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 April 12, 2020, 05:04:09 PM
-
Aunt Agatha... It's been rumoured on here that you were given some rifle to keep. Is this true or just another myth?
47
-
Aunt Agatha... It's been rumoured on here that you were given some rifle) to keep. Is this true or just another myth?
That's true!
-
That's true!
May I ask if you've still got it, or has it been handed back to Essex Police? Another rumour is that it still forms part of their museum.
-
May I ask if you've still got it, or has it been handed back to Essex Police? Another rumour is that it still forms part of their museum.
I have twin sons and I thought it too dangerous to have a rifle in the house, even though it was in the attic, I wanted it gone. So I handed it in to my local police station. No questions asked. It was handed in during one of the gun amnesty around 2009
-
I gave the wetsuit he also gave me to a charity shop.
-
I have twin sons and I thought it too dangerous to have a rifle in the house, even though it was in the attic, I wanted it gone. So I handed it in to my local police station. No questions asked. It was handed in during one of the gun amnesty around 2009
Ah, Ok... thank you. So that's where it finished up. So I guess they knew it had a famous history? One last question... did you notice if the rear wooden stock was loose where the shard had sheared off, as Jeremy said it was when David Boutflour handled it at the trial?.
-
Ah, Ok... thank you. So that's where it finished up. So I guess they knew it had a famous history? One last question... did you notice if the rear wooden stock was loose where the shard had sheared off, as Jeremy said it was when David Boutflour handled it at the trial?.
I don't recall anything being loose on the rifle when I received it or when I handed it over however, I didn't play about with it or examine it. I know nothing at all about guns/rifles.
-
Thanks again. It makes another question I wanted to ask redundant then, i.e. whether those two long marks where it says DAMAGE are actually just surface scratches, or deep splits in the wooden stock...
(https://i.imgur.com/fB5RKon.jpg)
-
Thanks again. It makes another question I wanted to ask redundant then, i.e. whether those two long marks where it says DAMAGE are actually just surface scratches, or deep splits in the wooden stock...
(https://i.imgur.com/fB5RKon.jpg)
I cannot answer that, sorry.
Please remember, Essex police came to my home and handed all these things to me... They were all examined throughly before I received them.
I felt at the time my examining with the naked eye would be utterly useless and duro g receipt of this rifle I was not in possession of the information you have shown.
-
I cannot answer that, sorry.
Please remember, Essex police came to my home and handed all these things to me... They were all examined throughly before I received them.
I felt at the time my examining with the naked eye would be utterly useless and duro g receipt of this rifle I was not in possession of the information you have shown.
It was something which had been niggling me for a while, but enough questions for now! 8((()*/
-
It was something which had been niggling me for a while, but enough questions for now! 8((()*/
Sure. I don't visit here often, if you do want to question me on the forum again, dm me and ill come back.
You will find previous posts of mine on the blue forum also.
Thank you and sorry I couldn't be off more assistance.
-
I cannot answer that, sorry.
Please remember, Essex police came to my home and handed all these things to me... They were all examined throughly before I received them.
I felt at the time my examining with the naked eye would be utterly useless and duro g receipt of this rifle I was not in possession of the information you have shown.
I was cooking dinner and I answered your question before phoned died. I now have time to read your question properly. The wood was neither damaged or split. It remained smooth with no splits whatsoever. I'd have remembered otherwise as knowing me I would have noted that for sure by covering it up so I would not scratch myself on it if I handled it again.
So no I'm pretty certain there was no split or break in the wood.
-
I was cooking dinner and I answered your question before phoned died. I now have time to read your question properly. The wood was neither damaged or split. It remained smooth with no splits whatsoever. I'd have remembered otherwise as knowing me I would have noted that for sure by covering it up so I would not scratch myself on it if I handled it again.
So no I'm pretty certain there was no split or break in the wood.
But it was definitely the murder weapon, not a different Anschutz 525?... and it had a piece missing, the shard which landed on the mat in front of the AGA?
-
But it was definitely the murder weapon, not a different Anschutz 525?... and it had a piece missing, the shard which landed on the mat in front of the AGA?
My rifle only shot rabbits (so I was told) . We must be talking about a different rifle.
-
But it was definitely the murder weapon, not a different Anschutz 525?... and it had a piece missing, the shard which landed on the mat in front of the AGA?
Mike tesco knows exactly what rifle was given to me. He found out on paperwork. I suggest you ask him to clarify.
-
My rifle only shot rabbits (so I was told) . We must be talking about a different rifle.
Are you alluding to Bamber having told you this?
