requested that he write an additional report post trial and the extracts below are taken from this report which appears to be much more candid and in favour of the Defence than his pre-trial statements.
Regarding his initial examinations he stated:
“Sheila had suffered two gunshot wounds. I was a little concerned with this but in my experience, bearing in mind the low velocity of the weapon, whilst unusual, suicide with two shots does occur. I have experienced four or five in the past. In order to consider this a possibility, however, I must have been impressed by the information given to me as to position of the weapon, length of barrel and the ability of Sheila to reach the trigger. I had been told it was a semi-automatic weapon. The result of my P.M. examination of Sheila was 'death due to gunshot wounds'. My examination did not reveal anything to contradict the suicide theory and I must say, although I could not from my examination, confirm murder or suicide”
The post mortem’s continued the following day and Dr Peter Vanezis further states:
“Having discussed the number of shots involved (24) I was told the magazine could hold at least eight cartridges. Sheila was a farmer's daughter and would have been used to firearms. I drew no serious consequence from the number of shots fired.”
When DS Stan Jones later asked him some time later what he thought about it being a murder/suicide he wrote:
“Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it.”
Dr Vanezis continues:
“I then discussed the two possibilities : If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. We went over the information and I expressed the views that Jeremy would have to be a nutter to have done what had occurred, in that he must have had such a warped state of mind to engineer it in the manner in which it was presented. This was almost too incredible to believe. Additionally, in order to stage manage Sheila she would probably need to be under the influence of drugs. I said that I would ascertain the results of the drug analysis with regard to that point before completing my report.”
The drug analysis came back negative, apart from the tests showing a reduced dose of Haloperidol a treatment for Schizophrenia, and a trace of Cannabis taken some four days earlier, Sheila had not been sedated. In support of Dr Vanezis views, Jeremy Bamber had no history violence, has never had any mental illness, and does not have any psychopathic traits in 27 different assessments. Sheila Caffell on the other hand, was delusional, volatile, suicidal and “could use physical aggression directed to property, herself or others” As detailed by her Psychologist, her boyfriend and other witnesses who gave police statements.
It is unclear why the views expressed by the pathologist shifted in this report which seems to suggest that he was later influenced by the information provided by police. He also described one of the bullet's in Sheila Caffell's body as "Fragmented" but Malcolm Fletcher the Ballistics expert for the prosecution describes it as whole which is how it was presented at trial. Read more about Sheila's X-Ray's and the fragmented bullet here. Dr Vanezis also stated that SOCO officers took hand swabs from both Sheila Caffell and Nevill Bamber but none of the SOCO officers admitted to taking swabs from Nevill. Later the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell were rejected by the lab, when they returned they bore a different exhibit reference number and only very low levels of lead were detected suggesting that Sheila had possibly handled the weapon but not fired it. This became key prosecution evidence. Why were the exhibit reference numbers for the swabs altered and what became of the hand swabs from Nevill Bamber which were never allocated an exhibit reference? Many of the key exhibits had altered reference numbers including the sound moderator and hacksaw blade.
Recent testimony from forensic ballistics expert Philip Boyes proves that gunshot reside which would have discharged onto Sheila Caffell's hands when she fired the gun was easily and simply wiped away on cloth or clothing without any need for washing. This meant that Sheila had very low levels of lead when her hands were tested. The low levels of lead on Sheila's hands is not a valid part of the prosecution's case and never was.
-
The thing is Goatboy you used the words 'you doubt' regarding PII in the Bamber case but none of us know what's really withheld.
Time and time the criminal justice system is let down by 'someone' playing god and deciding what gets withheld.
It's time this problem is highlighted to stop further MOJ case.
In the Bamber case everything possible needs to be released to stop speculation about this case once and for all.
Jackie, can I ask you what possible difference would anything held under PII make to what we already know? It's not as if it could ever change the way sheila was found is it? It matters little about PII in my opinion as nothing will ever change the sequence of events as we know them to be.
There is no mystery about this Jackie.
-
See the quotes from one of the leading experts in their field re Jeremy's history/character
Pathologist's Views
Dr Vanezis, the pathologist who examined the bodies had not detailed a time of death for any of the deceased in his report. He provided the police with statements written long after the post mortem, the first during September and others during November 1985 and May 1986 when he used his notes and scene photographs to assist him.
The Dickinson review then requested that he write an additional report post trial and the extracts below are taken from this report which appears to be much more candid and in favour of the Defence than his pre-trial statements.
Regarding his initial examinations he stated:
?Sheila had suffered two gunshot wounds. I was a little concerned with this but in my experience, bearing in mind the low velocity of the weapon, whilst unusual, suicide with two shots does occur. I have experienced four or five in the past. In order to consider this a possibility, however, I must have been impressed by the information given to me as to position of the weapon, length of barrel and the ability of Sheila to reach the trigger. I had been told it was a semi-automatic weapon. The result of my P.M. examination of Sheila was 'death due to gunshot wounds'. My examination did not reveal anything to contradict the suicide theory and I must say, although I could not from my examination, confirm murder or suicide?
The post mortem?s continued the following day and Dr Peter Vanezis further states:
?Having discussed the number of shots involved (24) I was told the magazine could hold at least eight cartridges. Sheila was a farmer's daughter and would have been used to firearms. I drew no serious consequence from the number of shots fired.?
When DS Stan Jones later asked him some time later what he thought about it being a murder/suicide he wrote:
?Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it.?
Dr Vanezis continues:
?I then discussed the two possibilities : If it wasn't Sheila it had to be Jeremy. We went over the information and I expressed the views that Jeremy would have to be a nutter to have done what had occurred, in that he must have had such a warped state of mind to engineer it in the manner in which it was presented. This was almost too incredible to believe. Additionally, in order to stage manage Sheila she would probably need to be under the influence of drugs. I said that I would ascertain the results of the drug analysis with regard to that point before completing my report.?
The drug analysis came back negative, apart from the tests showing a reduced dose of Haloperidol a treatment for Schizophrenia, and a trace of Cannabis taken some four days earlier, Sheila had not been sedated. In support of Dr Vanezis views, Jeremy Bamber had no history violence, has never had any mental illness, and does not have any psychopathic traits in 27 different assessments. Sheila Caffell on the other hand, was delusional, volatile, suicidal and ?could use physical aggression directed to property, herself or others? As detailed by her Psychologist, her boyfriend and other witnesses who gave police statements.
It is unclear why the views expressed by the pathologist shifted in this report which seems to suggest that he was later influenced by the information provided by police. He also described one of the bullet's in Sheila Caffell's body as "Fragmented" but Malcolm Fletcher the Ballistics expert for the prosecution describes it as whole which is how it was presented at trial. Read more about Sheila's X-Ray's and the fragmented bullet here. Dr Vanezis also stated that SOCO officers took hand swabs from both Sheila Caffell and Nevill Bamber but none of the SOCO officers admitted to taking swabs from Nevill. Later the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell were rejected by the lab, when they returned they bore a different exhibit reference number and only very low levels of lead were detected suggesting that Sheila had possibly handled the weapon but not fired it. This became key prosecution evidence. Why were the exhibit reference numbers for the swabs altered and what became of the hand swabs from Nevill Bamber which were never allocated an exhibit reference? Many of the key exhibits had altered reference numbers including the sound moderator and hacksaw blade.
Recent testimony from forensic ballistics expert Philip Boyes proves that gunshot reside which would have discharged onto Sheila Caffell's hands when she fired the gun was easily and simply wiped away on cloth or clothing without any need for washing. This meant that Sheila had very low levels of lead when her hands were tested. The low levels of lead on Sheila's hands is not a valid part of the prosecution's case and never was.
Any female in a nightie who fires a rifle 25 times and kills 4 people at close range and has a fight with a strong man over 6ft tall would have signs of this on them or their clothing. Sheila did not. Several police officers testified as to the cleanliness of sheila's hands and feet which really surprised them given the circumstances.
Dr Vanezis was shocked and VERY ANGRY when after conducting the autopsy he later saw the original photos of Sheila with "hardly a hair out of place". No blood smear on her neck and no blood on her fingertips. This was completely different to the state in which she was presented to him at the morgue. We have all seen the morgue photos with blood staining all over her neck and face. This happened after she was put into the body bag and while her remains were being removed for autopsy. Had we not seen the original photos of Sheila lying where she fell we might also have been pointed in the wrong direction.
I agree that Dr Vanezis originally could not rule out suicide but when he saw the original photos he knew immediately that she could never have shot herself twice and ended up as she did.
Nice try Jackie but just not good enough.
-
I thought that MWT's documentary was relatively balanced and did not come over as that supportive of JB's cause . Does MWT REALLY beleive JB is innocent ? As an ex Police Officer who has studied the evidence and apparently quite a sensible sort of guy it is hard to understand how he could beleive that Sheila was responsible . He makes his living out of things like these documentaries rather then being some sort of crusader for justice.
Anyway just to be irritating and speculative , on the subject of involvement of a third person and to feed the conspiracy theorists, how about the possibility that JB 's close mate, BC, who seemed to appearconveniently so soon after the murders might not have had such a water tight alibi as I beleive some sources reckon that he had several passports . Also does anyone know anything about the circumstances of his brother's death and was it straightfoward. I have long felt that the mysterious BC knows a lot about what really happened .
First off, Mark Williams-Thomas is a tit. Sorry Jackie but he is. @)(++(*
He said in the documentary that the family were killed with a shotgun, what a bloody stupid thing to say.
I agree with what you are saying about Collins. His convenient alibi so far away is very suspicious. He was well checked out by the police though after Robert Boutflour set a private detective on him. There is much that has never been revealed about Brett but only Jeremy Bamber knows what it is. I have a feeling that he has changed his name after returning to New Zealand because he has effectively disappeared or is dead.
-
Thought MWT's documentary was rather poor. A shotgun FFS? For someone who specialises in investigating abuse of children he seems rather keen to give airtime to a convicted child killer. I thought the purpose of the doc was to advance Bamber's case to appeal, however it ended up balanced and don't forget it was Mick Gradwell and David Boutflour who had the last words.
-
Thought MWT's documentary was rather poor. A shotgun FFS? For someone who specialises in investigating abuse of children he seems rather keen to give airtime to a convicted child killer. I thought the purpose of the doc was to advance Bamber's case to appeal, however it ended up balanced and don't forget it was Mick Gradwell and David Boutflour who had the last words.
MWT earns money from these TV shows...work the rest out for yourselves. 8(0(* 8**8:/:
-
Thought MWT's documentary was rather poor. A shotgun FFS? For someone who specialises in investigating abuse of children he seems rather keen to give airtime to a convicted child killer. I thought the purpose of the doc was to advance Bamber's case to appeal, however it ended up balanced and don't forget it was Mick Gradwell and David Boutflour who had the last words.
Mick Gradwell was in no doubt that the original decision was correct. 8@??)(
-
I was told, but unfortunately this is hearsay, that Brett Collins had a brother ( an antigue dealer I think ) who died in suspicious circumstances and Brett might have been implicated. Brett and Jeremy seem to have been as thick as thieves and worked together to maximise assets from June and Nevill's estate. There has long been suggestions, but again hearsay, that Jeremy was involved in criminality in New Zealand. With Brett and others ? Did they plan the killings at WHF together ? This needs a dedicated researcher with good NZ contacts I guess . Probably a blind alley, but it would have been easier for Jeremy to have committed these murders with an accomplice .
