Bamber's police interviews:

[Holly Goodhead]

there must be more interviews because he was not charged with the murders on the ones that are available . But they knew about the human blood according to the lab dates and presumably they knew about the scratches - so I don't know either . Looks like they were concentrating on the "hit man " theory.

He was charged with the murders and arrested at Dover when he returned from France.  I don't know if he was interviewed further after that?  As I understand it the police would not have been obliged to question him about the silencer, blood, paint and the elusive grey hair!

[Nicholas]

I sincerely believe JB is the victim of a MoJ but my belief does not mean that I am right!  I don't believe in *bearded men in the sky but that doesn't mean that I am right either!  Those claiming to be the victim of a MoJ will be believed by few, lay and professional.  That's the nature of the beast/MoJ.  The majority, lay and professional, will believe the official verdict: guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have long running MoJ's as it would quickly become apparent to all concerned and wrongful convictions would be quashed sooner rather than later. For those interested please refer to Dr Michael Naughton below.

The following true film about the Bridgwater four illustrates perfectly all the hallmarks of a MoJ particularly police fabricating evidence and prosecution witnesses lying.  The case underwent 5 police inquiries and 2 appeal hearings over 17 years until the convictions were quashed. For those who don't have the time to watch the full film I would recommend watching the end at 2hr 37 min in:

Bad Company - Bridgwater Four:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHinL8ON3Uo

World in Action - Birmingham 6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQfe7k3un0&spfreload=1

Dr Michael Naughton - Introduction to the innocence network UK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM

It seems to me those wrongly convicted whose sentences are subsequently quashed do so with the support of one or two individuals.  Usually the victim's mother and a solicitor or investigative journalist:

Michael Hickey - Mother and Paul Foot - investigative journalist
Stefan Kiszko - Mother and Campbell Malone - solicitor
Stephen Downing - Mother and Don Hale - investigative journalist

I will always maintain that had JB's birth mother supported him as the mothers of the above did with their sons his conviction would be quashed by now. 
 
It now seems that if NB phoned JB there was no "Please come over..."  Just "Sheila's gone crazy she's got the gun".  On this basis and the fact the line went dead I think JB's indecisiveness and subsequent actions are entirely plausible.   

How could JB continue the conversation with NB if, as he claims, the line went dead?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984

*Excl Daddy Christmas 

 

Why did you omit Stephen Downing’s father? Rewriting history again or something else?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clb2Yy1y27Y


Don Hale, another Mark Williams Thomas type personality.

[adam]

Bamber said in the interviews he knew several ways into WHF through windows.

He would only go through a window if there was no one at home. If it was such an emergency that he had to get into WHF through a window, it is likely it was a quick visit to collect something.

This would mean he would be leaving WHF through a window as WHF would still be empty.

Bit dangerous exciting WHF & leaving a window open.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

Answers often said in a singing tone while chewing a strand of his expensive jumper. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.

He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.

Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.

He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.

When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !

He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.

Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.

His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks.  After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez.  So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.

Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.

Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.

Oh, he’s so thick he even asked DS Jones in his second interview under caution if he could look at his first statement to see what he’d already said!

I suppose when he kept smiling at the jury he thought in his psychopathic brain he’d fool them too by coming across “nice”

That didn’t work, either

[John]

It is disappointing to note that despite numerous warnings, some members continue to use crude and totally uncalled-for language when responding to other members. This will no longer be allowed to continue.

I have instructed the moderation team to clamp down heavily on rule breakers from now on.

There will be no exceptions!