-
This link may help clarify matters http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6903.msg573585#msg573585
-
This link may help clarify matters http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6903.msg573585#msg573585
Good Lord!! That link makes Jeremy sound like a Mafia Overlord controlling police activity from his prison cell. It defies belief!! A prisoner, convicted of the most appalling crime, directing to whom artifacts related to sad crime should be bequeathed!!!..................perhaps I've misinterpreted?
-
She never received the rifle from Essex Police,
Thought she did?
-
Thought she did?
By her claim that the rifle she was given was undamaged, as it's well documented that the murder weapon was, she may have received A rifle, although, as a mere acquaintance, it begs the question, Why?
-
I've edited a post from one poster and removed numerous posts from another.
If you want your posts to remain in full and/or unedited please refrain from levelling any personal comments at fellow posters. It's complete unnecessary. Posts can be challenged without making it personal.
-
I've edited a post from one poster and removed numerous posts from another.
If you want your posts to remain in full and/or unedited please refrain from levelling any personal comments at fellow posters. It's complete unnecessary. Posts can be challenged without making it personal.
How does one question the truthfulness of information being supplied to the forum without making it personal? Or must we politely accept everything we are told by other members without question or doubt?
-
This link may help clarify matters http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6903.msg573585#msg573585
This a fantastic find, I've never seen it before. And yes, I stand by everything that was said then and remains exactly the same now.
The rifle I had was an air rifle and I believed it was used to shoot rabbits.
-
It's not the murder weapon!
-
They were once ‘very close’ according to a statement she made here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358326.html#msg358326
“We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home”
Aunt Agatha told me she suffered a great deal of abuse - however best she tells her own story
He cut his hair in prison and he gave me the ponytail which is still in the box. Do you know, it started to grey?
How strange is that?
-
How does one question the truthfulness of information being supplied to the forum without making it personal? Or must we politely accept everything we are told by other members without question or doubt?
You simply say I think you're wrong and here's why setting out your reasons then giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. I think debate here does generally unearth the truthfulness of a situation where its black and white but many aspects are not black and white and are down to interpretation.
In terms of whether the murder weapon was handed to AA by the police I think it so unlikely it can be ruled out. But AA made clear she did not know whether or not it was the murder weapon just that it was A firearm. It may be it was a low powered air rifle JB owned as a boy that did not require a licence. In which case it could have been handed over to AA as it wouldn't require a licence and was JB's property.
The wetsuit again was JB's property so may well have been handed over to AA.
The police disposed of all trial exhibits circa 1996 so items that may have been seized from JB's cottage may have been returned to someone of JB's choice.
-
Anyone could claim to have personal connections, messages, gifts, inside info from Bamber and how could these possibly be verified?
-
AA can you just clarify for me please do you continue to support JB insofar as you believe in his innocence? Thanks.
-
Anyone could claim to have personal connections, messages, gifts, inside info from Bamber and how could these possibly be verified?
These claims don't have to be verified, it makes no difference to the case now at all.
I have stated for many years the things I acquired over the years and everything Barr the gun and the wetsuit remain with me. The Cartier is a genuine Cartier watch.
-
Anyone could claim to have personal connections, messages, gifts, inside info from Bamber and how could these possibly be verified?
They can't. But how does any of this assist in the understanding of the case in terms of working out what happened?
-
They can't. But how does any of this assist in the understanding of the case in terms of working out what happened?
It muddies the water if people come along posting false information does it not? I mean I could claim I received correspondence from Bamber last week in which he revealed something to me quite explosive and hitherto unknown, would my claim simply be allowed to stand and would I be given the benefit of the doubt and not have my integrity and motives questioned?
-
It muddies the water if people come along posting false information does it not? I mean I could claim I received correspondence from Bamber last week in which he revealed something to me quite explosive and hitherto unknown, would my claim simply be allowed to stand and would I be given the benefit of the doubt and not have my integrity and motives questioned?
And how would it assist if someone got all shouty and started calling you deluded and a liar?
People make up their own minds about who and what to believe.
-
You simply say I think you're wrong and here's why setting out your reasons then giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. I think debate here does generally unearth the truthfulness of a situation where its black and white but many aspects are not black and white and are down to interpretation.
In terms of whether the murder weapon was handed to AA by the police I think it so unlikely it can be ruled out. But AA made clear she did not know whether or not it was the murder weapon just that it was A firearm. It may be it was a low powered air rifle JB owned as a boy that did not require a licence. In which case it could have been handed over to AA as it wouldn't require a licence and was JB's property.
The wetsuit again was JB's property so may well have been handed over to AA.
The police disposed of all trial exhibits circa 1996 so items that may have been seized from JB's cottage may have been returned to someone of JB's choice.