-
I was told, but unfortunately this is hearsay, that Brett Collins had a brother ( an antigue dealer I think ) who died in suspicious circumstances and Brett might have been implicated. Brett and Jeremy seem to have been as thick as thieves and worked together to maximise assets from June and Nevill's estate. There has long been suggestions, but again hearsay, that Jeremy was involved in criminality in New Zealand. With Brett and others ? Did they plan the killings at WHF together ? This needs a dedicated researcher with good NZ contacts I guess . Probably a blind alley, but it would have been easier for Jeremy to have committed these murders with an accomplice .
There is this link to the stolen watches. Susie Batesby mentions it in her police statement too.
Just reading the Wiki article on bamber.
It states that while in New Zealand he reportedly broke into a jewellers, stealing two expensive watches, one of which he gave to his girlfiend back in England. He also boasted according to Powell that he had been involved in smuggling Heroin overseas.
-
For the record Jackie I too wish there was someway Bamber could be innocent; it would certainly feel more worthwhile to be fighting a MOJ case than to be trying to keep a man locked up for life. If it hadn't been for the appalling abuse directed at Sheila and Bamber's surviving victims (relatives) along with good honest coppers like Stan Jones I would never have become involved.
The abuse aimed at good, honest, hardworking people involved with Bamber is nothing less than shameful. Do you still maintain that people often spit in the face of Anne Eaton on the streets of Tolleshunt D'Arcy Jackie?
-
I heard that spitting rumour Tim, its all bollocks.
The Eatons and Boutflours are still very respected families.
-
I heard that spitting rumour Tim, its all bollocks.
The Eatons and Boutflours are still very respected families.
I haven't forgotten the nasty things Jackie used to say about Sheila not being a proper model and a failure.
-
Somebody is misquoting me or getting me mixed up with someone else because as far as I know when Sheila was WELL she was successful even travelling overseas to model.
All Sheila's problems to me related to her being very very ill which was not her fault
-
Somebody is misquoting me or getting me mixed up with someone else because as far as I know when Sheila was WELL she was successful even travelling overseas to model.
All Sheila's problems to me related to her being very very ill which was not her fault
Let's not exaggerate Jackie, Sheila was skipping down the lane with her adored twins the day before she was murdered not "very, very ill"!
If Bamber ever does 'come clean' and admit his obvious guilt will you apologise for hounding Anne Eaton, her daughter and the rest of the surviving family?
-
Tim we will agree to differ on Sheila's health issues.
She had ongoing problems from the illness she had been diagnosed with by experts compounded by the fact her husband had told her he wouldn't take her back because he had found someone else.
It is well documented the mood swings suffered by people with Sheila's condition.
Whatever your stance on who was responsible for the murders at WHF Sheila was obviously suffering badly at times and not coping with life as documented by her last boyfriend.
If more people had understood this including Jeremy, her mother and father and the rest of her family she might still be alive today
None of us know how things panned out on Sheila's last visit that's why we are still discussing it and documentaries are made about it
Was Sheila responsible, was Jeremy responsible, was a third party responsible ??
-
I agree that if Sheila hadn't had psychological problems she may well be alive today. Bamber used the fact that "she is a nutter" to concoct his murderous scheme.
The irony is that if Bamber had waited he would be a relatively wealthy country gentleman now rather than a dead man walking!
-
Tim we will agree to differ on Sheila's health issues.
She had ongoing problems from the illness she had been diagnosed with by experts compounded by the fact her husband had told her he wouldn't take her back because he had found someone else.
It is well documented the mood swings suffered by people with Sheila's condition.
Whatever your stance on who was responsible for the murders at WHF Sheila was obviously suffering badly at times and not coping with life as documented by her last boyfriend.
If more people had understood this including Jeremy, her mother and father and the rest of her family she might still be alive today
None of us know how things panned out on Sheila's last visit that's why we are still discussing it and documentaries are made about it
Was Sheila responsible, was Jeremy responsible, was a third party responsible ??
No Jack, Jeremy was responsible. Take a good look at the photo of Sheila, do you really think she had wiped out her family? Not a mark on her. Jb had planned this well in advance, he also had plenty of time to get rid of any evidence that connected him to the shooting, his house wasnt searched until a month after he shot them all.
The alleged phonecall put him or sheila in the frame, there was no third party.
-
jack, i want to ask you a question, i understand if you dont want to answer, no probs.
Do you ever regret the way you have behaved on forums, or the things you have said/done while supporting bamber? I understand alot of people severed contact with you over certain things. Such as bamber himself and his official campaign team.
-
Hmmm.
I wonder if Major Marsham ever wishes that he could spend all day, every day grizzling on a forum that he would chew both legs off to moderate, while sending his elderly wife out to work (even on Christmas day)? Him being so "in bred and half-witted" apparently. >@@(*&)
-
Andrea whatever anyone thinks or believes I got involved in this case for one reason I believe the conviction could be unsafe. I was not looking for a boyfriend or husband and find it inconceivable you could have a normal relationship started in prison.
In my first letter to Jeremy I made it clear to him I had read about his fan club/bamberettes etc and I was not interested in a man just because he was good looking 25 years ago.
I have his reply I could post at any time when he said he was told he was too old for all that rubbish.
If I had known about Miss Hammond I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the case because I believe so much jealousy came my way because of my connection with Simon McKay, Ngb and MWT.
As soon as I was having progress with the people above people close to the official campaign team who had made contact with me dropped me like a hot potato, obviously thinking I was getting to close to Jeremy.
I never asked to go on the phone list Jeremy asked me.
I have never asked to visit him.
I know what Jeremy thinks about me but nobody else needs to. I was probably more realistic about Jeremy's chances of an winning an appeal during phone calls than most people.
I was quite horrified that the Official Campaign Team kept saying they had all the evidence to free Jeremy because I knew it wasn't true or Jeremy would have been let out on bail.
Because of my apparent 'closeness' to JB some of the Official Campaign team started bad rumours about me on twitter that were COMPLETELY UNTRUE. I have never said a bad word about Simon McKay.
I have had the most terrible abuse come my way, more than anyone on these forums including home visits and have gone to great lengths to stop this.
That's what you do when the harassment gets unbearable but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I won't lose too much sleep over the people that have abused me, lied about me and made untrue personal comments about me.
Some things I regret saying but that's what you do when you get pushed into a corner.
Going back to the case I have seen nothing in JB's background character to make me believe he is capable of committing such horrendous murders. So for me he either didn't do it or a third party was responsible.
That is MY opinion
-
Somebody is misquoting me or getting me mixed up with someone else because as far as I know when Sheila was WELL she was successful even travelling overseas to model.
All Sheila's problems to me related to her being very very ill which was not her fault
That is the problem about new technologies Jack, there is every chance that what you post is recorded somewhere. You did indeed ridicule Sheila and what's more I have a copy of it somewhere.
If I remember correctly you posted something along the lines that Sheila was never a successful model or even a good mother. I also remember you posting that if you had a gun you would shoot Ann Eaton such was your hate for her. Do you withdraw those remarks now Jackie?
-
I have had the most terrible abuse come my way, more than anyone on these forums including home visits and have gone to great lengths to stop this.
That's what you do when the harassment gets unbearable but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
You have had a lot of abuse, Jackie - no one can deny that. But to be honest you have dished out just as much to other people when you felt like it. When I was new you, Grahame and Maggie were unbearable in your pursuit.
I remember two of three times you posted "I've found out 100% who Mat is and am sending evidence to the mods!"
So please don't use the "I was abused."
-
Tim we will agree to differ on Sheila's health issues.
She had ongoing problems from the illness she had been diagnosed with by experts compounded by the fact her husband had told her he wouldn't take her back because he had found someone else.
It is well documented the mood swings suffered by people with Sheila's condition.
Whatever your stance on who was responsible for the murders at WHF Sheila was obviously suffering badly at times and not coping with life as documented by her last boyfriend.
If more people had understood this including Jeremy, her mother and father and the rest of her family she might still be alive today
None of us know how things panned out on Sheila's last visit that's why we are still discussing it and documentaries are made about it
Was Sheila responsible, was Jeremy responsible, was a third party responsible ??
Why are you still refusing to accept the evidence in the case Jack? The forensic evidence and the original photos of Sheila are overpowering yet you constantly preach on about us not knowing this and not knowing that.
I appreciate you don't want to accept he is guilty for many reasons but you will have to accept it one day.
I will add that it is great to see you debate the issues in a sensible manner now. I agree that you were the target of much abuse and ridicule at one time just as myself and many others were. We seem to have got past that now which in all fairness says much about us all.
We are all entitled to our differing views, that is the whole point of having a debate.
-
Its good that we can put past transgressions behind us and move on. 8@??)( So the way I see it it is best not to dwell on these issues too much but concetrate on the facts of the cases being discussed. 8**8:/:
-
John I would really like you to have that meeting with Jeremy so you could ask him all the direct awkward questions you want to so you would get the answers straight from him and I think he probably would meet you but I don't believe 'those' people around would let it happen
-
John shouldn't meet Jeremy because IMHO John is too nice and trusting for his own good .... I can see John falling for Bamber's ever so convincing sob story! No disrespect intended John ..... you have shown the patience of Job with Jackie and Steph for example whereas most people would have just binned them!
-
John I would really like you to have that meeting with Jeremy so you could ask him all the direct awkward questions you want to so you would get the answers straight from him and I think he probably would meet you but I don't believe 'those' people around would let it happen
I might write to him and ask him to phone me so that way it will be seen as his prerogative.
-
Jeremy usually writes back but I think he asks for SAE's but I never sent any, it was before I started to write to people inside, it was a while ago.
-
John shouldn't meet Jeremy because IMHO John is too nice and trusting for his own good .... I can see John falling for Bamber's ever so convincing sob story! No disrespect intended John ..... you have shown the patience of Job with Jackie and Steph for example whereas most people would have just binned them!
I agree with Tim . Jeremy is quite capable of being very charming when it suits him and has lived the lie for all these years. He would not have any problem answering your awkward questions . You would not be allowed to waterboard him ! I have had professional experience of dealing with psychopaths and they can be extraordinarily plausible when it fits their objectives . I am convinced that he has displayed classic traits of psychopathy and that all these claims that he has passed numerous prison assessments probably just mean that he has got very good at doing their tests , besides the probability that he had prior knowledge of the procedures from fellow inmates. With due respect, I think that this will be a complete waste of time and energy. There is nothing more deceptive then the public school educated psychopath !
-
John shouldn't meet Jeremy because IMHO John is too nice and trusting for his own good .... I can see John falling for Bamber's ever so convincing sob story! No disrespect intended John ..... you have shown the patience of Job with Jackie and Steph for example whereas most people would have just binned them!
