Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case  (Read 22761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Admin

Jeremy Bamber - Introduction to the case
« on: March 02, 2012, 01:19:11 PM »




Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of his family at their home, White House Farm, near the village of Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex during the early hours of 7 August 1985.

Those murdered included his adoptive parents, Nevill and June Bamber, his adopted sister Sheila Caffell and her twin sons, Daniel and Nicholas.

He was sentenced to five life terms with a recommendation that he serve at least 25 years.  In 1994, he was told that he must spend the rest of his life in prison.

Bamber has always protested his innocence, believed to be the only prisoner in the UK serving a whole-life tariff to do so.

He has fought tirelessly to clear his name, the case is currently before the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).



Jeremy Bamber official website
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 02:45:11 AM by John »

Offline Admin

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2012, 02:21:40 PM »
Approaching the evidence chronologically, Bamber first takes issue with police reports of his telephone call to Cheltenham station.

After speaking to Bamber, PC West contacted his colleagues at Witham police station, which is halfway between Chelmsford and Tolleshunt. The officer who took this call wrote up a memo headed “daughter gone bezerk”, in which he paraphrases what Nevill is supposed to have told Jeremy about Sheila having “got hold of one of my guns”, and adds “Information passed to CD [control at Chelmsford] by Mr Bamber’s son”, confirming that Chelmsford’s source was Jeremy Bamber.

West times Bamber’s own call from Goldhanger to Chelmsford at 03.36, whereas the other memo times West’s call to Witham at 03.26, so at least once timing is inaccurate. But Bamber concludes that the timing is bang on: his suggestion is that the other officer didn’t get his information from Chelmsford, but from no less a person than Nevill Bamber. The officer, Jeremy maintains, must have taken an emergency call from the 61-year-old farmer and noted Nevill’s words as he’d spoken them.

Aware that a problem existed reconciling the order in which calls between the parties were placed and the time at which they were said to have happened, the Crown liaised with the officer in question. He confirmed that he’d received a call from Chelmsford at 03.26, passing on the information received from Jeremy Bamber moments beforehand. Later he filled out an official Document Record to this effect.

At no time had he heard from Nevill Bamber or anyone else in connection with the incident at White House Farm. Presumably then, West had misread the clock when he filled out his call log, or just mistakenly wrote 03.36 instead of 03.26.

At 03.35, Witham despatched patrol car CA7 to attend the scene, and Chelmsford directed CA5 to attend at 03.36. Overlooking the fact that the police were co-ordinating their response across relevant parts of the county, Bamber’s supporters also ask why the Essex constabulary should send a car from each station unless the police were responding separately to different reports?

There is something darkly comic about the image of Nevill Bamber, under a hale of bullets, leafing through the phone book to get hold of the number for Witham station instead of dialling 999.

Plainly, there is little for Bamber’s defence team to get their teeth into here, but that hasn’t stopped them promoting the risible scenario of a call from Nevill to Witham police station. Earlier this summer the mainstream press picked up on the story: the Mail and Mirror were among papers reporting it on 5 August as a dramatic new find that had the potential to clear the supposed killer.

These papers uncritically reported that all along, documented proof seems to have existed that police had heard about Sheila’s rampage not only via Jeremy but directly from Nevill. If this information was correct, Jeremy’s account was vindicated and he could not possibly be guilty of the murders.

It’s worth considering the implications of the defence’s claim. If it were true, several members of the Essex constabulary would have been aware of the existence of a call from Nevill on the morning of the murders. When officers began to suspect the son of involvement and started poking around for discrepancies in Jeremy’s story, they would quickly have turned up accounts of Nevill’s call, snuffing out any doubts they had about Sheila’s culpability.

In these circumstances, police would only have continued to pursue Bamber for the murders if they were intentionally attempting to frame him.

In fact, Bamber maintains that this is exactly what happened, although he casts the net much wider to take in his relatives as well as the Essex constabulary.

Bamber’s legal team must be aware that claims about Nevill telephoning police withstand no scrutiny. Perhaps their strategy is to keep throwing anything at all to the papers, the better to build a groundswell of feeling that their client is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The long retired Stan Jones recently told the Essex Chronicle that Bamber "consistently presents material which has already been discussed and adjudicated on in court and appeal hearings”, manipulating its supposed meaning to support his claim to be wrongly convicted.

Offline John

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2012, 02:41:16 PM »
The problem is that there is little truth in what Jeremy alleges was said as against what realistically must have been said.  Jeremy never reported that his father was stressed or in fear of his life as someone would expect to be when confronted by a gun wielding mad woman.  He never even said that Sheila had entered the kitchen and was coming towards him with a rifle. It just does not sit well.

Jeremy said the phone went dead...why did the phone go dead?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 02:41:55 PM »
For any of this to be true then Sheila would have to have shot her mother and children before coming downstairs after Nevill.  That apparently could not have happened.

