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: Brancher on May 16, 2020, 02:00:30 PM
-
EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible. At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.
8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone. Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber. I take a different view. I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
-
You have made some good points, Brancher.
-
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible.
8. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
8.1. She was mentally-ill.
8.2. She was set against June.
8.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
8.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums.
8.5. She was found with the rifle.
8.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
8.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
8.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
8.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
I concur with some of that, particularly the 'evidence' and the bar of reasonable doubt.
Welcome by the way.
-
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
Hi Brancher,
Sounds like you’re referring to ‘lurking doubt’ also known as the Cooper test
-
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
513. It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury's conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury's verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
-
Hi Brancher,
Sounds like you’re referring to ‘lurking doubt’ also known as the Cooper test
No, I'm referring to any manner of doubt or dissatisfaction that could overturn the convictions. Of course, that is a matter for the courts and not specifically why I started the thread. I just want to see if anybody can put me right on the above reasons and convince me of his factual guilt, or it may be that there are pro-Bamber people here who can underline/reinforce my points.
-
No, I'm referring to any manner of doubt or dissatisfaction that could overturn the convictions. Of course, that is a matter for the courts and not specifically why I started the thread. I just want to see if anybody can put me right on the above reasons and convince me of his factual guilt, or it may be that there are pro-Bamber people here who can underline/reinforce my points.
You believe that Julie lied but you think he's guilty? That seems like a bit of a conundrum?
-
I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher.
I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.
I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.
-
I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher.
I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.
I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.
I'm pretty much 100%
-
You believe that Julie lied but you think he's guilty? That seems like a bit of a conundrum?
Not at all. I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy. The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it).
She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things. Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went. Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove? She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody. The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true. That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury.
Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing.
But why should we believe what she said? First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right. Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber. She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.
Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal. Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is? It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill". How naive would that be? I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum. Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford. Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford. Why should I? More to the point: why is it even necessary?
I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended. Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind. As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people. Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone. If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself. It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.
-
Since JM was holed up over days at the police training camp cut office from the outside world we have no idea what the interviewing officer put to her.
-
Since JM was holed up over days at the police training camp cut office from the outside world we have no idea what the interviewing officer put to her.
I suspect she was arrested, maybe even as an accomplice to murder, and told that she had to 'come clean'.
Naturally, she then lies and/or exaggerates. Lots of ordinary people would in that situation. If you look closely at her evidence, essentially she's telling them what they want to hear but without seriously incriminating Jeremy.
The tall tale about the hitman is, in my view, a 'tell' - very possibly, she's trying to get Jeremy off the hook by telling a deliberate lie.
Doesn't mean Bamber is innocent. Doesn't mean he is guilty, either.
I really just don't believe her evidence means anything at all. But it was used, so I've included her in my list.
I genuinely think that anybody who believes her is as naive as the people who believe Jeremy - both sides are as bad as each other. Why believe either?
-
Not at all. I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy. The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it).
She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things. Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went. Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove? She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody. The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true. That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury.
Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing.
But why should we believe what she said? First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right. Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber. She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.
Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal. Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is? It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill". How naive would that be? I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum. Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford. Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford. Why should I? More to the point: why is it even necessary?
I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended. Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind. As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people. Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone. If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself. It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.
Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.
-
Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.
If the story makes no sense, what does that tell you?
Actually, this brings up a question I have. It's about a point I think I checked years ago but have now forgotten.
Did Julie Mugford independently know of Matthew McDonald? Or to put it another way, could she have known who he was outside of a conversation with Jeremy?
Even if the answer is 'no', this wouldn't settle it because she may still have made it all up. Jeremy could have just been boasting or joking to her, etc., about knowing such-and-such a criminal in some context, and she then twists that conversation into something entirely different [drawing on a real conversation would assist her in coming across as convincing].
But if the answer is 'yes', that - for me - just adds further to the argument for dismissing her evidence altogether.
-
I'm pretty much 100%
Only pretty much? (LOL)
-
Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.
Oh yes it does, if you watch the video I’ve just posted.
-
I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher.
I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.
I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.
I'm 100% certain that it wasn't Sheila, so.......
-
Oh yes it does, if you watch the video I’ve just posted.
I haven't watched the video yet but in this particular instance is doesn't make sense for Julie to mention the hitman if she was trying to frame Jeremy. MM was not an elite person, he was just a bloke that relished in being thought of as a mercenary - plus he had an alibi and if he was the killer - he was hired by Bamber, which still makes him guilty.
-
I'm 100% certain that it wasn't Sheila, so.......
I do not believe it was either of them.
The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.
Check out my video I just posted.
-
The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.
It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar
I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much. However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!
-
It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar
This was solely around the time of the Bamberettes and he lied to protect me.
I just didn’t know how much he tried to protect me at the time and what he gave up to protect me.
I was hurt and angry at the time.
Over the years more info has been revealed and I can understand fully now his actions and the course he took.
Can we stop with the questions now.
I’m not a liar, I have never knowingly lied on here.
I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for. To err is human.
-
I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for.
Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?
I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.
I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.
I apologise for my error.
Wasn’t an effective apology AA
-
This was solely around the time of the Bamberettes and he lied to protect me.
I just didn’t know how much he tried to protect me at the time and what he gave up to protect me.
I was hurt and angry at the time.
Over the years more info has been revealed and I can understand fully now his actions and the course he took.
Can we stop with the questions now.
I’m not a liar, I have never knowingly lied on here.
I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for. To err is human.
What are you claiming Bamber gave up to protect you ?
-
Not at all. I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy. The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it).
She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things. Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went. Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove? She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody. The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true. That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury.
Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing.
But why should we believe what she said? First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right. Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber. She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.
Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal. Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is? It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill". How naive would that be? I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum. Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford. Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford. Why should I? More to the point: why is it even necessary?
I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended. Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind. As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people. Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone. If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself. It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.
Saying that JM testimony is redundant only works in isolation,seen as a part of the whole then it has its relevance or do you think Bamber would have been convicted in spite of it?
-
Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?
Wasn’t an effective apology AA
Yeh, now you're just a bully. Have a go at bullying me, yer big shitbag.
-
Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?
Wasn’t an effective apology AA
What's wrong with AA's apology?
-
I do not believe it was either of them.
The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.
Check out my video I just posted.
If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy. Sorry. This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.
The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun. I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.
-
If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy. Sorry. This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.
The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun. I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.
Although (as you mentioned earlier) Sheila suffered from mental illness, she was medicated and although (as you also mentioned earlier) her meds were reduced, this was because she had symptoms over being over medicated and after her death, she was found to have a moderate dose of her meds still in her system. I have challenged others to find an example of a medicated schizophrenic who killed in a psychotic episode; so far we have no examples. I sure they do exist but they seem to be like hens teeth.
-
Saying that JM testimony is redundant only works in isolation,seen as a part of the whole then it has its relevance
I'm not looking at her evidence only in isolation. If Julie Mugford had relayed facts that were consistent with those reported by other people, that would be one thing. Or if she had reported a confession by Jeremy under specific circumstances that could be verified with somebody else, it wouldn't prove it, but it would be useful to know. Julie Mugford did not do these things. She also lied. That is fact. Even Julie Mugford herself admitted she had lied, at some point, but she wanted the court to believe she was now telling the truth, about a boyfriend who had ended their relationship, something that had upset her. She was a serious criminal in her own right. And she was being threatened with prosecution and had to rely on immunity.
Why should I believe her? Also, I repeat my earlier question to you: why do you believe her but not Jeremy? Why not dismiss the evidence of both and just look at the facts?