I agree with Tim . Jeremy is quite capable of being very charming when it suits him and has lived the lie for all these years. He would not have any problem answering your awkward questions . You would not be allowed to waterboard him ! I have had professional experience of dealing with psychopaths and they can be extraordinarily plausible when it fits their objectives . I am convinced that he has displayed classic traits of psychopathy and that all these claims that he has passed numerous prison assessments probably just mean that he has got very good at doing their tests , besides the probability that he had prior knowledge of the procedures from fellow inmates. With due respect, I think that this will be a complete waste of time and energy. There is nothing more deceptive then the public school educated psychopath !
I accept what you both are saying but you must remember I shared space with people like this for nearly 4 years and became very accustomed to their pretences. I think it is worth a go as I can tell a bullshitter at twenty paces. @)(++(*
-
No doubt you can handle yourself John and it would be interesting to get your views on Bamber just don't come back as a Bamberette ok! You will be served all the "I walk with my dad everyday" Bamber bollocks and his sole intention will be to 'turn' you!
-
John shouldn't meet Jeremy because IMHO John is too nice and trusting for his own good .... I can see John falling for Bamber's ever so convincing sob story! No disrespect intended John ..... you have shown the patience of Job with Jackie and Steph for example whereas most people would have just binned them!
I agree with Tim . Jeremy is quite capable of being very charming when it suits him and has lived the lie for all these years. He would not have any problem answering your awkward questions . You would not be allowed to waterboard him ! I have had professional experience of dealing with psychopaths and they can be extraordinarily plausible when it fits their objectives . I am convinced that he has displayed classic traits of psychopathy and that all these claims that he has passed numerous prison assessments probably just mean that he has got very good at doing their tests , besides the probability that he had prior knowledge of the procedures from fellow inmates. With due respect, I think that this will be a complete waste of time and energy. There is nothing more deceptive then the public school educated psychopath !
I accept what you both are saying but you must remember I shared space with people like this for nearly 4 years and became very accustomed to their pretences. I think it is worth a go as I can tell a bullshitter at twenty paces. @)(++(*
John, what do you think the chances of Bamber phoning you are?
-
No doubt you can handle yourself John and it would be interesting to get your views on Bamber just don't come back as a Bamberette ok! You will be served all the "I walk with my dad everyday" Bamber bollocks and his sole intention will be to 'turn' you!
To be honest Tim I would be very much surprised if he agreed to it because he has only had contact with the yes crowd and supporters for the last 25 years. The questions I would have for him would not be what he is used to.
We shall see in any event.
-
John, what do you think the chances of Bamber phoning you are?
If he is innocent the chances will be good, if he is in fact guilty I fear he won't want to speak.
-
John, what do you think the chances of Bamber phoning you are?
If he is innocent the chances will be good, if he is in fact guilty I fear he won't want to speak.
I'll opt for the latter then!
-
I think he will mention your name to his supporters and they will discourage him from speaking to you. They seem very frightened of you for some reason.
-
John are you prepared to travel to Full Sutton to meet Jeremy if you get the chance because I think you should put that in your letter.
Reference earlier posts relating to Jeremy's background at Greshams School I was contacted by Matt Arnold a previous GMTV presenter who went to Greshams and he believes Jeremy to be innocent
-
John are you prepared to travel to Full Sutton to meet Jeremy if you get the chance because I think you should put that in your letter.
Reference earlier posts relating to Jeremy's background at Greshams School I was contacted by Matt Arnold a previous GMTV presenter who went to Greshams and he believes Jeremy to be innocent
Yes of course Jack. Why does Matt Arnold believe him to be innocent or is this yet more playground semantics?
-
John I believe it's biased around my thoughts of Jeremy not being capable because he had no history of violence or being exposed to violence and the person responsible for those murders would have
It would be based on Jeremy's character at school, in fact I don't think I have ever read anywear people from Jeremy's school saying anywhere I am not surprised he grew up to be a killer.
There is often a hint in someone's past of what's to come
-
John as there is a chance you might meet Jeremy or talk to him on the phone could you give us some idea of the scenario of the 1% you believe Jeremy could be innocent.
I am guessing you would include a third party involvement ?
-
John I believe it's biased around my thoughts of Jeremy not being capable because he had no history of violence or being exposed to violence and the person responsible for those murders would have
It would be based on Jeremy's character at school, in fact I don't think I have ever read anywear people from Jeremy's school saying anywhere I am not surprised he grew up to be a killer.
There is often a hint in someone's past of what's to come
It doesn't happen that way in many cases Jackie. Just look at the killing of Reeva Steenkamp whom gold medallist Oscar Pistorius shot four times through a locked bathroom door as she attempted to shelter from his violence.
-
John as there is a chance you might meet Jeremy or talk to him on the phone could you give us some idea of the scenario of the 1% you believe Jeremy could be innocent.
I am guessing you would include a third party involvement ?
If there was a third party involvement it was with Jeremy's agreement Jackie. No matter what way you cut it he is guilty by the facts.
I don't want to say he is 100% guilty because there is always the possibility of a terrible mistake but in all reality it isn't very likely.
-
There is often a hint in someone's past of what's to come
It's called pre-planning, Jackie!
One thing I learned recently from the Wilkes' book - At the beginning of March 1985 Osea site manager Jim Carr was off sick, and during March it was customary for caravan owners to call at the site office to pay their annual fees. So Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour manned the office for the first two weekends in March 1985, whilst Nevill and Jeremy Bamber manned it for the second two weeks. Monies were normally paid straight into the bank, but at Jeremy's suggestion they were placed in the office safe.
On the 22nd. March the office was burgled and nearly £1000 was stolen from it..... 'nuff said!!!
-
Two very thought provoking posts taken from the blue, one regarding PII and a MOJ case Steven Johnston
The other regarding the impossibilities getting the Bamber case back to the appeal court
John you probably know a lot about the Johnston case?
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #6 on: Today at 12:02 AM »
Quote from: Neil on Yesterday at 11:52 PM
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
Just watched a very interesting documentary on Sky Crime channel about the MOJ of Steven Johnston. This man was deliberately fitted up by police and documents pointing to his innocence were deliberately withheld from his defence. Just goes to show - it happens and this guy served 10 years as a result!!
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
He has since been released thanks to the SCCRC and the detective inspector (Richard Munro) has been convicted for withholding evidence from prosecutors. Sadly because of ineptitude, the real killers were never brought to justice!!
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
« Last Edit: Today at 12:15 AM by Caroline »
Logged
Martin
Full Member
Posts: 66
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #7 on: Today at 04:07 AM »
Quote from: petey on Yesterday at 11:46 PM
1 - Why on earth should Julie be forced to undergo a lie detector test? Are u suggesting that every single time there is some element of doubt over whether a witness at trial is telling the absolute 100% truth, they should be forced to undergo a lie detector test?! That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!
3 - This is an impossible question to answer as nobody on this forum knows the full extent of the new evidence. If the event occurred today then DNA would prove one way or the other whether JB was guilty.
4 - Again an impossible question to answer, as we do not know the reason why certain documents are withheld under pii. There may very well be genuine reasons for witholding from the defence in which case they should not be released. I think it would be very helpful for public perception if Essex police provided a document list of what was being withheld for the defence and the reasons for doing so. Without this it just gives people an excuse to jump on the bandwagon and assume that all withheld evidence points to JBs innocence. This could well not be the case.
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
-
Two very thought provoking posts taken from the blue, one regarding PII and a MOJ case Steven Johnston
The other regarding the impossibilities getting the Bamber case back to the appeal court
John you probably know a lot about the Johnston case?
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #6 on: Today at 12:02 AM »
Quote from: Neil on Yesterday at 11:52 PM
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
Just watched a very interesting documentary on Sky Crime channel about the MOJ of Steven Johnston. This man was deliberately fitted up by police and documents pointing to his innocence were deliberately withheld from his defence. Just goes to show - it happens and this guy served 10 years as a result!!
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html
He has since been released thanks to the SCCRC and the detective inspector (Richard Munro) has been convicted for withholding evidence from prosecutors. Sadly because of ineptitude, the real killers were never brought to justice!!
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html
« Last Edit: Today at 12:15 AM by Caroline »
Logged
Martin
Full Member
Posts: 66
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #7 on: Today at 04:07 AM »
Quote from: petey on Yesterday at 11:46 PM
1 - Why on earth should Julie be forced to undergo a lie detector test? Are u suggesting that every single time there is some element of doubt over whether a witness at trial is telling the absolute 100% truth, they should be forced to undergo a lie detector test?! That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!
3 - This is an impossible question to answer as nobody on this forum knows the full extent of the new evidence. If the event occurred today then DNA would prove one way or the other whether JB was guilty.
4 - Again an impossible question to answer, as we do not know the reason why certain documents are withheld under pii. There may very well be genuine reasons for witholding from the defence in which case they should not be released. I think it would be very helpful for public perception if Essex police provided a document list of what was being withheld for the defence and the reasons for doing so. Without this it just gives people an excuse to jump on the bandwagon and assume that all withheld evidence points to JBs innocence. This could well not be the case.
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
No offence, Jac, but that reply to Petey is one of the biggest piles of plop I've ever read. Catch you later, duck. XX
-
For the record it is my understanding that any information to be held under PII by Essex Police or anyone else has to be presented to a High Court judge in detail along with the reasons why such information should be held under PII. So anyone implying that EP are deliberately hiding evidence supporting Bamber's innocense is also accusing a High Court judge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
Furthermore the premise that Essex Police would 'hide' crucial Bamberite evidense under a PII cert. is quite ludicrous in itself. I am quite certain that EP could find a better place to 'hide' any such phantom evidence; in a shredding machine or over a match for example!
Silly Bamberettes!
-
For the record it is my understanding that any information to be held under PII by Essex Police or anyone else has to be presented to a High Court judge in detail along with the reasons why such information should be held under PII. So anyone implying that EP are deliberately hiding evidence supporting Bamber's innocense is also accusing a High Court judge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
Furthermore the premise that Essex Police would 'hide' crucial Bamberite evidense under a PII cert. is quite ludicrous in itself. I am quite certain that EP could find a better place to 'hide' any such phantom evidence; in a shredding machine or over a match for example!
Silly Bamberettes!
This is what happens when people have TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS. They wait till the wife has gone to work then put on a balaclava, watch The New Avengers, get over-excited and run round the house shooting gun-fingers and knocking the capodimonte over.
Tch. ?8)@)-)
-
For the record it is my understanding that any information to be held under PII by Essex Police or anyone else has to be presented to a High Court judge in detail along with the reasons why such information should be held under PII. So anyone implying that EP are deliberately hiding evidence supporting Bamber's innocense is also accusing a High Court judge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
Furthermore the premise that Essex Police would 'hide' crucial Bamberite evidense under a PII cert. is quite ludicrous in itself. I am quite certain that EP could find a better place to 'hide' any such phantom evidence; in a shredding machine or over a match for example!
Silly Bamberettes!
This is what happens when people have TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS. They wait till the wife has gone to work then put on a balaclava, watch The New Avengers, get over-excited and run round the house shooting gun-fingers and knocking the capodimonte over.
Tch. ?8)@)-)
I wish ! Only in for a quick hot choc to thaw out . Biting Easterly wind but still another 75 hawthorn to be planted in new 100 metre hedge in field. Bamberites, put on your wellies ( no funny comments please, Shona ) and help save the planet . Jeremy can come too if they will let you out for the day . You love the rugged outdoor farming life, don't you matey ?
