Evidence that has come to light since the trial.

[Common sense]

We all know about JBs claims of the prosecution and police withholding vital evidence from his defence and we know they always turn out to be fanciful or just plain false but is there any actual evidence that has come to light in the last 34 years that might have helped his case?

Conversely, is there any evidence that has come to light that would have hindered his case?

This is my list of the latter:

He has changed his account of the phone calls so many times and so freely, his evidence in this regard is entirely unreliable.

The dates he gave for breaking into WHF and marking the window with the hacksaw blade post arrest were dates he was actually in London. He avoided awkward cross examination on this highly suspicious activity.

The bible had been closed and reopened when blood was still wet lending support to the prosecution case that the scene had been staged.

Also supporting a staged scene was the expert blood spatter analysis by Martyn Ismail that concluded SC had been pulled down by her feet and her nightdress rearranged post mortem.

Bamber was keen to keep his intention to sell land intended to be sold by NB to the Eatons out of the trial. Was this because his intention to sell everything and move abroad would have been exposed to the jury, inviting further questioning about the conditions NB had included in his will forcing JB to commit to farming?

Likewise, Bamber was keen to avoid his deal with the NOTW being mentioned, a reason for not attacking JM for doing the same. This could have meant that journalist Michael Fielder would be called as a witness and provide damning testimony of Bambers efforts to sell topless photos of Sheila :

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=c2qq2slq7j59cms4mmqmo8lal4&topic=435.msg9069#msg9069

His letters to CC demonstrate a complete lack of empathy to the victims. Indeed he sees himself as the main victim.

I can't think of anything else except just the general observation that Bamber and his CT are inveterate liars and conspiracy fantasists that simply cannot be trusted but I'm sure I have missed things?

[G-Unit]

What land owned by the Bambers was being farmed by the Eatons?

[Common sense]

What land owned by the Bambers was being farmed by the Eatons?

Actually, I'm not sure they were farming it but NB had secretly purchased some land with the intention of selling it to the Eatons when they had raised sufficient funds. JB certainly knew about this but it also seems that the rest of the family were made aware, including RB who didn't mention it at trial either. Perhaps some sort of deal was done between prosecution and defence. 

[G-Unit]

Actually, I'm not sure they were farming it but NB had secretly purchased some land with the intention of selling it to the Eatons when they had raised sufficient funds. JB certainly knew about this but it also seems that the rest of the family were made aware, including RB who didn't mention it at trial either. Perhaps some sort of deal was done between prosecution and defence.

According to Ann Eaton Nevill bought it so she and her husband could buy it from him later, but Jeremy seemed unaware of this and in early July 1985 he spoke to her of their plans to sell it. She was enraged and phoned her father to tell him then ripped down the wallpaper in her toilet.

Someone misunderstood Nevill's intentions for this land, it seems. Despite being so upset Ann doesn't mention speaking to Nevill about Jeremy's words. That's surprising as she describes herself as being outspoken.

[Nicholas]

is there any evidence that has come to light that would have hindered his case?

Julie Mugford was in a relationship with a psychopath, as was Anji Greaves and all others..

More evidence of the abusive relationship courtesy of the CT website

Sunday 1 September 1985 – Liz’s statement says that Julie had called her in floods of tears wanting to meet up[5]. Liz arranged for Julie to come to her place of work where Julie said that Jeremy had arranged to see her on the previous Saturday but had not turned up. Eventually he’d arrived at Julie’s that evening and said that he 'didn’t want to see her anymore' and that he had only been using her for his ‘own ends

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk

”A psychopath may target a victim with the intent of using them and causing harm, or they may initially experience genuine attraction. Even if they do, their inability to love or to form an attachment guarantees that things will end badly. Whatever their motivation, their goals are to manipulate, dominate and control, and they will end up devaluing and abusing their victim.

In a profound act of betrayal, he or she only pretends to love (even if they start out with genuine attraction, since psychopaths don’t have the ability to love) — and does a convincing job of it — in order to gain your love and trust, which is what makes carrying out their manipulative agenda possible. They gain power and control through manipulation and use their victim for whatever they desire without any remorse, while creating an ever-worsening emotional hell. Their grandiosity swells as they watch their victim try in vain to save the relationship they truly believed was the best one of their lives.