Nobody corroborated what she had said. She stated that Bamber had told her that he had hired a named hitman, and this turned out not to be true. She reported no other admissions from Bamber, which means her evidence was useless and not believable anyway.
or do you think Bamber would have been convicted in spite of it?
That's close to what I am saying. What I am saying is that Bamber could have been convicted or acquitted, as it pleased the jury, without Julie Mugford or the moderator.
In my view, the case is not proven, and if you add in Julie Mugford and the moderator, it looks even weaker. If anything, Julie Mugford and the moderator undermine the Crown's efforts. Julie Mugford's evidence was an attempt to manipulate the court and should have been deprecated by the trial judge. The moderator was joke evidence and smacked of 'throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it'.
Of course, a super-majority of the jury seems to have thought otherwise (though we don't know the precise reasons for their decision) and the Court of Appeal has decided otherwise on two occasions.
-
I haven't watched the video yet but in this particular instance is doesn't make sense for Julie to mention the hitman if she was trying to frame Jeremy. MM was not an elite person, he was just a bloke that relished in being thought of as a mercenary - plus he had an alibi and if he was the killer - he was hired by Bamber, which still makes him guilty.
Or it could be that Julie Mugford was deliberately giving wrong information to send the police off track and protect Jeremy?
Anyway, I'd like to move on from the topic of Julie Mugford, if possible. Unless somebody can provide solid objections, I see no reason to believe anything she said and I think her evidence should be dismissed.
One point to Jeremy.
-
If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy. Sorry. This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.
The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun. I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.
Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?
-
Or it could be that Julie Mugford was deliberately giving wrong information to send the police off track and protect Jeremy?
Anyway, I'd like to move on from the topic of Julie Mugford, if possible. Unless somebody can provide solid objections, I see no reason to believe anything she said and I think her evidence should be dismissed.
One point to Jeremy.
Given she gave evidence under oath and hasn't been done for perjury, her testimony is solid.
-
Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?
Yes, but then Jeremy's guilty, isn't he.
-
Given she gave evidence under oath and hasn't been done for perjury, her testimony is solid.
That's not very convincing.
Shall we move on? Best to, I think.
-
Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?
Who would you ask to kill your family which would include two sleeping six years olds?
-
That's not very convincing.
Shall we move on? Best to, I think.
Why?!... simply because you don't agree with the answer?
-
That's not very convincing.
Shall we move on? Best to, I think.
What explanation have you got for the absence of any of the victims' blood, especially that of Nevill's, on Sheila's face, chest, arms or hands?
Or the fact Bamber had no response when questioned as to the odd bullet count remaining on the kitchen worktop?
-
Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?
That theory is being looked into under the topic paedophiles in Westminster.
-
I haven't watched the video yet but in this particular instance is doesn't make sense for Julie to mention the hitman if she was trying to frame Jeremy. MM was not an elite person, he was just a bloke that relished in being thought of as a mercenary - plus he had an alibi and if he was the killer - he was hired by Bamber, which still makes him guilty.
You don’t have to be a part of any group to know or have evidence of misdealings
-
It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar
A liar does not make him a muderer
-
Who would you ask to kill your family which would include two sleeping six years olds?
I do not believe this request came from within the immediate household.
-
Why?!... simply because you don't agree with the answer?
Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.
-
You don’t have to be a part of any group to know or have evidence of misdealings
If MM is guilty, then so is Jeremy. I don't believe that MM had any part of it though.
-
I do not believe this request came from within the immediate household.
I know you don't but that is the premis.
-
If MM is guilty, then so is Jeremy. I don't believe that MM had any part of it though.
Forget MM. ITS ANOTHER RED HERRING
-
Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.
That's a matter of opinion AA.
-
Who’s MM?
Matthew McDonald
-
Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.
In your opinion and Branchers only, I'm afraid to say. A pity, because I actually think that your Cartier is genuine as are the other articles you received from Jeremy Bamber, but your belief that a cover up of paedophiles in Parliament has anything remotely to do with the murders at WHF is just a ludicrous fantasy.
-
In your opinion and Branchers only, I'm afraid to say. A pity, because I actually think that your Cartier is genuine as are the other articles you received from Jeremy Bamber, but your belief that a cover up of paedophiles in Parliament has anything remotely to do with the murders at WHF is just a ludicrous fantasy.
I have never stated that paedophiles in Westminster has anything to do with Jeremy directly, but the connections are there. One needs to listen to the video I posted or it is just fantasy. It’s quite unbelievable to those who have no knowledge or understanding of how these things work.
Please listen to the video and we can discuss.
-
Yeh, now you're just a bully. Have a go at bullying me, yer big shitbag.
foxtrot oscar.
-
Matthew McDonald
....formerly of the Doobie Brothers.
-
That's a matter of opinion AA.
It is...that’s all it is.
-
....formerly of the Doobie Brothers.
I think you'll find that his name is Michael McDonald
-
Thought not.
-
I think you'll find that he name is Michael McDonald
Just jokes.
-
Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.
Brought to justice for what exactly?
She was at home in bed in Lewisham on the night of the murders
-
Please listen to the video and we can discuss.
There are numerous blogs here re Jon Wedger https://barthsnotes.com/?s=Jon+Wedger+
& here https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/?s=Jon+Wedger
-
I have never stated that paedophiles in Westminster has anything to do with Jeremy directly, but the connections are there.
There are no connections to the video you’ve posted and the murders at White House farm
-
A liar does not make him a muderer
A trial by jury and 35 years in jail does
-
Forget MM. ITS ANOTHER RED HERRING
This I agree with - a red herring by Bamber told to JM
-
Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.
If Bamber had had enough of JM by the time he murdered his family why do you think he phoned her from a pay phone that morning and requested she be picked up by police and brought to Essex?
-
There are no connections to the video you’ve posted and the murders at White House farm
If that’s your view then you need no longer debate on this topic. Thank you for your input. Goodbye.
-
It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar
It was you who stated he’s only in prison because he’s a liar.
-
EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible. At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.
8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone. Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber. I take a different view. I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
Your conclusions are wrong — and what’s more, with due respect — your “conclusions” are irrelevant. Just as mine are, or anyone else’s. But whatever conclusions you come to (and we all know what they’d be) what could you do with them? Do you think the courts will say “Oh, we were wrong — a poster on a forum called Brancher says so! We must release Bamber immediately!”
The jury found him guilty on FIVE counts of murder, and they heard and saw far more than you or anyone on here did. So you saying you’d like to come to a final settled view on the case when the conclusion was made by a jury in a courtroom of PROFESSIONAL QCs, and you’re clearly unaware of most of the facts; you’re making wild guesses; ignoring facts; ignoring the jury’s decision; ignoring the appeal court judges conclusion; making assumptions; ignoring forensic evidence; ignoring ALL the evidence — and you’re obviously biased to boot — simply makes your story look desperate
None of your points make any sense whatsoever. None.
Your first point that EP messed up the crime scene is wrong. It’s true that the raid team had to smash the door down and search through all the rooms — so of course they had to walk all over the house. How else were they supposed to find everyone? Taff Jones was inept, that’s true, and they shouldn’t have destroyed much of the evidence — but that only highlights how right they were to convict him when much evidence was lost, and he was represented by one of the top QC’s at that time. If a brilliant top QC couldn’t get Jeremy off, what does that tell you?
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?