-
For the record it is my understanding that any information to be held under PII by Essex Police or anyone else has to be presented to a High Court judge in detail along with the reasons why such information should be held under PII. So anyone implying that EP are deliberately hiding evidence supporting Bamber's innocense is also accusing a High Court judge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
Furthermore the premise that Essex Police would 'hide' crucial Bamberite evidense under a PII cert. is quite ludicrous in itself. I am quite certain that EP could find a better place to 'hide' any such phantom evidence; in a shredding machine or over a match for example!
Silly Bamberettes!
This is what happens when people have TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS. They wait till the wife has gone to work then put on a balaclava, watch The New Avengers, get over-excited and run round the house shooting gun-fingers and knocking the capodimonte over.
Tch. ?8)@)-)
Ooh er!! Just read this back and it looks like I'm accusing Tim of owning crappodimonte. I'm sure he doesn't. Or a tosh like a knackered dandy brush. Or an angry bottom. 8((()*/
-
For the record it is my understanding that any information to be held under PII by Essex Police or anyone else has to be presented to a High Court judge in detail along with the reasons why such information should be held under PII. So anyone implying that EP are deliberately hiding evidence supporting Bamber's innocense is also accusing a High Court judge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
Furthermore the premise that Essex Police would 'hide' crucial Bamberite evidense under a PII cert. is quite ludicrous in itself. I am quite certain that EP could find a better place to 'hide' any such phantom evidence; in a shredding machine or over a match for example!
Silly Bamberettes!
This is what happens when people have TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS. They wait till the wife has gone to work then put on a balaclava, watch The New Avengers, get over-excited and run round the house shooting gun-fingers and knocking the capodimonte over.
Tch. ?8)@)-)
I wish ! Only in for a quick hot choc to thaw out . Biting Easterly wind but still another 75 hawthorn to be planted in new 100 metre hedge in field. Bamberites, put on your wellies ( no funny comments please, Shona ) and help save the planet . Jeremy can come too if they will let you out for the day . You love the rugged outdoor farming life, don't you matey ?
Ho ho!! Jeremy the horny-handed son of soil and tractor expert!! Yeah, right!! @)(++(*
-
That's half the trouble . The boy hated farming and envied Sheila and Colin's London life. All this stuff about loving farming, wanting to buy a little farm in Dorset ( I think ) with all the compo and media loot he might get when his innocence is finally established is pure
Jeremy bull poo. Lunch over, back to the land. Muddy and cold. I can see JB's point. Must be nice and warm in the braille workshop, then a session in the gym or the art class followed by a bit of tele .
-
Innocent men have been kept in Jail because vital evidence has been witheld from the defence
FACT
How many more innocent men are still in prison because of this
John any thoughts on this case???
Steven A.R. Johnston
Billy Allison
Steven pictured with his grandfather, then wife,
and daughter in 1990
Police Inspector Jailed for fitting up Steven Johnston and Billy Allison
BBC News, 25/07/12
Detective Inspector Richard Munro has been jailed for five years for withholding evidence. He was found guilty of attempting to defeat the ends of justice, Munro led the investigation into the killing of Andrew Forsyth in Dunfermline in 1995. Steven Johnston and Billy Allison were jailed for the murder.
Passing sentence on Munro, judge Lord Doherty said: "The course of conduct you engaged in was a shocking affront to the principles which underly the criminal justice process. Your offence was committed in a variety of ways over a considerable period. It was calculated and deceitful. You contributed substantially to the convictions of Johnston and Allison being miscarriages of justice. You were in a position of trust. The criminal justice system depends upon police officers acting with honesty and integrity."
monitored by MOJUK
Senior police officers in charge of case accused of perverting the course of justice
Chief Superintendent Richard Munro and Detective Inspector Kenneth Chatham have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to this case
Read more in the Daily Record article by Annie Brown 26 November 2008
Convictions overturned - freed on appeal
17 March 2006
Steven and his co-accused Billy Allison have had their convictions overturned by the Scottish Court of Appeal. For more information see
Police face inquiry after two freed over murder trial 'lies'
Murder trial 'misled' by police
6 May 2001
Police probed over
withheld evidence
Top law-lord makes outspoken criticisms of Fife force and claims that officers were 'usurping judge, jury and justice'
By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor
A Scottish police force is facing a criminal inquiry into claims that it suppressed evidence which could have cleared a man currently serving life in prison for murder.
A Sunday Herald investigation has uncovered how Fife Constabulary failed to pass on witness statements to the Crown Office which pointed towards the innocence of Steven Johnston, who was convicted in 1996 of beating his friend Andrew Forsyth to death at his home in Dunfermline. Documents have also been uncovered which reveal the Crown's outrage at being "misled" by the police.
There are now widespread calls from senior members of the legal profession and politicians for the officers involved to be suspended from duty pending a wide-ranging inquiry. The Scottish Executive has pledged to set up an independent police complaints authority in the wake of the barrage of criticism.
Lord Fraser of Carmyle, the former Scottish Lord Advocate, said Fife police had undermined the concept of "judge, jury and justice". The Scottish National Party has compared the conduct of the police to "the administration of justice under the Gulag system in the old Soviet Union", and the Scottish Conservative Party said the case should be immediately referred to the Court of Appeal. There are further demands for a root and branch overhaul of the regulations surrounding the passing of information from the police to the Crown.
Civil liberty groups say that every "major case" investigated by the officers involved must now be re-examined in case some officers in the Fife force were operating a policy similar to that of the West Midlands Constabulary - which became notorious for miscarriages of justice, including the Birmingham Six. That could lead to potential grounds for appeal in hundreds of cases in Fife.
The case centres on the police belief that Forsyth was killed on Friday, November 3 1995. During the trial, the jury was told that "to bring home a conviction against Steven Johnston, the deceased would require to have died on Friday, November 3".
However, a number of witnesses claim they saw Forsyth alive after that date. But their statements were never passed to the regional procurator fiscal, who is meant to take the decision on whether to prosecute an individual after taking account of the "full facts" of a case.
A file on the case has been passed to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by Johnston's solicitor, Stephen Morrison.
The SCCRC has the power to refer the case to the Court of Appeal and can recommend to the current Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, that he seek to prosecute any police officers found to have perverted the course of justice. During its investigations, the SCCRC uncovered four statements from witnesses which suggested Forsyth was alive after November 3 but which Fife Constabulary had not passed to the Crown.
They include the claims of a local housing officer who went to the dead man's house on Tuesday November 7. She and a colleague looked through Forsyth's window, directly at the site where his body was supposed to be, but saw no corpse.
Another witness, a local shopkeeper, told police he last saw Forsyth alive on Saturday, November 4. The police told the shopkeeper that this was "impossible". Johnston's lawyer, Stephen Morrison, said: "They tried to convince him that he couldn't have been right but he feels he is 99% right."
A third witness claims in her statement that she saw Forsyth as she was making her way to work on Thursday November 9. A fourth statement also implies that yet another witness saw Forsyth alive on November 4.
There was no forensic evidence linking Johnston to the killing. The blood of two different people was found in the victim's house - neither type matched Forsyth or Johnston, who had no history of violent crime.
An independent post mortem showed that Forsyth probably died sometime after Tuesday November 7 and certainly not before Sunday November 5. The Sunday Herald has also discovered that Fife Constabulary attempted to suppress other evidence from a further six witnesses prior to the murder trial. After a chance conversation, says Morrison, the defence did manage to locate these witnesses and they appeared in court.
In a letter dated February 3 1997 from the Crown Office, Deputy Crown Agent Norman McFadyen says he met with the Deputy Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary, Graham Bennet, adding with reference to the initial six witnesses: "The Lord Advocate and I are in no doubt that the information which was provided to the police by the witnesses in this case should indeed have been drawn to the attention of the procurator fiscal".
McFadyen goes on to admit that the Crown was not aware that the police had suppressed material, adding: "The Lord Advocate has instructed that it be made clear to the Chief Constable that it is wholly unacceptable that misleading information was given to the procurator fiscal when these matters were raised."
Morrison said: "This seems a clear cut case of deliberate suppression of evidence. If that is the case then it is a criminal offence and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. My client is very bitter and angry, but he believes he will soon be out of prison and his name cleared."
Lord Fraser of Carmyle, the former Lord Advocate, said: "The alleged conduct by Fife Constabulary is totally fatal to the interests of justice and utterly wrong in practice.
"It is not difficult to conceive of circumstances where withholding information might be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There is a disturbing practice in Scottish police where they fail to understand that all information must be conveyed to the Crown.
"It is not the job of the police to decide what to send to the Lord Advocate and what to keep from him. The police must get this into their heads. We need an immediate investigation into this case to find out if this was a case of incompetence or something more sinister. If this was deliberate there should be a criminal inquiry. From now on it must be a disciplinary, if not criminal offence, for the police to fail to pass on evidence. By behaving like this the police are usurping the role of the judge, the jury and justice itself."
The SNP's justice spokesman, Michael Matheson, said: "The officers involved must be immediately suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry. This goes right to the heart of the administration of an open and fair justice system. It is the most cynical approach to justice I have ever heard of - it is reminiscent of what went on in the Gulag system of the former Soviet Union."
Phil Gallie, Tory justice spokesman, said: "We need an investigation into the way the police weeded out these statements. There are obvious grounds for appeal now. If the appeal is upheld then we need to look at a criminal investigation."
John Scott, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, said: "Steven Johnston's case should be referred to Court of Appeal as soon as possible."
Steven Johnston has been convicted of murder. He is serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit.
Steven Johnston and the victim - Andrew Forsyth - were known to associate with a number of alcoholics that congregated at a place called 'The Glen'. Andrew Forsyth himself was an alcoholic, and was regularly seen in a battered and bruised condition due to people looking for repayment of money. Steven Johnston used to drink for days at a time and stay sober for weeks, finding work to save money for the next drinking binge.
Steven Johnston admitted going to the victim's home on November 3rd 1995, but he had been invited there by Andrew Forsyth for a drink. Six days later Andrew Forsyth's body was discovered lying on his living room floor.
Steven Johnston was arrested for the murder of Andrew Forsyth between 3rd and 9th of November 1995. This charge was later amended to read that the murder took place specifically on Friday 3rd November 1995. There was no evidence against Steven Johnston, only the words of alcoholics. He was, for instance, supposed to have blood on his jeans up to his knees, but nobody in the pub saw any blood on him. It was also alleged that one of the group of alcoholics had looked through the windows of the victim's home on 4th November, and saw the victim either dead or drunk on the floor.
On 7th November 1995 a police officer responding to a 999 call called at the home of the victim. This police officer looked through the living room window and although he saw certain items lying around, there was no body. The officer accepted that if a body had been on the floor, he would have seen it. On 9th November 1995, the mother of the victim called to the house at approx. 10.00pm and found him dead on the floor of the living room.
There was no forensic evidence against Steven. Blood found at the scene of the crime comes from two different blood groups, neither of which match the victim or the accused. The pathology report stated that the victim had already been dead for somewhere between 24 and 48 hours when the body was found. This pathologist also said that "he was in no substantial doubt that the deceased was ALIVE 96 hours before the body was discovered".