Jeremy never mentioned hearing any shots while his father was supposedly on the phone to him. Jeremy never mentioned Nevill ever saying that shots had been heard by him.

The whole scenario as recalled by Jeremy is simply a load of bollocks!!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2012, 02:51:59 PM »
Not much mystery really as to how young Jeremy undertook the murders.

He had means, motive and opportunity.

First of all young Jeremy did not use his car or June's bicycle to get to and fro from the farm on the morning of the murders.  He actually used both of them.  He drove the car with the bike on board to a lane just south west of the farm and dismounted the bicycle before making along the lanes and over one gate to get to the farm. Nobody heard him because the bicycle was silent. The evidence in relation to the bike was that the side walls were dirty but the tread clean.  Evidence that it had been used on the farm track and the surfaced track aternatively.....no mystery there.

Next we can look at the telephone call which Nevill was supposed to have made to Jeremy when he invited him over to see his sister shoot them all.  Total piss!

Jeremy murdered his entire family and then dialled his cottage at Goldhanger before he left the farmhouse, leaving the handset conveniently off the hook.  He left the farmhouse by means of the little window making sure that the snib fell down. He was quite an expert at doing this you see, twenty years of practice.  After cycling and then motoring to his cottage, a trip of only about 5 minutes he answered the call from the farmhouse and immediately hung up.  A few minutes later and the automatic disconnection feature used by the Post Office at that time would disconnect the call. Perfect!!

Oh!  I forgot, then he placed the call to the police station at 3.26am which would allow him some extra time to get cleaned up.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2012, 03:17:44 PM »
Well deduced dave, I can see that you will be a great asset to this forum in getting to the truth in some cases.  I have never seen it explained in these terms before.

Tesko produced a photograph on the Jeremy Bamber forum which made Sheila look like she had been up the chimney in an attempt to persuade everyone that it was gun residue which would have resulted from her using a rifle. He has had this particular photograph for ages now but all of a sudden he sees what appears to be soot. Dried blood old chap or the photos been nobbled!

You couldn't make it up!  :)
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

piece

  • Guest
Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2012, 03:27:25 PM »
Good point John. I have never understood how the phone call story adds up. For Bamber says that Ralph phoned him (which woke him up) and that call went dead. Then Jeremy tries to phone Ralph back but gets the engaged tone. So that means the phone was no longer dead and was therefore working sufficiently for I assume Ralph to be phoning the police. The transcripts do not record such a call, and if they did then then I wonder how that call was terminated. For the record, it is clearly nonsense that JB says Ralph made any calls at all. There is no verification of any such calls. JB only started mentioning that Ralph called the police when he interpreted the logs that way.

I much prefer Woffinden's analysis of the way Bamber had organised the phones around the house. Bamber had spent a huge amount of time planning his perfect crime.

Offline Admin

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2012, 04:26:50 PM »

Welcome to the forum piece, an extremely intriguing interpretation of what went on that night.  When I personally look at these scenarios I find it hard to believe that anyone would stand in a kitchen in any event if a hysterical gun woman was marauding around my home.

Your point about Bamber making this cock and bull story up quite recently is perfectly sound.

Would you like to introduce yourself in the new members section?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 07:03:41 PM by John »

guest

  • Guest
Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2012, 05:33:52 PM »
I never did get an answer, did I??!! I've googled the Anschutz, and seen how fiddly it it to reload. IMO, there was no way that a shaky, uncoordinated Sheila, even in the grip of some superhuman mania as has been suggested on Mike's forum, could have fired such precise shots into the boys' heads. Or reloaded. And with no gun oil or residue on her hands, clean feet, no blood spatter and perfect, unbroken and chip-free nails, she obviously went from her bedroom to her murder.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2012, 11:38:35 AM »
Good point John. I have never understood how the phone call story adds up. For Bamber says that Ralph phoned him (which woke him up) and that call went dead. Then Jeremy tries to phone Ralph back but gets the engaged tone. So that means the phone was no longer dead and was therefore working sufficiently for I assume Ralph to be phoning the police. The transcripts do not record such a call, and if they did then then I wonder how that call was terminated. For the record, it is clearly nonsense that JB says Ralph made any calls at all. There is no verification of any such calls. JB only started mentioning that Ralph called the police when he interpreted the logs that way.

I much prefer Woffinden's analysis of the way Bamber had organised the phones around the house. Bamber had spent a huge amount of time planning his perfect crime.

Nevill was a 6ft 4" 14 stone working farmer and an ex-RAF fighter pilot. If, as Bamber says, Nevill's 5ft 6" 8 stone daughter was 'going berserk with a gun' in the house with his wife and two grandsons present, I hardly think Nevill would try and call his effeminate 'nancy boy' son Jeremy.