She has just said it was an air rifle.
-
It's not the murder weapon!
How about the wetsuit, Agatha?!
Why would the police bring it round to you?
-
Mike tesco knows exactly what rifle was given to me. He found out on paperwork. I suggest you ask him to clarify.
Isn’t Mike Tesco that known liar who even JB got rid of?
-
I don't believe the items AA claims to have had in her possession were trial exhibits? In which case they were not part of the evidence.
The police often seize numerous items from suspects and defendants which are subsequently returned because they are found not to have any evidential value.
-
I don't believe the items AA claims to have had in her possession were trial exhibits? In which case they were not part of the evidence.
The police often seize numerous items from suspects and defendents which are subsequently returned because they are found not to have any evidential value.
If you believe for a second that the police drove to Agatha’s, who was just an associate of the mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber, and gave her one of “his” guns, when he’d never owned one nor had a licence, and Agatha didn’t have a licence, either...would you not say that makes you gullible if you believe that?
-
If you believe for a second that the police drove to Agatha’s, who was just an associate of the mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber, and gave her one of “his” guns, when he’d never owned one nor had a licence, and Agatha didn’t have a licence, either...would you not say that makes you gullible if you believe that?
You don't need a licence for an air rifle. I had several as a child. AA stated that it was an air rifle. There was an air rifle, I believe, in the cupboard, a Webley?
-
You don't need a licence for an air rifle. I had several as a child. AA stated that it was an air rifle. There was an air rifle, I believe, in the cupboard, a Webley?
It may have been an air rifle from JB's cottage.
-
You don't need a licence for an air rifle. I had several as a child. AA stated that it was an air rifle. There was an air rifle, I believe, in the cupboard, a Webley?
It may have been an air rifle from JB's cottage.
There was a BSA Meteor .22 air rifle originally given to the Bambers for Jeremy's use, found on the kitchen stairs under some old clothes, (Wilkes, p.70). No mention of a Webley, other than two shotguns.
Perhaps AA might recall it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo)
or this one, can't understand a word he says being a Geordie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU)
-
There was a BSA Meteor .22 air rifle originally given to the Bambers for Jeremy's use, found on the kitchen stairs under some old clothes, (Wilkes, p.70). No mention of a Webley, other than two shotguns.
Perhaps AA might recall it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo)
or this one, can't understand a word he says being a Geordie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU)
I can translate if you like? @)(++(*
-
There was a BSA Meteor .22 air rifle originally given to the Bambers for Jeremy's use, found on the kitchen stairs under some old clothes, (Wilkes, p.70). No mention of a Webley, other than two shotguns.
Perhaps AA might recall it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZpO-KuzuHo)
or this one, can't understand a word he says being a Geordie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5eYhtzYPtU)
It was neither of those.
-
You don't need a licence for an air rifle. I had several as a child. AA stated that it was an air rifle. There was an air rifle, I believe, in the cupboard, a Webley?
Even if it was a water pistol the police wouldn’t have driven round and given it to her or anyone else.
For one thing, anyone collecting items from the police have to attend the police station...
Besides, Agatha said the gun was to “shoot rabbits”. He didn’t use it on the night of the murders did he?
-
Is it feasible that Essex Police impounded numerous articles, most of which were never made exhibits in the trial and stayed in a box in an evidence room until they had a clear out? Then they sought permission to re-house items with trustees nominated by Bamber?
-
Is it feasible that Essex Police impounded numerous articles, most of which were never made exhibits in the trial and stayed in a box in an evidence room until they had a clear out? Then they sought permission to re-house items with trustees nominated by Bamber?
Sounds feasible and reasonable to me.
-
Is it feasible that Essex Police impounded numerous articles, most of which were never made exhibits in the trial and stayed in a box in an evidence room until they had a clear out? Then they sought permission to re-house items with trustees nominated by Bamber?
Would explain why I got a wetsuit. 8**8:/:
-
I don't believe the items AA claims to have had in her possession were trial exhibits? In which case they were not part of the evidence.
The police often seize numerous items from suspects and defendants which are subsequently returned because they are found not to have any evidential value.
Correct. If they had been exhibits the police would have retained them or destroyed them.
-
Is it feasible that Essex Police impounded numerous articles, most of which were never made exhibits in the trial and stayed in a box in an evidence room until they had a clear out? Then they sought permission to re-house items with trustees nominated by Bamber?
Absolutely. And they would deliver them too if requested.
-
Would explain why I got a wetsuit. 8**8:/:
What a shame you got rid. We could have arranged for Martin Grime to set his dogs on it if you still had it.