The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else. How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me. Or are you going to suggest like some of his other supporters do, that the appeal court judges are corrupt too? That the whole of Essex Constabulary, all the lawyers, QCs, forensic scientists, ballistic experts, pathologists, psychiatrists, witnesses, the judge, the appeal court judges, the judges at the court of Human Rights, neighbours, acquaintances, friends, family, journalists, everyone involved were all corrupt, all lied, and wanted to set him up?
And there’s nothing remotely strange about why the silencer which Jeremy used wasn’t found on the day of the murders: Jeremy had hidden it. Have you not read the case through?
Do you not realise that Sheila’s blood, including both June’s and Nevill’s were found in that silencer Jeremy hid? Does that not prove to you that it was used in the killings? Don’t you realise Jeremy used the silencer so as not to wake everyone when he first shot the twins in their heads? Do you not realise that Jeremy didn’t want nearby neighbours hearing bullets firing?
You then say you “think” Julie was lying. You think. But you don’t know her, nor did you. You’ve even come out with the ludicrous suggestion that Julie herself was arrested! That’s utter nonsense. She wasn’t arrested at all, and to even suggest that makes you look like a conspiracist — and no-one takes any notice of those....
Julie came forward of her own volition, as did her friend. Julie VOLUNTEERED all the information she had, warts and all, and she told the police things Jeremy had told her AFTER he’d murdered his family, that she couldn’t have possibly known about the killings. She knew exactly where all the bodies were found; how they were laying; their exact positions; how many bullets they’d each received; how Jeremy entered and left the house (which proved correct); and various other things that were NOT made public and the only way she could have known those things was from being told by the killer: Jeremy. He did indeed lie and made out he’d paid a hitman to do it, but the rest of what he told her was all true...even down to the “dropped glove” and Jeremy’s “made-up hitman” being worried about the fingerprints on the rifle. How could she have known THAT? Tell me how she could have known there’d be few fingerprints on the rifle when no-one was told at that time?
Julie’s statement was NOT hearsay at all: she repeated what Jeremy had told HER. Why do you think the judge told the jury they could convict him on just her evidence alone? Do you seriously think the court would allow HEARSAY? Do you not think the defence would have objected?!
And for you to say you think she’s an abominable woman because she made one foolish mistake of making out she’d lost her cheque book to commit fraud, is somewhat severe. She confessed to it; felt shame and remorse; and paid the money back to the bank. Yes, it was wrong what she did, but Jeremy didn’t think so. He was pleased as punch when she illegally bought him a top of the range coffee maker with her “stolen” cheque book, and actually praised her. He was a DREADFUL influence on her.
And this nonsense that Sheila’s body was moved by the police is a ridiculous lie. She wasn’t moved at all. The photographs PROVE that. They only moved her arm to take photos of the blood beneath.
The Bible was staged by Jeremy, as was the rifle. Sheila couldn’t have opened the Bible, pressed her hand into her own pool of blood as she was losing consciousness, imprinted her blooded hand inside the Bible; closed it; opened it again; then positioned it next to herself when she was gurgling for breath. The mirrored imprint inside the Bible actually tripped him up... It’s actually too ludicrous to even comment on. The same as the rifle. Had Sheila shot herself the rifle would have fallen on the floor, as would her arm. And how could she shoot herself with just one arm? Her left arm was tucked up beside her head. Explain that. And the telephone — Nevill couldn’t SPEAK as he’d already been shot by in his mouth by Jeremy upstairs and had a ripped tongue and larynx. Forensics and ballistics PROVED that. But you’re ignoring that. You’re ignoring ALL the facts. Why?
Yes, Sheila was suffering from a MH condition, one in which it’s never been known for someone with mild schizophrenia, such as Sheila had, and who’s on medication to ever kill. Ever. Sheila’s medication had been reduced, but it was STILL too strong for her. She could barely walk. She was weak, heavily tranquillised, unable to focus; shaky; had no coordination; and had NO MOTIVE to kill her adored sons and her parents. Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, either — but Jeremy Bamber is. And he had a HUGE MOTIVE to kill them all; which he carried out.
I’m not sure about the first gunshot wound, but the only correct thing you’ve said is that Sheila was shot (definitely the second time) without the silencer; and Jeremy HAD to do that as he realised Sheila wouldn’t have been able to reach the trigger with the silencer attached.
Sheila could NOT have shot herself twice, as Dr Vanezis concluded AFTER seeing the crime scene, the rifle, and the photographs. Dr Vanezis was actually furious with Taff Jones for misleading him at the PM. He said afterwards that Sheila could NOT have walked after the first shot — so how and why — would/could she have gone downstairs to hide the silencer when part of her spine had been shattered; she was pouring with blood, struggling to breathe...and not a single drop of her blood was found ANYWHERE downstairs, in the cupboard, on the landing...not even by the bedroom door. Perhaps you could explain that to Professor Vanezis: I can forward you his phone number if you’d like?
And to come out with that silly old chestnut: Sheila cleaned herself after shooting her children and parents dead, beating Nevill to a pulp exposing his brain, before shooting herself TWICE near where her mother lay dead is nuts. If Sheila was going berserk and had lost her mind, why would she remove her heavily bloodstained clothes that would have had tissue parts from Nevill all over her, in her hair, up her nose, inside her ears...take a shower or bath, then insert a tampon, put her wristw..ch back on and then shoot herself dead? Where were her bloodstained clothes? Where did they go? Any idea?
You suggesting Sheila used TWO rifles like some kind of saloon bar cowgirl on a rampage is laughable. Where WAS this other gun?
You’re obviously desperate to try and make him look innocent ...and I give you 10/10 for highlighting his guilt.
-
Or it could be that Julie Mugford was deliberately giving wrong information to send the police off track and protect Jeremy?
Anyway, I'd like to move on from the topic of Julie Mugford, if possible. Unless somebody can provide solid objections, I see no reason to believe anything she said and I think her evidence should be dismissed.
One point to Jeremy.
You can dismiss and award as many points as you like, the rest of us will do the same.
0 points to Jeremy.
-
It was you who stated he’s only in prison because he’s a liar.
*%87
-
9.1. She was mentally-ill. Are all mentally ill people killers?
9.2. She was set against June. Yes, this is said a lot but was she really that set against her?
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half. Because she had been over sedated but still had a moderate dose in her system after death
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements. Who doesn't have the odd tantrum? Her 'adverse statements' were said two years previous to the murders and before she was taking regular medication
9.5. She was found with the rifle. Obviously because Bamber put it there.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator. Said who?
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur. Rarely
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide. Of course it excludes her and the notion that she washed is just silly.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila. But after firing off 25 rounds using it to batter Nevill, she managed only one print of her own and was able to preserve one of Bambers?
-
Why?!... simply because you don't agree with the answer?
No. It's because I DO agree with the answer. The answer is merely a truism. It doesn't convince me on the point: which is why I should believe her evidence.
The question still stands: Why should I?
-
You can dismiss and award as many points as you like, the rest of us will do the same.
0 points to Jeremy.
Then go ahead and do the same. But what is your point, Caroline?
-
Only pretty much? (LOL)
Pretty much very much 8((()*/
-
9.1. She was mentally-ill. Are all mentally ill people killers?
9.2. She was set against June. Yes, this is said a lot but was she really that set against her?
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half. Because she had been over sedated but still had a moderate dose in her system after death
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements. Who doesn't have the odd tantrum? Her 'adverse statements' were said two years previous to the murders and before she was taking regular medication
9.5. She was found with the rifle. Obviously because Bamber put it there.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator. Said who?