Neville would have dealt with Sheila personally or if he couldn't he would have called 999. He certainly wouldn't have left the others in danger to call Jeremy.     

amazon

  • Guest
Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2012, 02:01:09 PM »
Hartley has made an honest post over yonder today on the great Bamber divide, but has made a bit of a sweeping generalisation in the process about how each camp views the police, legal system, judges etc. I myself am a particularly staunch supporter of our police service, our legal system, the independence of the judiciary etc. However, I am also open to the fact that there will be mistakes and that these can have a catastrophic effect on people's lives (not just MOJ's but for e.g. deaths in custody, death or injury to suspects or indeed members of the public - anyone remember Blair Peach?). Therefore we must get to the bottom of why mistakes are made, correct them (as far as we are able to) and learn from them. So, it is fundamentally wrong to label supporters of miscarriages of justice as somehow being police [ censored word ], anti establishment or 'lefties' etc. In a million years no-one could ever accuse me of being any of these things, yet I think Simon Hall was wrongly convicted, as I did Sally Clark. Likewise, in the past we have seen shocking instances of confession evidence either made up or obtained illegally. I could go on and on, but I will still defend our legal system for being the best in the world, but it would be so much better if it were more effective at monitoring its performance and being honest when it gets things badly wrong - and quickly!

Gawd, this is like Radio Four's though for the day!! (I just wanted a break from the gardening really  @)(++(* )

Stephanie

  • Guest
Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2012, 02:06:39 PM »
Jeremy Bamber - Latest Case News


"A lot has been happening while we are waiting to hear news from the CCRC on their decision. There is a lot of media interest in the case at the moment and there is a documentary currently being made to air at the end of the month on ITV. Simon Mckay has continued his work on my case and has also spoken to various media sources about my innocence.

I have heard back from Essex Police regarding several complaints I have made, despite our best efforts to stop a dispensation being applied for by Essex Police, the IPCC have ruled that a dispensation can be applied to the officers who waited 14 months before investigating the alleged fraud on my family's estate. The grounds for the dispensation were that the complaint was received more than 12 months after the officer's misconduct.

The system we call "Justice" does not take into account that these documents were not disclosed until after the 2002 appeal, so how can I have made a complaint about it within twelve months? The allegations by Barbara Wilson that Peter Eaton had stolen considerable sums of money from N & J Bamber Ltd went uninvestigated, and the reasons behind this will never be known because of the dispensation reliving Essex Police from having to answer for this.


Other complaints currently held by the IPCC without resolution are the non disclosure of radio logs (the CCRC recently only obtaining one single page in triplicate), a senior officer of Essex Police holding a personal collection of crime scene photographs. Failure of police to adequately obtain evidence of a struggle from the kitchen floor at the scene, and the issue of unreported scratch marks in addition to those under the mantle.


I have also made a complaint to the IPCC regarding John Yates, dubbed by the press as "Yates of the Yard" the former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. He was in charge of the "Stokenchurch" investigation carried out for the CPS preceding my 2002 appeal. We now have evidence which shows that the Met knew that the burn marks made to my father by the barrel of the rifle which Sheila used to kill the family, were investigated but the results were not disclosed to the defence. The Metropolitan police accepted that Malcolm Fletcher the forensic ballistics expert for the prosecution at trial, did not know the cause of burns and stated so in a report marked by the Met as "no further action." As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Once again thank you for the many letters of support and kindness from so many people which bring me comfort during the long wait for a decision."

Jeremy Bamber


If you would like further documentary evidence or photographs for news articles please contact us direct. You can also write to Jeremy as he manages his own campaign, Jeremy Bamber, A5352AC, HM Full Sutton, York, YO41 1PS.

From Jeremy Bamber Campaign Admin
officialbamber@live.co.uk

Offline Angelo222

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2012, 01:36:50 AM »
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Admin

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2012, 01:44:37 AM »
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.

Not like you to be on the night shift Dave? 


Good point btw about him not knowing if a silencer was fitted unless he had some special knowledge of the crime scene. We will just write this up now when it is fresh and get it promoted across our friends on Twitter.

Offline John

Re: Introduction to the case
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2012, 07:44:04 PM »
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. 

Quote from:  Jeremy Bamber
As we know, this evidence is now integral to the defence case as the moderator was not on the gun during the shootings.

Really??  How does Bamber know the sound moderator wasn't on the gun during the shootings unless of course he was there?  The majority of the shots were not made up close with gun on skin contact so there is NO way to know this.  Bamber as usual is spouting hot air!!  Best add this to the misnomers admin before the public take this goon seriously.


I must have missed that comment Dave.   More wishful thinking than scientific reasoning.  At the end of the day nobody except the killer knows when and where the sound moderator or silencer was used on the rifle.

We have to realise that Jeremy Bamber had not planned for what happened that morning and in fact was caught very much off guard by events.   

A well meaning group of academics, lawyers and scientists once claimed that everything went to plan seamlessly that morning and on that basis therefore Jeremy must be innocent as real life seldom works out that way.  Nothing could be further from the truth however.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 09:34:36 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.