It has been established that between 3rd and 7th November 1995 Andrew Forsyth was seen and spoken to - on at least six occasions - by local people who all knew him. Although this evidence was given to the police, it was deemed "irrelevant", and was never passed on to the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland).
How can a person who was supposed to have been murdered on the 3rd November still be walking around enjoying himself a few days after his alleged death? Furthermore, is it in the interest of British Justice for police officers to "withhold" or "ignore" evidence such as this and fail to inform either the Prosecution or Defence?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has been investigating Steven Johnston's case since 1st April 1999. Three further witnesses claim to have seen the victim alive AFTER 3rd November 1995. A further witness claims to have looked through the victim's living room window at 2.15pm on Tuesday 7th November 1995. He does not report seeing a body.
Steven Johnston is serving his sentence at Perth prison. His case is still under investigation by the SCCRC.
STEVEN JOHNSTON 21578
D-2-25 HMP Perth,
Scotland PH2 8AT
If you can help or want more information contact Steven at the above address.
-
We all know miscarriages of justice occur. However, just because they do occur that doesn't mean that Bamber's case is a MOJ. I personally don't blame Bamber for making a big deal out of the phone logs. However, the fact is that they were written by someone a long way from the action with no option of correcting conflicting information as they were updating as they went along. It beggars belief that there would be anything at all to gain from framing Jeremy when the evidence apparently showed it was clearly a case of 4 murders and a suicide. Personally I find it much easier to believe someone just made a mistake in the phone log than I do to believe a slightly built woman (with little or limited experience of using firearms) would go on a crazed killing spree including battering her tall and heavily built father yet not have a single mark on her.
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.
-
We all know miscarriages of justice occur. However, just because they do occur that doesn't mean that Bamber's case is a MOJ. I personally don't blame Bamber for making a big deal out of the phone logs. However, the fact is that they were written by someone a long way from the action with no option of correcting conflicting information as they were updating as they went along. It beggars belief that there would be anything at all to gain from framing Jeremy when the evidence apparently showed it was clearly a case of 4 murders and a suicide. Personally I find it much easier to believe someone just made a mistake in the phone log than I do to believe a slightly built woman (with little or limited experience of using firearms) would go on a crazed killing spree including battering her tall and heavily built father yet not have a single mark on her.
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.
Well put Goatboy. People who knew Sheila say that she disliked guns. It is wrong to assume that all farmer's daughters were involved in shooting. My wife is a farmer's daughter and hasn't a clue about guns but used to enjoy beating which involves basically disturbing the poor birds, usually pheasants bred for shooting, from the undergrowth so that they fly into the path of the folk with shotguns. My wife describes it as having been a nice social day out in the open and beaters often earned some remuneration as well or at least free food and maybe a drink. Sheila was apparently quite a social animal so might have enjoyed it on that basis or maybe just got roped in with Colin ( a townie ! ) by Nevill to help with the shoot which was very much a feature of the farmers' social life. You are quite correct in your view that if a person was interested in shooting they would be out there with a shotgun banging away rather then beating.
-
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.
That's correct goatboy. Sheila hated guns to such an extent that she wouldn't allow the twins to have toy guns.
Another point worth repeating is the claim by Jeremy Bamber that he left the rifle on the settle in the utility room with the magazine lying separately nearby. This was all part of his plan to put Sheila in the frame. He may have got away with that when the children weren't around but Nevill and June would never have allowed it when they were in the house. Had he left the rifle lying around I have no doubt the Nevill would have put it away.
-
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.
That's correct goatboy. Sheila hated guns to such an extent that she wouldn't allow the twins to have toy guns.
Another point worth repeating is the claim by Jeremy Bamber that he left the rifle on the settle in the utility room with the magazine lying separately nearby. This was all part of his plan to put Sheila in the frame. He may have got away with that when the children weren't around but Nevill and June would never have allowed it when they were in the house. Had he left the rifle lying around I have no doubt the Nevill would have put it away.
I totally agree. There is no way in the world that a gun would have been left out for the boys to find. This also explains why Sheila's print was found on a shotgun. She would have picked it up at some stage (possibly weeks before) and given it to Ralph to put it out of harm's way. Ralph was an adoring Grandad (look at that photo of him reading to the boys) and he was safety-conscious. A gun would not have been "left on the settle" for two little boys to pick up.
-
From everything that I have heard about Nevill and June, including years before they were murdered, they were both caring, great people
who enjoyed having the children of friends and the extended family around at WHF , all very different from the utter poisonous rubbish put out by some posters on the blue forum who have clearly never met members of the family, describe it as dysfunctional and indulge themselves in pseudo psychological explanations for what happened. Christmas for example was a great time at WHF which was a lovely family home . They were very used to having young children around and it is highly unlikely that they would have tolerated guns being left around in a cavalier fashion. I suspect that Nevill would have been particularly careful to ensure that his feckless son did not create dangers for his much loved grandchildren.
-
There was NO phone call from Nevile.
There was NO conversation about the children being taken away from their mum.
Bamber DID NOT take the gun the night before to shoot rabbits.
Sheila DID NOT bark like a dog to "confuse" the police.
Sheila was NOT found downstairs, she was murdered where she was photographed. See the bloodstains.
June didnt shoot anyone that night either.
Nevile would have called 999.
How would Sheila manage to carry all those bullets around with her? No pockets in nightdress.
How come Sheila's nightdress is only stained with her own blood?
Why is there no blood on the phone?
Why were there only minimal traces of Gun Residue found on Sheila?
Why were Sheila's feet clean?
Why were her nails in perfect condition?
The red forum solved the Bamber case!! Woo-hoo!!
In your face Tesko, you fat little knob. @)(++(*
8)--))
-
Has anyone seen Bamber's latest news?
8)--))
-
Has anyone seen Bamber's latest news?
8)--))
Yes, the European Court have effectively closed the door to any possibility of parole for our double child killer Bamber.
-
Oops!! BBC and Sky screwed up a bit, didn't they?
Never mind, it won't make an ounce of difference. 8(>((
That is the problem these days, nobody reads things properly. The first reports said it had been thrown out and then it said that a review process was lacking.
The way I see it is all they have said is that there should be some degree of review occasionally and this is what the UK had prior to 2003 and Northern Ireland still does have. The Court has already accepted that it is in order to lock dangerous people up for full life sentences. All they are saying now is that it is reasonable to review the sentence occasionally. Personally I do not see anything wrong in that as if prison supposed to work then it might be worth putting it to the test every quarter century or so.
In many cases the prisoners may not wish to be part of the review process because they are institutionalized or resigned to their crimes and wish to remain "inside." In other cases they may claim religious or political justification for their crimes and be otherwise unrepentant or barking mad so the review would promptly find that they should remain in prison. In the case of prisoners claiming innocence then they have had adequate reviews over the years with appeals and CRCC so they can hardly claim they have not had the chance to air their views and have a fair hearing.
The idea of a review does not offend me as much as Ian Brady making use of Mental Health tribunals at great cost or of Bamber repeatedly demanding an appeal based on regurgitation of "old" evidence presented as "new." A review process could be a lot more cost effective and be little more than the Parole Board picking up the file and saying "Has this guy moved on over the last 25/40 years?" (whatever the original sentence was) "No, oh well, back to the bottom if the pile again."
The European Court is not saying that prisoners should be automatically released, just that there should be some sort of periodic review process.
-
A phoenix rises from the ashes of a failed appeal.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/)
Any guesses who that is in the lie-detector's chair... Doesn't look like Bamber to me? (L...u....g....g)
Who's behind this site then ?
Who was behind this site? They appear to have stopped blogging in 2014?
-
Who was behind this site? They appear to have stopped blogging in 2014?
The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.
-
The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.
Thanks Caroline but who from the CT ?
Already seen his recent bs http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg583341#msg583341
-
Thanks Caroline but who from the CT ?
Already seen his recent bs http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg583341#msg583341
No idea, but I don't think Bamber writes. them - could be wrong but they don't sound like him.
-
No idea, but I don't think Bamber writes. them - could be wrong but they don't sound like him.
Could the person who initially wrote the blog decided he was guilty after all ?
-
Could the person who initially wrote the blog decided he was guilty after all ?
CT team members have left the fold in the past, their reason for doing so may be that they had a change of heart but no one would ever admit that.
-
CT team members have left the fold in the past, their reason for doing so may be that they had a change of heart but no one would ever admit that.
In the about section of the blog it says
“This is a blog run by an individual campaigning for the release of prisoner Jeremy Bamber.
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/p/about.html
But if whoever started the blog had ‘a change of heart’ why not take it down? It’s a really bizarre blog
The disclaimer states:
‘Whilst I am grateful to the Official Jeremy Bamber Campaign for their support, I must stress that this is a Blog run entirely independently and the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Jeremy Bamber or his Campaign
One of the headers is called ’Bamber Tea Monster 2nd Oct 2013
And starts,
‘Ooooh I tell you, that Bamber - he's really gone and done it now! Flipping heck! I'm livid, fuming, angry, furious and hopping mad!
Their first blog was made in Jan 2013 and headed,
Fool Me Once....?
”Here’s one to wrap up your weekend with.
The super Police folk involved in convicting Jeremy Bamber of the murder of his entire family would have you believe that at first, way back on August 7, 1986 ‘twas Bamber who tricked scores of Police officers and medical personnel into believing his sister Sheila had murdered her relatives before taking her own life when in fact – they say – it was he who did for them all.
They would have you believe that once and only once were they tricked – but then they got wise to that devious rascal and put all the pieces together and it wasn’t long before they knew the truth...!
Zzzzz...
Let’s have a looksie here, shall we. Let’s disregard everything we know about the lack of crime scene preservation by police, the sheer lack of respect shown by them to Jeremy’s dead relatives, the logs, the loudhailer – everything. Let’s just wipe it from our brains and start again.
Let us go along with the fantasy that, somehow, Jeremy did manage to trick each and every one of these people. Every person from every profession – each of them bamboozled.
Okay, fine. They got duped once, but never again. Oh no.Them's too smart.
Except, it would seem, master magician Bamber managed it again – or so this log you see before you would appear to suggest.
You see, back in the real world, not only do we know that everything that happened that night – both inside the house, outside the house and back inside the house once police went in, points to Jeremy being an innocent – but the Police knew it too.
We know that as late on as September – almost a full month after the killings – D. Supt Ainsley says in this interview that a ‘review’ of the case was to be carried out on his orders.
This review, he says, was carried out. It’s conclusion?
He states: “When Kenneally [fellow officer] was asked to give us the results of his review, he stated that the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible.”
How very mysterious. A review carried out a month after the killings confirmed the original verdict – yet how is that it has never been disclosed just what evidence was used to carry out this review or indeed what it uncovered?
The FACT here – not opinion – the FACT, is that the Police staged their own review of everything they found and saw that night and still found Sheila to be responsible. So they'll say they were duped again, eh?
Do we still blame Harry ‘Bamber’ Houdini, then? Or is it about time the justice system and those responsible finally admitted to what they knew then and what they know now – Jeremy Bamber is innocent and should be freed.