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur. Rarely
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide. Of course it excludes her and the notion that she washed is just silly.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila. But after firing off 25 rounds using it to batter Nevill, she managed only one print of her own and was able to preserve one of Bambers?
Could you kindly point me to where I said that all mentally-ill people are killers? I will then rush to edit/correct that post, since clearly that would be a gross inaccuracy.
Did she have a history of violent tantrums or not? I think she did. She made adverse statements close to the killings. There again, I'm sure that I could find comments from Bamber close to the killings, including from Julie Mugford. It works both ways.
Look at the gun shot wounds and see for yourself that they are not consistent with use of a moderator.
Regarding forensic traces on her hands, actually now I think about it more, I seem to recall that there were, but in any event, I'm referring to what was found on her corpse, not what got on to her during a hypothetical attack. The distinction is important.
The idea that she washed herself is not silly at all - but I suppose that point is in the eye of the beholder. We can all say notions are silly, but it's not an argument, is it.
Fingerprints are not guaranteed, and are not an exact science.
-
Then go ahead and do the same. But what is your point, Caroline?
The point being that you made rather a long post to discuss the issues you thought relevant/irrelevant which included JM. People gave their opinions then you didn't want to talk about Julie anymore?
Julie was a major part of the case, I'm really not sure how you can dismiss Julie out of hand given that you think Bamber is guilty?
-
Your conclusions are wrong — and what’s more, with due respect — your “conclusions” are irrelevant. Just as mine are, or anyone else’s. But whatever conclusions you come to (and we all know what they’d be) what could you do with them? Do you think the courts will say “Oh, we were wrong — a poster on a forum called Brancher says so! We must release Bamber immediately!”
Where have I said such a thing?
I have never said such a thing and I have not implied it - in fact, if you look above in the thread, I actually made it clear that it is a matter for the courts.
You are also wrong about my motives, but in any case, it is not for you to go round judging other people's motives when they post.
-
The point being that you made rather a long post to discuss the issues you thought relevant/irrelevant which included JM. People gave their opinions then you didn't want to talk about Julie anymore?
Julie was a major part of the case, I'm really not sure how you can dismiss Julie out of hand given that you think Bamber is guilty?
?????
I can't tell you what you should and you shouldn't discuss, but I've suggested we move on because you and others can't come up with any strong reason to counter what I have said, and there are other points to discuss.
What's the point of going over and over it when you're telling me the same thing over and over again: that you believe her, even though she was a proven liar and criminal, had immunity, had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber, and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?
Would you rely on such evidence to convict somebody? Really?
-
Could you kindly point me to where I said that all mentally-ill people are killers? I will then rush to edit/correct that post, since clearly that would be a gross inaccuracy.
Did she have a history of violent tantrums or not? I think she did. She made adverse statements close to the killings. There again, I'm sure that I could find comments from Bamber close to the killings, including from Julie Mugford. It works both ways.
Look at the gun shot wounds and see for yourself that they are not consistent with use of a moderator.
Regarding forensic traces on her hands, actually now I think about it more, I seem to recall that there were, but in any event, I'm referring to what was found on her corpse, not what got on to her during a hypothetical attack. The distinction is important.
The idea that she washed herself is not silly at all - but I suppose that point is in the eye of the beholder. We can all say notions are silly, but it's not an argument, is it.
Fingerprints are not guaranteed, and are not an exact science.
I didn't say you did say all mentally ill people kill, you chose that as a reason why Sheila might be guilty and if you look at my post again, there is a question mark. Her mental illness is a plus point for her because she was on medication.
No, she didn have a history of 'violent tantrums'. 'History of' implies that it was frequent and other than a couple of arguments with Colin, I can't recall any others. She had episodes due to her illness but that was before she was on regular meds.
I have looked at the photographs more times than I care to remember. What should the wounds look like if a silencer was used?
If Sheila fired the weapon 25 times she would have had GSR (specs of powder) on her hands and nightdress. We don't know hf Jeremy did - he might have been covered in it - we'll never know.
The washing something used to excuse how clean she was - that's a reason and I still think the notion is silly.
I didn't say they were guaranteed, I said she only managed to get one perfect print of her own while preserving one of Bambers.
-
No. It's because I DO agree with the answer. The answer is merely a truism. It doesn't convince me on the point: which is why I should believe her evidence.
The question still stands: Why should I?
You weren't at the the trial, neither was any one of us here, but after intense grilling by the Defence, the jury were convinced that Julie Mugford was telling the truth, and they would have heard far more than what you think. Why would Julie put herself under such pressure simply because their relationship had ended and she wanted to see her boyfriend imprisoned for life because he finished with her? Your reasoning that "Julie lied" is simply too dismissive and makes no sense at all.
-
Would posters please calm down and about all, please refrain from criticising others opinions.
Admin
-
?????
I can't tell you what you should and you shouldn't discuss, but I've suggested we move on because you and others can't come up with any strong reason to counter what I have said, and there are other points to discuss.
What's the point of going over and over it when you're telling me the same thing over and over again: that you believe her, even though she was a proven liar and criminal, had immunity, had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber, and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?
Would you rely on such evidence to convict somebody? Really?
You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.
To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.
-
You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.
To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.
Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?
-
You weren't at the the trial, neither was any one of us here, but after intense grilling by the Defence, the jury were convinced that Julie Mugford was telling the truth, and they would have heard far more than what you think. Why would Julie put herself under such pressure simply because their relationship had ended and she wanted to see her boyfriend imprisoned for life because he finished with her? Your reasoning that "Julie lied" is simply too dismissive and makes no sense at all.
And why drag in Matthew McDonald? Why would she cunjure his name up out of the ether. Bamber didn't like him because he had a liaison with Suzette Ford, he probably thought it was funny to make him the hitman.
-
?????
I can't tell you what you should and you shouldn't discuss, but I've suggested we move on because you and others can't come up with any strong reason to counter what I have said, and there are other points to discuss.
What's the point of going over and over it when you're telling me the same thing over and over again: that you believe her, even though she was a proven liar and criminal, had immunity, had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber, and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?
Would you rely on such evidence to convict somebody? Really?
Oh, so Bamber wasn't a proven liar and criminal either when he broke into the Osea office to satisy his monetary greed as he admitted at trial. And wasn't it Bamber's intention to get a hefty payout should he have been declared innocent?
-
And why drag in Matthew McDonald? Why would she cunjure his name up out of the ether. Bamber didn't like him because he had a liaison with Suzette Ford, he probably thought it was funny to make him the hitman.
Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.
-
Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?
Not all the evidence is in the public domain, as you well know.
-
Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?
What evidence would you expect me to have Holly? I have a site from CAL's book - p75-76 Kindle Version. Pointless reading it though because it will just be dismissed and that's fine but I would be worried about the amount of dismissing I was doing.
-
Not all the evidence is in the public domain, as you well know.
EP confirmed that NZ detectives suspected him of a scam but he scarpered before they could speak to him.
-
even though she was a proven liar and criminal
JM wasn’t found guilty of any crime - she wasn’t prosecuted either and re the accusation of her being accused of ‘smuggling cannabis from Canada’ this appears to have been made up ?
-
You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.
To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.
8((()*/
Bamber’s a master manipulator
Aunt Agatha is evidence of that
-
Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?
Carol Ann Lee doesn’t strike me as the type of person to make something up Holly
What’s the reference in the book re Bambers scam with travellers cheques ?
-
Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.
Maybe it was put to JM by Bamber who didn't like him very much because he tried it on with SF.
-
and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?
Bamber's then girlfriend Anji Greaves appears to have been paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact ?