The predator gets bored and devalues and abuses the victim, and needs the thrill of someone new. The psychopath must act out this manipulative cycle repetitively and compulsively in order to experience feelings of exhilaration and contempt (contemptuous delight), which perpetuate his or her feeling of grandiosity, according to Dr. Reid Moloy, a respected psychopathy researcher. The psychopath often ends the relationship with a stunning and completely abnormal display of contempt, coldness or indifference. If he or she is using the relationship to provide an illusion of normalcy, they may stick around long-term. If the victim ends the relationship, the psychopath’s grandiosity will suffer and they may attempt to return. Often, they restore their grandiosity by moving on to someone new, without looking back.
http://psychopathsandlove.com/emotional-rape/

This evidence wasn’t explored during Bamber’s trial. His relationship with Anji Greaves wasn’t made public until her interview with the Sun - though suspect both the defence and prosecution were aware of it pre-trial.

Wonder if Anji Greaves has been mentioned in Bamber’s pre trial assessment report?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

According to Ann Eaton Nevill bought it so she and her husband could buy it from him later, but Jeremy seemed unaware of this and in early July 1985 he spoke to her of their plans to sell it. She was enraged and phoned her father to tell him then ripped down the wallpaper in her toilet.

Someone misunderstood Nevill's intentions for this land, it seems. Despite being so upset Ann doesn't mention speaking to Nevill about Jeremy's words. That's surprising as she describes herself as being outspoken.

That’s not true.

That must be one of JB’s lies...

Nevill bought that piece of land because Ann Eaton and her husband were horrified to discover that the brother-in-law intended to sell it to property developers.

The Eaton’s’ couldn’t afford to buy the BIL out, so Nevill bought it on their behalf and said they could farm it until they could afford to pay him back. Nevill was a very kind man it seems...

Some time after that there was an argument and scuffle in the local pub between Nevill and the BIL who was furious he couldn’t get his hands on the land.

Make no mistake: Jeremy knew EVERYTHING that went on there. He made it his business to. He checked through documents, snooped through the wills, deeds, Nevill’s wallet, and must have peered in June’s purse and confidential papers. He stole small amounts of cash too, you can guarantee that. Remember: he was a thief too...

[Nicholas]

Julie Mugford was in a relationship with a psychopath, as was Anji Greaves and all others..
 https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/julie-mugford-volunteer-witness

”A psychopath may target a victim with the intent of using them and causing harm, or they may initially experience genuine attraction. Even if they do, their inability to love or to form an attachment guarantees that things will end badly. Whatever their motivation, their goals are to manipulate, dominate and control, and they will end up devaluing and abusing their victim.

In a profound act of betrayal, he or she only pretends to love (even if they start out with genuine attraction, since psychopaths don’t have the ability to love) — and does a convincing job of it — in order to gain your love and trust, which is what makes carrying out their manipulative agenda possible. They gain power and control through manipulation and use their victim for whatever they desire without any remorse, while creating an ever-worsening emotional hell. Their grandiosity swells as they watch their victim try in vain to save the relationship they truly believed was the best one of their lives.

The predator gets bored and devalues and abuses the victim, and needs the thrill of someone new. The psychopath must act out this manipulative cycle repetitively and compulsively in order to experience feelings of exhilaration and contempt (contemptuous delight), which perpetuate his or her feeling of grandiosity, according to Dr. Reid Moloy, a respected psychopathy researcher. The psychopath often ends the relationship with a stunning and completely abnormal display of contempt, coldness or indifference. If he or she is using the relationship to provide an illusion of normalcy, they may stick around long-term. If the victim ends the relationship, the psychopath’s grandiosity will suffer and they may attempt to return. Often, they restore their grandiosity by moving on to someone new, without looking back.http://psychopathsandlove.com/emotional-rape/

This evidence wasn’t explored during Bamber’s trial. His relationship with Anji Greaves wasn’t made public until her interview with the Sun - though suspect both the defence and prosecution were aware of it pre-trial.

Wonder if Anji Greaves has been mentioned in Bamber’s pre trial assessment report?

‘Coercive control‘ is now a criminal offence https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/coercive-control/

‘What are the implications of ‘coercive control’ in the Bamber case?‘ thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11440.0

[Common sense]

According to Ann Eaton Nevill bought it so she and her husband could buy it from him later, but Jeremy seemed unaware of this and in early July 1985 he spoke to her of their plans to sell it. She was enraged and phoned her father to tell him then ripped down the wallpaper in her toilet.

Someone misunderstood Nevill's intentions for this land, it seems. Despite being so upset Ann doesn't mention speaking to Nevill about Jeremy's words. That's surprising as she describes herself as being outspoken.

Was JB unaware of NBs intentions for the land or was he just deliberately upsetting AE?

I confess to not really knowing or caring about all the ins and outs, the appeal court judgement makes it clear that JB avoided mentioning this at trial for fear of opening yet another can of worms.