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/
-
The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.
I don’t think this blogger is from the CT per se
“I must stress that this is a Blog run entirely independently and the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Jeremy Bamber or his Campaign
The blog ran from 27th Jan 2013 to 22nd Sept 2014
Poppy Ann Miller appears to be one of less than a handful to have ever commented on the blog?
She states here http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2014/09/give-us-someprivacy.html#comment-form
Poppy Ann Miller23 September 2014 at 03:10
I also went to Pages Lane with my camera, discovered that although there was no Private Road sign there was a securely locked 5-bar-gate, with what I am sure was a CCTV fingy. I parked up close to the gate, left the car engine running and took some pics, and the car cut-out! Took me ages to get it started again...Ooooooooo!!!
&
Poppy Ann Miller 24 September 2014 at 02:20
‘And... you have to wonder what kind of 'personality disorder' could be attributed to someone who is able to take children to live in the house where five members of the family were killed! It was such an awful, tragic; I would go as far as saying, evil, event, that in my opinion White House Farm should have been knocked down.
-
This was blogged on 1st April 2014 with the header,
You'll Never Believe It!!
”Have you heard the news? What a crazy day…
First I heard on the radio that we now have to eat SEVEN portions of fruit and vegetables per day to maintain a healthy lifestyle, upgraded from five.
Then I saw in my newspaper that chickens are starting to lay square eggs… Horrendous!
And now I’ve just discovered that we’re jailing innocent men… What’s going on there?
Word has it that, back in 1985, a young mother suffering from mental illness tragically took the lives of her parents and children before her own. Unbelievably traumatic, yes. But, without the support mechanisms that many of those in her condition would benefit from nowadays, it is not entirely unfathomable.
Anyway… soon after, folks started poking the finger at her brother, Jeremy. Not seemingly for any particular reason – i.e. him actually committing the offences - but more likely out of either shame, embarrassment, greed or any share of the above.
In any case, I hear this Jeremy ended up in jail, and is still there! This despite the fact that he managed to apparently kill five persons (his own family in their own home, don’t forget) without leaving a single trace of evidence.
A fair few people b....red up and fluffed their lines here so tracks needed to be covered (like bicycle tracks in mud, only there weren’t any), lies needed to be told and corruption needed to be committed! Oh yeah it sounds like they had a right old knees-up making sure he took the fall.
What an affair. Flying bikes, wet suits, clocks that work backwards, tricks of the light, musical telephones and a bowl of sugar. And you did read me right – this was back in 1985. Nearly 30 years ago!
Okay, okay. APRIL FOOLS!!!!
Hahaha! Did I get you?? Sorry, I just couldn’t hold it in any more. I’ve just actually wet myself!
Come on. You didn’t actually think we’d jail someone for life for murdering five members of his own family without any evidence or fact to base the conviction on, did you?
You didn’t genuinely believe that the half-cocked, Jeremy-has-horns HOBNOB theories did you?
No, no. You silly beans. That sort of thing doesn’t happen in the real world. Happy April Fools, everyone!
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2014/04/
And on 27th November 2013 they blogged,
Karma Has Dreadlocks...
‘Hello. A wise bear once told me "...if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you - that's just karma." The bear was right you know.
I'm a nice blogger who does nice things, yet bad things do still happen to me - I stubbed my toe the other day. Horrific. So you know it isn't an exact science, but the theme is generally sound.
Jeremy Bamber is a good egg; he doesn't do bad things like stealing schoolkids' lunch money, farting at a vicar or murdering his entire family, for instance. Yet bad things are happening to him - like spending about 30 years in prison as an innocent man. Not good.
However, karma is alive and well in some parts of Essex and beyond. Some might say that those who spend their time collecting things like hoover dust and vast, vast amounts of sound moderators have indeed done some naughty things in their time, so what might become of them?
If life has a natural justice, then it shall come to pass that they'll be violated quite substantially by this lady. Her name is Kharma. She's a professional wrestler, you know. And a big one at that. Look at the size of her.
You wouldn't want her to leap on top of you now would you? No sir. I am afraid however it may be unavoidable. The folk who conspired to send Jeremy to prison will soon gaze into the future and see this hurtling towards them at considerable speed, albeit in a metaphorical way. We couldn't possibly afford to hire "Kharma" to go around and sit on them all, as quirky as that would be.
So, like any good soap opera and like any good professional wrestling match, karma tends to follow a bit of a script and the outcome is already determined - life merely allows us to live through to that ending. For those of us with the power to think independently (and the ability to count bodies accurately and tell the difference between 'male' and 'female'...); what happens next is clear.
Kharma's a bitch! She also looks good with dreadlocks... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/
Who was discussing sound moderators around this time?
Yes, the CCRC have almost unlimited powers to access documents, photos. Statements and all other evidence. The only time they can not do so is when it effects national security or is covered under the Official Secrets Act.
As of course do the police, so it shouldn’t take them too long to track down the blogs author
-
I don’t think this blogger is from the CT per se
“I must stress that this is a Blog run entirely independently and the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Jeremy Bamber or his Campaign
The blog ran from 27th Jan 2013 to 22nd Sept 2014
Poppy Ann Miller appears to be one of less than a handful to have ever commented on the blog?
She states here http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2014/09/give-us-someprivacy.html#comment-form
Poppy Ann Miller 23 September 2014 at 03:10
I also went to Pages Lane with my camera, discovered that although there was no Private Road sign there was a securely locked 5-bar-gate, with what I am sure was a CCTV fingy. I parked up close to the gate, left the car engine running and took some pics, and the car cut-out! Took me ages to get it started again...Ooooooooo!!!
&
Poppy Ann Miller 24 September 2014 at 02:20
‘And... you have to wonder what kind of 'personality disorder' could be attributed to someone who is able to take children to live in the house where five members of the family were killed! It was such an awful, tragic; I would go as far as saying, evil, event, that in my opinion White House Farm should have been knocked down.
Didn’t Poppy Ann Miller remove one of her blogs http://poppymeze.blogspot.com/2011/10/justice4jeremy-evidence-of-collusion.html
http://poppyannmiller.blogspot.com/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=252.msg565054#msg565054
Could this blog belong to her?
On 18th November 2014
Poppy Ann Miller blogged here http://poppyannmiller.blogspot.com/2014/
‘Factory Fodder!
I was always in the 'A' stream in primary and junior schools. Achieved high marks in English, maths, or arithmetic, as we called it then, one of my junior school teachers said I should go to grammar. I think I was 'naturally' bright. I failed the eleven plus primarily because the Head socialised with some of the better off parents (he even drove a Rolls Royce, where did he get the money for that?) Anyway, he chose a group of children from these families, and with hindsight, regardless of their academic ability, spent hours grooming them, in the days when 'grooming' did not have paedophile connotations, though now we would also call him a paedophile due to his inappropriate 'touching'. My father even spoke to him, in no uncertain terms, about his refusal to place me at the top of the class even though I achieved some of the highest marks in tests and exams. See my debut novel, 'Bed of Black Flowers: Diary of an Unwelcomed Child' - plug. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0992853206
Could she also be the author behind ‘The Campaigner Blog’ ?
She states here http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/poppy-ann-miller
‘I have been supporting and writing to Jeremy since I watched ‘Crimes that Shook Britain’ on television. I was shocked at the lack of information and evidence in the public domain, ashamed of my lack of knowledge – felt guilty that twenty six years had passed since the murders of all of Jeremy’s family and all that time I had been gullible in my acceptance of the ‘story’ as presented and promulgated by the press and others. A myth has grown up around this tragedy and it appears to me that it is deliberately fostered by those who have a vested interest in continuing that myth and for whom the truth is a very dangerous thing; the ‘outing’ of which will result in lives irrevocably changed.
-
I don’t think this blogger is from the CT per se
CT team members have left the fold in the past, their reason for doing so may be that they had a change of heart but no one would ever admit that.
Has Bamber ‘discarded’ Poppy Ann Miller and ‘hoovered’ her back up?
This blog appears to have been removed also?
Poppy Ann Miller™
@PoppyMeze
No Offence Guest Blog by Poppy Ann Miller Prison and Privilege http://no-offence.org/showthread.php/6720-Prison-and-Privilege… via
@nooffencecic
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoppyMeze/status/304576697460731905
& this
NoOffence!
@NoOffenceCIC
"Guest blog: Poppy Ann Miller ----Therapist - Counselling and Stress Management'Prison and Privilege'" http://bit.ly/QKJ8Jk
https://www.no-offence.org/guest-blog/
‘NO OFFENCE! is an award-winning Community Interest Company with a vision, ‘to be the leading cross sector criminal justice community in the world.” Our mission is to support and encourage the criminal justice sector to exchange information, collaborate and promote wider societal understanding of the solutions needed to effect positive change.
REGISTER for FREE and you will have the opportunity to network with over 2000 like-minded professionals, engage in debate, source employment and keep up to date with all the latest Criminal Justice News.
Today she tweeted,
Poppy Ann Miller™
@PoppyMeze
I never kill insects, slugs, bugs and the like - today I tried to help a bee escape from my dining room & away from my dogs - and I decapitated it #:-{
-
The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.
Aunt Agatha when did Bamber have his ‘dirty protests’ were they before, during or after you met him?
-
Aunt Agatha when did Bamber have his ‘dirty protests’ were they before, during or after you met him?
The dirty protests were in Frankland in Durham so quite early on in his career.
-
The dirty protests were in Frankland in Durham so quite early on in his career.
Was Aunt Agatha in contact with him at this stage ?
Would be interested to hear what she knows about these ‘events’
The dirty side of prison; cleaning after a dirty protest
“In the UK, prison authorities are responsible for the welfare of inmates during their detainment. This includes the provision of hygienic prison and holding cells. While it’s not always possible to stop a dirty protest from happening, it is essential for the clean up and disinfection of the affected areas as soon as possible to help prevent the spread of disease, which is a particular risk in confined spaces like prisons.
Tuberculosis, HIV, and Hepatitis C are just some of the risks to prison staff and other inmates during a dirty protest where bodily fluids, including blood and faeces, are smeared across cell walls or even communal areas.
Cleaning the affected areas requires specialist personal protective equipment (PPE) and the necessary products and equipment to fully clean and sanatise the areas.
https://www.idealresponse.co.uk/blog/the-dirty-side-of-prison-cleaning-after-a-dirty-protest/
-
No idea, but I don't think Bamber writes. them - could be wrong but they don't sound like him.
It says here https://problogger.com/5-reasons-to-blog-anonymously-and-5-reasons-not-to/
under the header, ‘5 Reasons to Blog Anonymously (and 5 Reasons Not To)
The truth always appears
‘In such an interconnected society, if enough people put effort into it, they will discover your true identity. If/when this happens, you need to consider whether or not your readers will feel betrayed or angry towards you. You should consider this even if you plan on going public with your identity yourself at some point.
Feeling a loss of accountability
Many people think blogging anonymously protects them from whatever they write, so they are incredibly rude, untruthful, or worse. You should always know that people can find your true identity, and it is just plain useless to write this way. After all, no one will want to read it.