What evidence did her witness statement or interviews with the police produce - or did Bamber keep her ‘private’ as Aunt Agatha claims he did her ?
-
None of your points make any sense whatsoever. None.
Really? Yet I assume you would like to conduct a civil discussion with me?
Is your attitude right, do you think?
Your first point that EP messed up the crime scene is wrong.
Yet in a different post, you admitted that Essex Police HAD messed up the crime scene and lost "vital evidence".
It’s true that the raid team had to smash the door down and search through all the rooms — so of course they had to walk all over the house. How else were they supposed to find everyone? Taff Jones was inept, that’s true, and they shouldn’t have destroyed much of the evidence —
But I'm wrong about everything, you say?
but that only highlights how right they were to convict him when much evidence was lost,
Perhaps, yes. As you say, perhaps it is a testament to the strength of the case against him.
and he was represented by one of the top QC’s at that time. If a brilliant top QC couldn’t get Jeremy off, what does that tell you?
A black cab driver circa 30 years ago: "If a top QC couldn't get the Birmingham Six off in an appeal, what does that tell you, eh guv'nor? I once had that Reggie Kray in the bad of me cab once. Gentleman he was....."
I don't find your point very convincing! Sorry.
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?
The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.
The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else.
To be honest, this is the only useful part of your post. If you had just stuck to facts like this and you could be a bit more civil, we could have a useful discussion and I may well change from thinking Bamber probably did it to accepting that he definitely did it.
I do know already about what you say, but my understanding of the evidence is different. I will look again.
How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me. Or are you going to suggest like some of his other supporters do, that the appeal court judges are corrupt too? That the whole of Essex Constabulary, all the lawyers, QCs, forensic scientists, ballistic experts, pathologists, psychiatrists, witnesses, the judge, the appeal court judges, the judges at the court of Human Rights, neighbours, acquaintances, friends, family, journalists, everyone involved were all corrupt, all lied, and wanted to set him up?
Please refer to a post in which I have stated, suggested or even implied any of this. If you can't, then I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from making allegations like this. Please be careful about what you say to people.
And there’s nothing remotely strange about why the silencer which Jeremy used wasn’t found on the day of the murders: Jeremy had hidden it. Have you not read the case through?
I have read the case through. If we assume he did hide the moderator, then it was hid at the scene. Why didn't the police find it?
Do you not realise that Sheila’s blood, including both June’s and Nevill’s were found in that silencer Jeremy hid? Does that not prove to you that it was used in the killings? Don’t you realise Jeremy used the silencer so as not to wake everyone when he first shot the twins in their heads? Do you not realise that Jeremy didn’t want nearby neighbours hearing bullets firing?
There is no evidence he used the moderator in the kilings, but I find it interesting that you cling to this evidence, even though it's not necessary for you to do say. You could throw the moderator away. Indeed, isn't that what the trial judge said in his summing-up to the jury?
You then say you “think” Julie was lying. You think. But you don’t know her, nor did you. You’ve even come out with the ludicrous suggestion that Julie herself was arrested! That’s utter nonsense. She wasn’t arrested at all, and to even suggest that makes you look like a conspiracist — and no-one takes any notice of those....
I know she lied. She admits it herself. The question is whether we should believe what she said subsequently. My question is: Why should I? Neither you nor anybody else can give me a strong reason.
I suspect she was arrested, I don't know it, and I note that Essex Police are hiding behind PII certificates.
Julie came forward of her own volition, as did her friend. Julie VOLUNTEERED all the information she had, warts and all,
Your facts aren't quite right there. She wasn't a volunteer. Her testimony was coerced and she was given immunity, not so much for her own benefit, but for the Crown, though it did benefit her.
and she told the police things Jeremy had told her AFTER he’d murdered his family, that she couldn’t have possibly known about the killings. She knew exactly where all the bodies were found; how they were laying; their exact positions; how many bullets they’d each received; how Jeremy entered and left the house (which proved correct); and various other things that were NOT made public and the only way she could have known those things was from being told by the killer: Jeremy. He did indeed lie and made out he’d paid a hitman to do it, but the rest of what he told her was all true...even down to the “dropped glove” and Jeremy’s “made-up hitman” being worried about the fingerprints on the rifle. How could she have known THAT? Tell me how she could have known there’d be few fingerprints on the rifle when no-one was told at that time?
Sorry but she could have learned all this from other sources, including Jeremy. Remember that even if Jeremy told her these things, that doesn't make him guilty, since Jeremy himself could have gleaned the information from innocent sources.
But just to refresh my memory, perhaps you could quickly link to her statements where she provided all this information?
Julie’s statement was NOT hearsay at all: she repeated what Jeremy had told HER. Why do you think the judge told the jury they could convict him on just her evidence alone? Do you seriously think the court would allow HEARSAY? Do you not think the defence would have objected?!
The critical part of her statement was hearsay (and also untrue). You are wrong when you say that hearsay evidence was inadmissible at that time in English criminal trials. There have always been exceptions to the common law rule against hearsay, including hearsay involving criminal admissions by an accused.
Also, arguably it wasn't technically hearsay on the basis that both Bamber himself and McDonald were open to cross-examination - indeed, I assume this was one of the reasons McDonald was called, the other one being to quash the notion of a hitman in the jury's minds and point the finger solely at Jeremy.
And for you to say you think she’s an abominable woman because she made one foolish mistake of making out she’d lost her cheque book to commit fraud, is somewhat severe. She confessed to it; felt shame and remorse; and paid the money back to the bank. Yes, it was wrong what she did, but Jeremy didn’t think so. He was pleased as punch when she illegally bought him a top of the range coffee maker with her “stolen” cheque book, and actually praised her. He was a DREADFUL influence on her.
Sorry but here you fall into the classic trap of trying to deodorise Julie Mugford. I needn't take it seriously or respond further. Both Julie Mugford and Jeremy Bamber were abominable individuals, and she was a criminal in her own right.
And this nonsense that Sheila’s body was moved by the police is a ridiculous lie. She wasn’t moved at all. The photographs PROVE that. They only moved her arm to take photos of the blood beneath.
Well, it is a truism that the police must have moved the body at some stage, and it's also not controversial to suppose that the police moved her when they found her as (I assume) they would have had to safe the rifle and maybe attempt to resuscitate her, depending on what they found. So my point actually stands. You've just misunderstood me.
The Bible was staged by Jeremy, as was the rifle. Sheila couldn’t have opened the Bible, pressed her hand into her own pool of blood as she was losing consciousness, imprinted her blooded hand inside the Bible; closed it; opened it again; then positioned it next to herself when she was gurgling for breath. The mirrored imprint inside the Bible actually tripped him up... It’s actually too ludicrous to even comment on. The same as the rifle. Had Sheila shot herself the rifle would have fallen on the floor, as would her arm. And how could she shoot herself with just one arm? Her left arm was tucked up beside her head. Explain that. And the telephone — Nevill couldn’t SPEAK as he’d already been shot by in his mouth by Jeremy upstairs and had a ripped tongue and larynx. Forensics and ballistics PROVED that. But you’re ignoring that. You’re ignoring ALL the facts. Why?
I'm not ignoring facts. I'll get on to discussing the Bible in due time. I appreciate you adding your own views, but it would be more helpful if you could calm down a bit.
Yes, Sheila was suffering from a MH condition, one in which it’s never been known for someone with mild schizophrenia, such as Sheila had, and who’s on medication to ever kill. Ever. Sheila’s medication had been reduced, but it was STILL too strong for her. She could barely walk. She was weak, heavily tranquillised, unable to focus; shaky; had no coordination; and had NO MOTIVE to kill her adored sons and her parents. Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, either — but Jeremy Bamber is. And he had a HUGE MOTIVE to kill them all; which he carried out.