The point of starting this thread appears to have been proven. Absolutely nothing in Bambers favour has come to light in 35 years while several things make his claims of innocence weaker than they were at trial, many of them coming from his own mouth.

Which begs the question of how anyone can be convinced he is innocent when no evidence points that way.

[Nicholas]

Was JB unaware of NBs intentions for the land or was he just deliberately upsetting AE?

I confess to not really knowing or caring about all the ins and outs, the appeal court judgement makes it clear that JB avoided mentioning this at trial for fear of opening yet another can of worms.

The point of starting this thread appears to have been proven. Absolutely nothing in Bambers favour has come to light in 35 years while several things make his claims of innocence weaker than they were at trial, many of them coming from his own mouth.

Which begs the question of how anyone can be convinced he is innocent when no evidence points that way.

 

[Nicholas]

Was JB unaware of NBs intentions for the land or was he just deliberately upsetting AE?

I confess to not really knowing or caring about all the ins and outs, the appeal court judgement makes it clear that JB avoided mentioning this at trial for fear of opening yet another can of worms.

The point of starting this thread appears to have been proven. Absolutely nothing in Bambers favour has come to light in 35 years while several things make his claims of innocence weaker than they were at trial, many of them coming from his own mouth.

Which begs the question of how anyone can be convinced he is innocent when no evidence points that way.

Bamber appears to have been deliberately upsetting Ann

He mentions her again here to Carol Ann Lee re the Osea road burglary

‘...he had been annoyed by Ann receiving a higher income from Osea Road’

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false

[Nicholas]

Bamber appears to have been deliberately upsetting Ann

He mentions her again here to Carol Ann Lee re the Osea road burglary

‘...he had been annoyed by Ann receiving a higher income from Osea Road’

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false

Carol Ann Lee goes on,

‘His later story was untenable, particularly the contention that he left £400 in the safe which was then mysteriously stolen by someone else on the same night.’

 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Was JB unaware of NBs intentions for the land or was he just deliberately upsetting AE?

I confess to not really knowing or caring about all the ins and outs, the appeal court judgement makes it clear that JB avoided mentioning this at trial for fear of opening yet another can of worms.

The point of starting this thread appears to have been proven. Absolutely nothing in Bambers favour has come to light in 35 years while several things make his claims of innocence weaker than they were at trial, many of them coming from his own mouth.

Which begs the question of how anyone can be convinced he is innocent when no evidence points that way.

That’s obviously another fat lie of Jeremy’s.

Gunit has shown his lies without realising it: if JB wasn’t aware of Nevill purchasing the land how could he have told A Eaton that Nevill was going to sell it? He’d hardly tell AE he knew Nevill had bought the land — as he only knew because he SNOOPED. I bet he didn’t tell anyone he knew!

The more that comes out about this revolting creature the more obvious it is why everyone deeply disliked him.

[G-Unit]

That’s obviously another fat lie of Jeremy’s.

Gunit has shown his lies without realising it: if JB wasn’t aware of Nevill purchasing the land how could he have told Ann Ann Eaton Nevill was going to sell it? He’d hardly tell AE he knew Nevill had bought the land — he only knew because he SNOOPED. But I bet he didn’t tell anyone he knew!

The more that comes out about this revolting creature the more obvious it is why everyone deeply disliked him.

Of course Jeremy knew Nevill bought the land. A partnership was formed between RN, J and JN Bamber to buy it in November 84. That's between Ralph Nevill, June and Jeremy Nevill Bamber f.y.i.

[Nicholas]

Likewise, Bamber was keen to avoid his deal with the NOTW being mentioned, a reason for not attacking JM for doing the same. This could have meant that journalist Michael Fielder would be called as a witness and provide damning testimony of Bambers efforts to sell topless photos of Sheila :

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=c2qq2slq7j59cms4mmqmo8lal4&topic=435.msg9069#msg9069

Bamber and his pal Brett Collins tried to flog nude pictures of his murdered sister Sheila Caffell around Fleet Street in London for a substantial sum before he was arrested.  His friend Brett Collins approached several newspapers on his behalf but every one declined the offer. The Evening Times printed an article shortly thereafter referring to the offer which they felt was in rather poor taste and certainly newsworthy in itself given the circumstances.


Evening Times Article - Tuesday 28 October 1986




To read full article click here

[Nicholas]

Someone’s recently claimed, Jeremy Bamber is ‘another prisoner who has not had all his case tested in court’

Who’s decision was it to decide what was used and what wasn’t ?