-
Poppy Ann Miller23 September 2014 at 03:10
I also went to Pages Lane with my camera, discovered that although there was no Private Road sign there was a securely locked 5-bar-gate, with what I am sure was a CCTV fingy. I parked up close to the gate, left the car engine running and took some pics, and the car cut-out! Took me ages to get it started again...Ooooooooo!!!
&
Poppy Ann Miller 24 September 2014 at 02:20
‘And... you have to wonder what kind of 'personality disorder' could be attributed to someone who is able to take children to live in the house where five members of the family were killed! It was such an awful, tragic; I would go as far as saying, evil, event, that in my opinion White House Farm should have been knocked down.
Here’s Poppy Ann Millers you tube video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bgPu4k6HE9A it’s 2.32 mins long
she’s called it - ‘Justice4Jez Goldhanger/Tolleshunt D'Arcy Sea Wall path’ and uploaded it around 6 years ago
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCD8WPTjYxA5c56xSox6jLsw
Here’s more on Poppy Ann Miller http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gt09cu including communications with Simon McKay & others
-
Here’s Poppy Ann Millers you tube video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bgPu4k6HE9A it’s 2.32 mins long
she’s called it - ‘Justice4Jez Goldhanger/Tolleshunt D'Arcy Sea Wall path’ and uploaded it around 6 years ago
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCD8WPTjYxA5c56xSox6jLsw
Here’s more on Poppy Ann Miller http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gt09cu including communications with Simon McKay & others
Don't really know anything about her - only that she seems a bit eccentric.
-
Don't really know anything about her - only that she seems a bit eccentric.
Wonder when it’ll dawn on Mark Newby that he’s been conned by Bamber & his 30 odd year campaign of innocence fraud?
-
Wonder when it’ll dawn on Mark Newby that he’s been conned by Bamber & his 30 odd year campaign of innocence fraud?
I thought he's have sussed him by now.
-
I thought he's have sussed him by now.
How many out of 10 will Bamber's attempts be rated https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkNewbyqsj/status/1193181306496135169
Only 3 people ‘liked’ his tweet including a Danielle Manson https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/danielle-manson.
‘Whilst studying law at university, Danielle also managed the Innocence Project; working on a range of criminal appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘CCRC’). In recognition of her commitment to the project, she was nominated for the Chancellor’s Medal upon graduation and continues to sit on the CCRC’s Stakeholder Forum as an established practitioner.
Wonder how many chancers Ms Manson came into contact with during her studies?
-
Bamber Book Club from 15th October 2013 http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/10/
”I do love a good read and write session, you know. That’s why I made a blog after all. Can’t beat a good book.
So it got me thinking: What if Jeremiah Bamberoonie (Jeremy Bamber to you and I) wrote himself a book about the adventures, thrills and spills of the last 30-or-so years? What form might it take?
After all, that whole suffering the devastating loss of your whole family with absolutely no victim support, being accused of killing them with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and then imprisoned for life for it – despite that imprisonment being totally illegal in itself…. Yes, I’m sure that’s a real squeal of a tale and would give 50 Shades a run for its money in terms of sauce!
Seriously, Jeremy will be free soon enough, that’s for sure, and if he ever feels like penning his story then it will definitely shame a lot of people. For now, we can only speculate. It could look like this, for instance:
Sort of like an Alcatraz-cum-Shawshank excitement feel to it, don’t you think? I like the idea that it’s all about to change and that for the clutch of weirdos who happily made this happen to him there will be no way back. So yes, I suspect it might be something like that.
If that’s the ‘good eggs’, what about the ‘bad eggs’? Any idea what their book would look like?
Well, funny you should ask – cos I’ve managed to snare me a copy. I did enquire originally if I could be sent a copy but was told that they had all been destroyed/could not be traced, and yet low and behold, I found it! Bit of a recurring theme.
Anyway, here it is:
The ‘explains-all’ textbook on how to imprison Jeremy Bamber. Would go very nicely with the Cooking with Jeremy tutorial, from a past blog.
Just as well it’s an idiot’s guide, eh?
What’s Under That Corgi 11th Sept 2013
”We’re told in fantasy land that Jeremy Bamber is a bad sort who spends his days biting the heads off baby chicks and spitting out the beaks, or whatever it is that bad sorts do…
Anyway, full from chick heads and after implausibly and miraculously managing to murder his entire family without anyone having any evidence whatsoever and there being no witnesses, he also managed to fool the world into thinking his sister, Sheila, had actually committed the murders in a psychotic episode.
Yes he fooled them all – including one fellow by the name of Prof. Peter Vanezis who was the case pathologist. You see – obviously blinded by Bad Bamber’s brilliance rather than the actual truth – Vanezis ruled that indeed, it was a case of four murders and one suicide; that the “two gunshot wound” issue was no screaming anomaly to him and that, indeed, he had seen the same thing a number of times prior. He added Sheila would even have been able to move and walk for a short time after administering a first shot to herself.
Even when told by those clever coppers wot rumbled Bamber’s evil scheme that it was actually he who’d done it, he stated the theory was “almost too incredible to believe” and that for it to occur in this way; she would have to be under the influence of drugs (she was not) and that Jeremy would have to be a "nutter" (he is not).
So then I was thinkin’ to myself. He’s got it wrong – he must have – everyone says Jeremy did it and why would they lie? It’s not like they anyone had motive or anything *cough*.
Then it clicked. It’s not the first time this man Vanezis has got a biggun’ wrong. He was called in to help investigate the death of Princess Diana and, here in fantasy land, that one’s not all it seems either. Some tabloids say the Queen did it, with a pistol smothered under a Corgi, others say it was the SAS and some argue she isn’t even dead!
So yes, I reasoned to myself. That’s it – if Jeremy Bamber was the murderer then Princess Diana is sat here next to me in fantasy land, the pair of us rocking brand new pink shorts from Primark and soaking up the rays. (I assume that’s what she’d do).
In reality of course (hello real world)… Peter Vanezis didn’t get either case wrong – that’s probably cos he’s good at his job, has done leading work for the Home Office and was named an OBE! Hardly an amateur.
Diana, sadly, is no longer with us and, for once, silly season should come and go without the tabloids hounding her from beyond her grave. Tragically, Sheila, Daniel, Nicholas, Nevill and June are all no longer with us, either – and Jeremy had about as much to do with their death as the Queen’s Corgi did with Diana’s.
So let’s stop the Bamber bashing HOBNOB, let’s allow Jeremy to finally grieve fully, as an innocent man…
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/09/
5,000 So Soon? 27th May 2013
”Alright there my blogger mates? Just thought I would pop my head around the door and see how we were doing and make brief mention of the number 5,000.
Five thousand indeed. What's that, you say? "Is that number of reasons I can count to say that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?" Nope. Close, but nope.
" Is that the number of fabricated lies, stories and fantasies spread by Police, ex girlfriend, Jessica Fletcher and Hercule Poirot?" Well, you're getting warmer but nope.
"5,000, Mr Blogger man, is that the number of approximate attempts it takes to spell 'scene' correctly in the Annual Essex Police Spelling Bee?" That's VERY good! But not the one I'm after...
No, no... 5,000 is the number of page views this here blog has had since we started the whole thing and began taking the royal p*ss out of people who should really, really have known better 27 years ago than to start messing about with something so seriously. A modest start. but it'll do.
Sadly for you naughty guys and gals, though: it may have taken 27 years but the truth is finally getting out. The clock ticks, the tide turns, and you, my lovelies, are screwed! Oops!
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/05/5000-so-soon.html#comment-form
3 comments
Poppy Ann Miller 28 May 2013 at 09:31
5,000! Well done Mr Blogger man but just to say some of us are blogger women #:-}
Reply
The Campaigner 9 June 2013 at 08:22
Too true and I should know better!
Reply
Jonny 9 July 2013 at 20:25
Appreciate your effort on all of this. It's sobering reading, when you look beyond the humour.
-
Bamber Book Club from 15th October 2013 http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/10/
”I do love a good read and write session, you know. That’s why I made a blog after all. Can’t beat a good book.
So it got me thinking: What if Jeremiah Bamberoonie (Jeremy Bamber to you and I) wrote himself a book about the adventures, thrills and spills of the last 30-or-so years? What form might it take?
After all, that whole suffering the devastating loss of your whole family with absolutely no victim support, being accused of killing them with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and then imprisoned for life for it – despite that imprisonment being totally illegal in itself…. Yes, I’m sure that’s a real squeal of a tale and would give 50 Shades a run for its money in terms of sauce!
Seriously, Jeremy will be free soon enough, that’s for sure, and if he ever feels like penning his story then it will definitely shame a lot of people. For now, we can only speculate. It could look like this, for instance:
Sort of like an Alcatraz-cum-Shawshank excitement feel to it, don’t you think? I like the idea that it’s all about to change and that for the clutch of weirdos who happily made this happen to him there will be no way back. So yes, I suspect it might be something like that.
If that’s the ‘good eggs’, what about the ‘bad eggs’? Any idea what their book would look like?
Well, funny you should ask – cos I’ve managed to snare me a copy. I did enquire originally if I could be sent a copy but was told that they had all been destroyed/could not be traced, and yet low and behold, I found it! Bit of a recurring theme.
Anyway, here it is:
The ‘explains-all’ textbook on how to imprison Jeremy Bamber. Would go very nicely with the Cooking with Jeremy tutorial, from a past blog.
Just as well it’s an idiot’s guide, eh?
What’s Under That Corgi 11th Sept 2013
”We’re told in fantasy land that Jeremy Bamber is a bad sort who spends his days biting the heads off baby chicks and spitting out the beaks, or whatever it is that bad sorts do…
Anyway, full from chick heads and after implausibly and miraculously managing to murder his entire family without anyone having any evidence whatsoever and there being no witnesses, he also managed to fool the world into thinking his sister, Sheila, had actually committed the murders in a psychotic episode.
Yes he fooled them all – including one fellow by the name of Prof. Peter Vanezis who was the case pathologist. You see – obviously blinded by Bad Bamber’s brilliance rather than the actual truth – Vanezis ruled that indeed, it was a case of four murders and one suicide; that the “two gunshot wound” issue was no screaming anomaly to him and that, indeed, he had seen the same thing a number of times prior. He added Sheila would even have been able to move and walk for a short time after administering a first shot to herself.
Even when told by those clever coppers wot rumbled Bamber’s evil scheme that it was actually he who’d done it, he stated the theory was “almost too incredible to believe” and that for it to occur in this way; she would have to be under the influence of drugs (she was not) and that Jeremy would have to be a "nutter" (he is not).
So then I was thinkin’ to myself. He’s got it wrong – he must have – everyone says Jeremy did it and why would they lie? It’s not like they anyone had motive or anything *cough*.
Then it clicked. It’s not the first time this man Vanezis has got a biggun’ wrong. He was called in to help investigate the death of Princess Diana and, here in fantasy land, that one’s not all it seems either. Some tabloids say the Queen did it, with a pistol smothered under a Corgi, others say it was the SAS and some argue she isn’t even dead!
So yes, I reasoned to myself. That’s it – if Jeremy Bamber was the murderer then Princess Diana is sat here next to me in fantasy land, the pair of us rocking brand new pink shorts from Primark and soaking up the rays. (I assume that’s what she’d do).