I’m not sure about the first gunshot wound, but the only correct thing you’ve said is that Sheila was shot (definitely the second time) without the silencer; and Jeremy HAD to do that as he realised Sheila wouldn’t have been able to reach the trigger with the silencer attached.
Sheila could NOT have shot herself twice, as Dr Vanezis concluded AFTER seeing the crime scene, the rifle, and the photographs. Dr Vanezis was actually furious with Taff Jones for misleading him at the PM. He said afterwards that Sheila could NOT have walked after the first shot — so how and why — would/could she have gone downstairs to hide the silencer when part of her spine had been shattered; she was pouring with blood, struggling to breathe...and not a single drop of her blood was found ANYWHERE downstairs, in the cupboard, on the landing...not even by the bedroom door. Perhaps you could explain that to Professor Vanezis: I can forward you his phone number if you’d like?
You make some good points here, but you also make the assumption that the moderator was used in the killings. It may have been. I'll need to re-consider the points you make above about the DNA found in the moderator.
And to come out with that silly old chestnut: Sheila cleaned herself after shooting her children and parents dead, beating Nevill to a pulp exposing his brain, before shooting herself TWICE near where her mother lay dead is nuts. If Sheila was going berserk and had lost her mind, why would she remove her heavily bloodstained clothes that would have had tissue parts from Nevill all over her, in her hair, up her nose, inside her ears...take a shower or bath, then insert a tampon, put her wristw..ch back on and then shoot herself dead? Where were her bloodstained clothes? Where did they go? Any idea?
That's an argument from incredulity. Why not clean herself?
You suggesting Sheila used TWO rifles like some kind of saloon bar cowgirl on a rampage is laughable. Where WAS this other gun?
There was more than one loaded gun in the house and you've admitted that the police missed "vital evidence" [your words]. Why is it laughable?
You’re obviously desperate to try and make him look innocent ...and I give you 10/10 for highlighting his guilt.
No, I think he probably did it, actually. I've said that half-a-dozen times. Please don't impugn my motives.
-
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.
JM’s testimony was hardly a red herring - it appears to have also exposed Bamber’s emotional and psychologically abusive nature
-
Maybe it was put to JM by Bamber who didn't like him very much because he tried it on with SF.
How do you account for Christine Bacon taken in for questioning and held in custody overnight?
-
You weren't at the the trial, neither was any one of us here, but after intense grilling by the Defence, the jury were convinced that Julie Mugford was telling the truth, and they would have heard far more than what you think. Why would Julie put herself under such pressure simply because their relationship had ended and she wanted to see her boyfriend imprisoned for life because he finished with her? Your reasoning that "Julie lied" is simply too dismissive and makes no sense at all.
We don't know what the jury thought or why they came to their decision.
And she did lie - she admitted it. That's why she was involved in the case, because she was a proven liar.
But the point is this: why should I believe her? You haven't given me a reason that would persuade me, and that's why I think the discussion should move on.
As for me not being at the trial, neither were you, I assume. Perhaps next time you make a point I disagree with, I should say: "But you weren't at the trial, Myster!" Does that mean I'll win the argument?
-
Carol Ann Lee doesn’t strike me as the type of person to make something up Holly
What’s the reference in the book re Bambers scam with travellers cheques ?
This is the passage and another below.
"Jeremy had arranged for a friend to cash his traveller’s cheques, then reported it as theft, but ‘the bank were suspicious and Jeremy had to stand on an ID parade’. The news filtered home, with slight embellishments and some confusion about Jeremy asking his father for funds to replace ‘a stolen wallet’.25 Barbara Wilson recalls: ‘We had to send money to him. I don’t know what happened but he did get into trouble. We sent quite a lot of money.’ Essex Police confirmed that detectives in New Zealand suspected him of a scam, but he had fled the country before they caught up with him!
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 76). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Julie mentioned that the CB fraud was a result of Bambers NZ scam. I know first hand that he's fond of the word 'naughty'.
"That evening Julie presented him with his gifts: ‘I told him how and where we had got the goods. All he said was that we had been naughty. This was said in a jovial manner and not as an admonishment. He said we had taken a risk in view of his alleged theft of traveller’s cheques whilst in Australia or New Zealand."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 100). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
Oh, so Bamber wasn't a proven liar and criminal either when he broke into the Osea office to satisy his monetary greed as he admitted at trial. And wasn't it Bamber's intention to get a hefty payout should he have been declared innocent?
But that's the whole point - I've said it repeatedly, that they were both as bad as one another.
The problem here is people taking sides.
I'm not taking a side. I think Bamber is a horrible man.
-
We don't know what the jury thought or why they came to their decision.
And she did lie - she admitted it. That's why she was involved in the case, because she was a proven liar.
But the point is this: why should I believe her? You haven't given me a reason that would persuade me, and that's why I think the discussion should move on.
As for me not being at the trial, neither were you, I assume. Perhaps next time you make a point I disagree with, I should say: "But you weren't at the trial, Myster!" Does that mean I'll win the argument?
She did indeed lie, she lied for Jeremy but as I said, I don't think there is anything anyone can say that would lead you to change you mind.
-
Would posters please calm down and about all, please refrain from criticising others opinions.
Admin
Can I second that and say that I don't appreciate one poster in particular impugning my motives. I've noticed that poster has a bullying approach to other posters as well, and I am of the view that this behaviour needs to stop.
This Forum is meant to be for discussion of the case. I had assumed that would be welcome. If it's not, then I don't mind, I'll go elsewhere.
-
She did indeed lie, she lied for Jeremy but as I said, I don't think there is anything anyone can say that would lead you to change you mind.
Actually, there is. Actually, you'd be doing me a favour. And I don't like it that a probable mass murderer appears to have an unsafe conviction. I'd like to form the view that his conviction is safe.
I'm just not convinced by what I have heard so far. I know this doesn't apply to you, but one way to really turn me against what you are saying is to start bullying me or impugning my motives. I'm only human.
I really think that Julie Mugford's evidence is one of two weak points in the prosecution case and the Crown may yet, one day, come to regret ever calling her.
-
Her testimony was coerced
What parts of her testimony were coerced and by who was it coerced ?
-
But that's the whole point - I've said it repeatedly, that they were both as bad as one another.
Bamber was clearly an emotional & psychological abuser - Don’t see that in JM
They can hardly be described ‘as bad as one another’ - they appear to have been like chalk and cheese
Bamber’s deceptive, calculating, cunning, emotionless character appears to have been on the opposite end of the spectrum to JM’s
-
JM wasn’t found guilty of any crime - she wasn’t prosecuted either and re the accusation of her being accused of ‘smuggling cannabis from Canada’ this appears to have been made up ?
Now isn't that a surprise!!
-
Now isn't taht a surprise!!
()678% Aunt Agatha
-
Actually, there is. Actually, you'd be doing me a favour. And I don't like it that a probable mass murderer appears to have an unsafe conviction. I'd like to form the view that his conviction is safe.
I'm just not convinced by what I have heard so far. I know this doesn't apply to you, but one way to really turn me against what you are saying is to start bullying me or impugning my motives. I'm only human.
I really think that Julie Mugford's evidence is one of two weak points in the prosecution case and the Crown may yet, one day, come to regret ever calling her.
You would think the Crown might have learned by its lesson re the 3 school girls called at the trial of Stefan Kiszko.
