Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog

[John]

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.

[Myster]

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.

[jackiepreece]

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

[Andrea]

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?

[jackiepreece]

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

[Andrea]

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.

[John]

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.

[jackiepreece]

John have you taken things any further re visiting Jeremy?

[jackiepreece]

Andy if there was a third party nobody and not even the defence know what really happened the night of the murders

[John]

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]

John have you taken things any further re visiting Jeremy?

Yes, I have made the request,

[goatboy]

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.

[jackiepreece]

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.

[Andrea]

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.

[Dillon]

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 !