In reality of course (hello real world)… Peter Vanezis didn’t get either case wrong – that’s probably cos he’s good at his job, has done leading work for the Home Office and was named an OBE! Hardly an amateur.
Diana, sadly, is no longer with us and, for once, silly season should come and go without the tabloids hounding her from beyond her grave. Tragically, Sheila, Daniel, Nicholas, Nevill and June are all no longer with us, either – and Jeremy had about as much to do with their death as the Queen’s Corgi did with Diana’s.
So let’s stop the Bamber bashing HOBNOB, let’s allow Jeremy to finally grieve fully, as an innocent man…
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/09/
5,000 So Soon? 27th May 2013
”Alright there my blogger mates? Just thought I would pop my head around the door and see how we were doing and make brief mention of the number 5,000.
Five thousand indeed. What's that, you say? "Is that number of reasons I can count to say that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?" Nope. Close, but nope.
" Is that the number of fabricated lies, stories and fantasies spread by Police, ex girlfriend, Jessica Fletcher and Hercule Poirot?" Well, you're getting warmer but nope.
"5,000, Mr Blogger man, is that the number of approximate attempts it takes to spell 'scene' correctly in the Annual Essex Police Spelling Bee?" That's VERY good! But not the one I'm after...
No, no... 5,000 is the number of page views this here blog has had since we started the whole thing and began taking the royal p*ss out of people who should really, really have known better 27 years ago than to start messing about with something so seriously. A modest start. but it'll do.
Sadly for you naughty guys and gals, though: it may have taken 27 years but the truth is finally getting out. The clock ticks, the tide turns, and you, my lovelies, are screwed! Oops!
http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.com/2013/05/5000-so-soon.html#comment-form
3 comments
Poppy Ann Miller 28 May 2013 at 09:31
5,000! Well done Mr Blogger man but just to say some of us are blogger women #:-}
Reply
The Campaigner 9 June 2013 at 08:22
Too true and I should know better!
Reply
Jonny 9 July 2013 at 20:25
Appreciate your effort on all of this. It's sobering reading, when you look beyond the humour.
What a load of old crap @)(++(* - what a sad bunch they are!
-
Was Aunt Agatha in contact with him at this stage ?
Would be interested to hear what she knows about these ‘events’
The dirty side of prison; cleaning after a dirty protest
“In the UK, prison authorities are responsible for the welfare of inmates during their detainment. This includes the provision of hygienic prison and holding cells. While it’s not always possible to stop a dirty protest from happening, it is essential for the clean up and disinfection of the affected areas as soon as possible to help prevent the spread of disease, which is a particular risk in confined spaces like prisons.
Tuberculosis, HIV, and Hepatitis C are just some of the risks to prison staff and other inmates during a dirty protest where bodily fluids, including blood and faeces, are smeared across cell walls or even communal areas.
Cleaning the affected areas requires specialist personal protective equipment (PPE) and the necessary products and equipment to fully clean and sanatise the areas.
https://www.idealresponse.co.uk/blog/the-dirty-side-of-prison-cleaning-after-a-dirty-protest/
Hi Aunt Agatha while you’re here can you clarify the above?
What did Bamber tell you about his ’protests’ ?
-
Hi Aunt Agatha while you’re here can you clarify the above?
What did Bamber tell you about his ’protests’ ?
I have nothing to add.
-
The dirty protests were in Frankland in Durham so quite early on in his career.
He seems to have been to Frankland or Durham 3 times?
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-25-years-ive-slept-in-122-different.html
-
I have nothing to add.
You clearly do
-
What a load of old crap @)(++(* - what a sad bunch they are!
Poppy Ann Miller™
@PoppyMeze
Replying to
@Bambertweets
Tried 2 respond like a grown-up bt can't do it without expletives.My opinion?
Collusion in high places.BUT we're going nowhere
4:25 PM · Oct 15, 2016·Twitter Web Client
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoppyMeze/status/787313445578412032
Found this interesting
The only ‘collusion’ that’s been going on is by Bamber & his CT and that ‘high place’ they see themselves in
”Grandiosity and an elevated self-focus are key components of narcissism. The way in which narcissists view themselves, however, also reflects the way they view other people. In order to see themselves as superior, they, by definition, must see everyone else as beneath them.
“People high in narcissism, though, have a more grandiose set of needs that include a sense of entitlement, a tendency to exploit others, and unusual sensitivity to criticism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201806/why-do-narcissists-need-outdo-everyone-else
-
Poppy Ann Miller™
@PoppyMeze
Replying to
@Bambertweets
Tried 2 respond like a grown-up bt can't do it without expletives.My opinion?
Collusion in high places.BUT we're going nowhere
4:25 PM · Oct 15, 2016·Twitter Web Client
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoppyMeze/status/787313445578412032
Found this interesting
The only ‘collusion’ that’s been going on is by Bamber & his CT and that ‘high place’ they see themselves in
”Grandiosity and an elevated self-focus are key components of narcissism. The way in which narcissists view themselves, however, also reflects the way they view other people. In order to see themselves as superior, they, by definition, must see everyone else as beneath them.
“People high in narcissism, though, have a more grandiose set of needs that include a sense of entitlement, a tendency to exploit others, and unusual sensitivity to criticism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201806/why-do-narcissists-need-outdo-everyone-else
At least she acknowledges the direction in which they are headed @)(++(*
-
The dirty protests were in Frankland in Durham so quite early on in his career.
It’s referred to as ‘Franklin’ prison here (transcribed interview with Bamber)
Have you had any physical assaults ?
“One in Franklin – from a guard, not a prisoner. It was a Control and Restraint technique. I smashed up my cell and went on a shit protest. It was to do with my case – a daft protest really when I look back at it. I asked for it. Apart from that, in all these years, I’ve never been touched.”
-
Did you ever blog Aunt Agatha ?
-
Did you ever blog Aunt Agatha ?
LOL. I've never blogged!
-
It’s referred to as ‘Franklin’ prison here (transcribed interview with Bamber)
Have you had any physical assaults ?
“One in Franklin – from a guard, not a prisoner. It was a Control and Restraint technique. I smashed up my cell and went on a shit protest. It was to do with my case – a daft protest really when I look back at it. I asked for it. Apart from that, in all these years, I’ve never been touched.”
Look how he plays down his protest when he covered himself in faeces and smashed up his cell.
He’s trying to make it sound like high jinks a schoolboy would do: “it was DAFT really “
He was a MAN, mid 30s, defecating and smearing faeces all over his naked body — and he calls that just DAFT?
It’s SICK, disgusting, vile, and where did it get him? Nowhere.
Personally, I think they should have just left him like that in his cell for six months and slid basic food and water through his door...daft, innit?
-
Look how he plays down his protest when he covered himself in faeces and smashed up his cell.
He’s trying to make it sound like high jinks a schoolboy would do: “it was DAFT really “
He was a MAN, mid 30s, defecating and smearing faeces all over his naked body — and he calls that just DAFT?
It’s SICK, disgusting, vile, and where did it get him? Nowhere.
Personally, I think they should have just left him like that in his cell for six months and slid basic food and water through his door...daft, innit?
Didn’t appear to bother Aunt Agatha either; though admittedly she hasn’t made comment on these facts?
-
Didn’t appear to bother Aunt Agatha either; though admittedly she hasn’t made comment on these facts?
I wonder if he got his faeces in his hair?
How long was he covered in it for?
Days, wasn’t it?🤮
-
I wonder if he got his faeces in his hair?
How long was he covered in it for?
Days, wasn’t it?🤮
Don’t know if he wore a shower cap or some other protective covering - am guessing he didn’t in a prison cell ?
Appears Aunt Agatha pretends it didn’t happen ?
-
I wonder if he got his faeces in his hair?
How long was he covered in it for?
Days, wasn’t it?🤮
There is still a strong whiff of poop regularly wafting from his cell too.
-
Don’t know if he wore a shower cap or some other protective covering - am guessing he didn’t in a prison cell ?
Appears Aunt Agatha pretends it didn’t happen ?
I don’t think they have en-suites in prison cells, Nicholas?
I thought prisoners had to share communal showers...
-
A Wakefield D wing prison cell is well-appointed, with central-heating, stainless-steel washbasin and loo... so no need to decorate it with shitty wallpaper...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/the-standard-cell-d-wing-at-wakefield-prison-west-yorkshire-news-photo/828985254 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/the-standard-cell-d-wing-at-wakefield-prison-west-yorkshire-news-photo/828985254)
-
Off topic, but... when pushed for dosh Sheila took a job at the risqué School Dinners Club in London, but she only lasted a week. It wasn't her thing, according to her modelling friends...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35q8dt (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35q8dt)
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/the-girls-from-the-london-restaurant-school-dinners-enjoy-a-day-at-the-derby-1392823a (https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/the-girls-from-the-london-restaurant-school-dinners-enjoy-a-day-at-the-derby-1392823a)
-
A Wakefield D wing prison cell is well-appointed, with central-heating, stainless-steel washbasin and loo... so no need to decorate it with shitty wallpaper...
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/the-standard-cell-d-wing-at-wakefield-prison-west-yorkshire-news-photo/828985254 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/the-standard-cell-d-wing-at-wakefield-prison-west-yorkshire-news-photo/828985254)
His brother's abode could not be more different. I will refrain from posting up the details save to say its a 3 million property in Surrey.
-
His brother's abode could not be more different. I will refrain from posting up the details save to say its a 3 million property in Surrey.
I'm sure he worked bloody hard for it! You do realise that posting that on here will have the effect of the more 'militant' supporters looking for those very details and posting them. His brother has nothing to do with the case.
-
I'm sure he worked bloody hard for it! You do realise that posting that on here will have the effect of the more 'militant' supporters looking for those very details and posting them. His brother has nothing to do with the case.
Whose brother are we talking about?
Are you saying the "militant supporters" take time to read a forum that is full of "guilters"???
-
Whose brother are we talking about?
Are you saying the "militant supporters" take time to read a forum that is full of "guilters"???
Think it's best to leave it there and yes, they will read it.
-
Off topic, but... when pushed for dosh Sheila took a job at the risqué School Dinners Club in London, but she only lasted a week. It wasn't her thing, according to her modelling friends...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35q8dt (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x35q8dt)
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/the-girls-from-the-london-restaurant-school-dinners-enjoy-a-day-at-the-derby-1392823a (https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/the-girls-from-the-london-restaurant-school-dinners-enjoy-a-day-at-the-derby-1392823a)
Yes, I read that too
Sheila didn’t like it there as it was a tad seedy, though certainly wasn’t prostitution by any means. The waitresses served up dinners dressed in school uniforms and Sheila couldn’t hack it — so if she found THAT difficult she’d certainly never have massaged “older men”.
One of my friends worked as a wench in a Tudor themed restaurant in Central London, and she didn’t stick it for long, either...the 1980’s had a few of these themed type restaurants sprouting up shortly after the Playboy Club closed in Park Lane.
That all looks incredibly tame now when you compare it to lap dancing clubs where girls will give totally nude dances to men in private booths...just look at how Stringfellows has changed!