-
I suspect she was arrested, I don't know it
JM was questioned under caution - what does that imply ?
-
Actually, there is. Actually, you'd be doing me a favour. And I don't like it that a probable mass murderer appears to have an unsafe conviction. I'd like to form the view that his conviction is safe.
I'm just not convinced by what I have heard so far. I know this doesn't apply to you, but one way to really turn me against what you are saying is to start bullying me or impugning my motives. I'm only human.
I really think that Julie Mugford's evidence is one of two weak points in the prosecution case and the Crown may yet, one day, come to regret ever calling her.
I have actually already asked you if you can give reason why she would invent a hitman and name him as someone both she and Bamber knew. Matthew McDonald was someone who Jeremy dealt drugs with, but he didn't like him because he tried it on with one of his ex girlfriends when they were together.
To answer a point you made in reply to I Spy, if she were coerced, then not only did she lie, but Susan Battersby must have lied too ........ and Liz Rimmington ......... and Malcolm Waters too.
-
You would think the Crown might have learned by its lesson re the 3 school girls called at the trial of Stefan Kiszko.
Oh not poor old Stephan again - he was a REAL MOJ! Not this chancer!
-
Although (as you mentioned earlier) Sheila suffered from mental illness, she was medicated and although (as you also mentioned earlier) her meds were reduced, this was because she had symptoms over being over medicated and after her death, she was found to have a moderate dose of her meds still in her system.I have challenged others to find an example of a medicated schizophrenic who killed in a psychotic episode; so far we have no examples. I sure they do exist but they seem to be like hens teeth.
My challenge to you Caro...
I will find the above and bet you can't find another case or forensic lit about drawback with a silencer.
Challenge on? ?>)()<
-
I really think that Julie Mugford's evidence is one of two weak points in the prosecution case and the Crown may yet, one day, come to regret ever calling her.
I don’t and it’s possible her evidence may have strengthened with the passage of time
-
had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber
Can you list what JM’s incentive or incentives to give evidence against Bamber were
-
Can you list what JM’s incentive or incentives to give evidence against Bamber were
A deal with the NOW only upon him being found guilty.
New identity to a country of her choosing.
A clear criminal record.
A new life.....thats just for starters!
-
How do you account for Christine Bacon taken in for questioning and held in custody overnight?
The entire group were Holly
-
JM wasn’t found guilty of any crime - she wasn’t prosecuted either and re the accusation of her being accused of ‘smuggling cannabis from Canada’ this appears to have been made up ?
Now isn't that a surprise!!
Other than delay the trial, what difference do you think it would have made to Bamber's murder trial if JM had been found guilty for the cheque book fraud and then given her evidence Aunt Agatha ?
-
Now isn't that a surprise!!
Has JM been falsely accused of ‘smuggling cannabis from Canada’ Aunt Agatha - as reported by Eric Allison for the Guardian (2012) ?
-
and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?
JM was flown over from Canada to give evidence at Bamber’s appeal in 2002
The BBC reported,
“Bamber claims in his appeal that police tried to bolster Mrs Smerchanski's image, as she was their star witness.
The appeal hearing has been told that the case of Bamber was built on a "series of deceits".
It has been claimed during the hearing that she had intended to sell her story to the News of the World for £25,000 before the trial and not afterwards.
“It had been expected that Mrs Smerchanski, 37, would be called by the Crown to be cross-examined by Bamber's barrister on the sixth day of the hearing.
Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Henriques gave permission for her to be called, but no application was made for her to do so.
After the lunchtime adjournment, and following submissions from lawyers for both parties, she was released as a witness. [/font]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm
Does anyone know what Bamber’s submissions were and what the Crown countered them with?
-
My challenge to you Caro...
I will find the above and bet you can't find another case or forensic lit about drawback with a silencer.
Challenge on? ?>)()<
Funny you should mention that ............. 8((()*/
-
A deal with the NOW only upon him being found guilty.
Is that what was agreed Aunt Agatha ?
Don’t you think the NOW would have paid her and carried out an interview regardless of the outcome ?
Gordon Park was paid £50k, twice what JM was paid and he was a murderer - albeit he’d yet to be convicted
Gordon Park was paid £50,000 for an interview with the Mail on Sunday https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SZeFTLPGtigC&pg=PT274&lpg=PT274&dq=gordon+park+paid+£50,000+for+interview&source=bl&ots=iBPefMrN2F&sig=ACfU3U1kk7RnLjGHQFTgnmdPYlOY_U30zA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7ofy[Name removed]MDlAhXzoXEKHbn8CSIQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=gordon%20park%20paid%20£50%2C000%20for%20interview&f=false
-
A deal with the NOW only upon him being found guilty.
How many ‘deals’ did Bamber have set up at the time?
We know of the one with the Sun through his then girlfriend Anji Greaves; she was sat waiting in a hotel with a journalist
-
You know about Anji Greaves don’t you Aunt Agatha - the girlfriend Bamber supporters confuse with Virginia
“Wednesday 4 September 1985 – Jeremy took Julie to a café close to Sheila’s apartment shortly before 4pm and gave her a cheque for £400 to pay for a holiday with Liz Rimmington[6]. He then discussed their relationship, and after his arrest Julie banked this cheque along with another from Jeremy. On returning to Sheila’s apartment, Jeremy received a telephone call from another girl he’d been seeing called Virginia Greaves. In fury, Julie ran into the bedroom, picked up a wooden Chinese trick box that belonged to Jeremy and threw it into a mirror, smashing it into pieces. Brett Collins also witnessed this from the next room in the apartment.
[/i]
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/julie-mugford-volunteer-witness
-
Is that what was agreed Aunt Agatha ?
Don’t you think the NOW would have paid her and carried out an interview regardless of the outcome ?
Gordon Park was paid £50k, twice what JM was paid and he was a murderer - albeit he’d yet to be convicted
This is what was written about the witnesses who gave evidence against Gordon Park
“More potentially damning – if notoriously unreliable – was the evidence of two “jailhouse snitches” who claimed Park had confessed separately to them during his two-week remand in Preston prison in 1997. Leaving aside the unlikely scenario of a man who has steadfastly protested his innocence to family, friends and lawyers suddenly opening up to complete strangers, their testimony suffered from an embarrassing divergence of content.
Glen Banks, a “highly suggestible” man with a severe learning difficulty with whom Park had briefly shared a cell, claimed: “He said he killed his missus while on a boat in Blackpool.” Meanwhile, Michael Wainwright, a 12-joints-a-day cannabis addict with a tendency for “hearing voices”, claimed Park had told him he had gone upstairs, found his wife in bed with another man and killed her in a fit of rage.
http://www.nickthorpe.co.uk/journalism/news-and-features/lady-in-lake-sunday-herald/
-
New identity to a country of her choosing.
Really, was this agreed or have you made it up ?
-
A clear criminal record.
If JM were charged with any criminal offences how long would she have had a criminal record for Aunt Agatha?
-
A new life.....thats just for starters!
JM murdered no one Aunt Agatha!
‘For starters‘ she deserved a ‘new life’
-
Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.
By who?
-
I have read the case through. If we assume he did hide the moderator, then it was hid at the scene. Why didn't the police find it?
Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?
-
Is that what was agreed Aunt Agatha ?
Don’t you think the NOW would have paid her and carried out an interview regardless of the outcome ?
Gordon Park was paid £50k, twice what JM was paid and he was a murderer - albeit he’d yet to be convicted
I’m certain. The contract was only signed after his conviction. I’m not aware of any other deal outside of this.
-
Really, was this agreed or have you made it up ?
This was agreed. Bamber and his team have been aware of this from the beginning, as was I.
-
If JM were charged with any criminal offences how long would she have had a criminal record for Aunt Agatha?
Could you rephrase the question please by elaborating further.
-
JM murdered no one Aunt Agatha!
‘For starters‘ she deserved a ‘new life’
No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too.....but instead she was used as a witness. Strange that!
-
Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?
Nowhere does it state the moderator was hidden.....only Ispy is putting that False info out there.
-
No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too.....but instead she was used as a witness. Strange that!
Joint enterprise doesn't apply in this case AA.
-
Joint enterprise doesn't apply in this case AA.
I know. I was trying to state if it did....she would have to be charged too.
-
I know. I was trying to state if it did....she would have to be charged too.
Did you know that it is not illegal to not report a crime?
-
No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too.....but instead she was used as a witness. Strange that!
What did Julie do that could in any way be considered joint enterprise? For the record she stated at the time that she never dreamt that Jeremy Bamber would go through with his threats to murder his family. She is to be pitied if anything. A young impressionable girl who was infatuated with JB who used that for his own ends.
-
What did Julie do that could in any way be considered joint enterprise? For the record she stated at the time that she never dreamt that Jeremy Bamber would go through with his threats to murder his family. She is to be pitied if anything. A young impressionable girl who was infatuated with JB who used that for his own ends.
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court. She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.
-
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court. She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
What are you claiming JM wouldn’t get away with Aunt Agatha?
What’s wrong with you ? ‘she cried through most of it’
She was clearly upset and suspect most normal people would have been given the circumstances
-
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court. She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.
What are you on about ?
-
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court. She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.
So what
She got through it
-
No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too.....but instead she was used as a witness. Strange that!
Please explain what’s strange about her being used as prosecution witness
-
EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible. At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.
8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone. Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber. I take a different view. I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
I quickly perused your detailed response to my reply, Brancher: I’m honoured you took such time and effort in replying to each of my paragraphs. Thank you 😊
I shall respond to your answers a little later as I have a chicken on the BBQ — so am strapped for time to go through your various responses. However, and I do apologise for going off-subject, but as you’ve brought up so many hypothesis I thought I’d throw one into the mix. I hope you don’t mind.
You mentioned the telephone in the kitchen and said you’d “come to that later”; suggesting you’ve solved the mystery of why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen and had no blood on it.
I’m eager to know what you’ve concluded!
I’m not sure if you’re aware of all the facts as you’ve said yourself you’ve forgotten much of it, so I’m interested to know what you make of this:
Nevill was found dead in the kitchen, as you must know. That was the room where he was killed.
Forensics and ballistic experts proved that Nevill received the first four shots to his face and upper arm when upstairs. This proves beyond doubt that Nevill then made his way down to the kitchen whilst he was unable to speak and blood was pouring out of him.
On the wall INTO the kitchen forensics found a blood smear belonging to Nevill. This also proved that as he went into the kitchen he was already bleeding having been shot four times upstairs.
So how was Nevill able to phone Jeremy when blood was pouring from his throat and mouth without leaving a single trace on that telephone?
As an aside, his watch flew off in the violent struggle and landed across the kitchen, which also had his blood on it; so we know for certain that Nevill put up an immense fight.
So can you enlighten everyone and tell us how Nevill managed to phone Jeremy whilst bleeding profusely, yet left not one tiny drop of blood on it?
-
Bamber and his team have been aware of this from the beginning, as was I.
Bamber is committing innocence fraud and your statements highlight this
In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing.
Bamber knew his father hadn’t phoned anyone because he’d killed him
-
By who?
She means by the police, but that being the case, Liz Rimmington, Malcolm Waters and Susan Battersby would all have to be forced to lie.
-
If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy. Sorry. This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.
The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun. I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.
But Nevill was first shot upstairs and was unable to speak.
Read my previous response and you’ll have a better understanding...
-
She means by the police, but that being the case, Liz Rimmington, Malcolm Waters and Susan Battersby would all have to be forced to lie.
Her post reads as though she’s suggesting the police came up with ‘an accomplice’ theory and MM was it ?
Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.
-
I quickly perused your detailed response to my reply, Brancher: I’m honoured you took such time and effort in replying to each of my paragraphs. Thank you 😊
I shall respond to your answers a little later as I have a chicken on the BBQ — so am strapped for time to go through your various responses. However, and I do apologise for going off-subject, but as you’ve brought up so many hypothesis I thought I’d throw one into the mix. I hope you don’t mind.
You mentioned the telephone in the kitchen and said you’d “come to that later”; suggesting you’ve solved the mystery of why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen and had no blood on it.
I’m eager to know what you’ve concluded!
I’m not sure if you’re aware of all the facts as you’ve said yourself you’ve forgotten much of it, so I’m interested to know what you make of this:
Nevill was found dead in the kitchen, as you must know. That was the room where he was killed.
Forensics and ballistic experts proved that Nevill received the first four shots to his face and upper arm when upstairs. This proves beyond doubt that Nevill then made his way down to the kitchen whilst he was unable to speak and blood was pouring out of him.
On the wall INTO the kitchen forensics found a blood smear belonging to Nevill. This also proved that as he went into the kitchen he was already bleeding having been shot four times upstairs.
So how was Nevill able to phone Jeremy when blood was pouring from his throat and mouth without leaving a single trace on that telephone?
As an aside, his watch flew off in the violent struggle and landed across the kitchen, which also had his blood on it; so we know for certain that Nevill put up an immense fight.
So can you enlighten everyone and tell us how Nevill managed to phone Jeremy whilst bleeding profusely, yet left not one tiny drop of blood on it?
By using the phone before he got shot?
-
I’m certain. The contract was only signed after his conviction. I’m not aware of any other deal outside of this.
Agatha,
I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.
Julie Mugford was never arrested — ever.
The one crime she carried out (cheque fraud claiming her cheque book had been stolen) she openly admitted to the police. She felt scared and ashamed for what she’d done when she went shopping with her friend one Saturday and bought clothes and a coffee machine for JB; then when she gave the coffee machine to jeremy in order to “impress” him, because she was stupid, naive and gullible, she unwittingly put herself deeper into his clutches. I dare say he encouraged her to do that. After all, why would she have told him she’d done such a thing? A normal boyfriend would be disgusted and alarmed. Yet not only did she tell him, she bought him an expensive gift too, which he eagerly accepted.
It’s obvious she was under his control.
In the same way he “suddenly” coerced her into being a “watch out” when he burgled and stole money from his own family’s caravan park. I don’t believe the thought suddenly occurred to him as they strolled along. He pre-planned it. Not just for the cash; but to tighten his grip on her. He knew she was besotted; knew she didn’t want to let him down; and so she went along with it to please him. She was his Bonnie to his self-styled Clyde, and she was trapped.
I can just see how Jeremy threatened her near the end of their relationship, and told the terrified, gullible Julie: “If you say a WORD about the murders I will tell the police YOU committed bank fraud! Your teaching career will go down the pan. You’ll lose me. And you’ll end up being a waitress in a pizza parlour for the rest of your life — and that’s after you’ve spent years in prison!”
That’s why he felt confident that she wouldn’t squeal on him when they broke up: he had something on her.
Of course, you can’t compare a shopping spree on “stolen” cheques with MURDERING all your family, but Julie was young, gullible and absolutely terrified.
In the event, she had to confess as she couldn’t stand the strain. And that’s why the police, CPS and bank didn’t press charges against her. On top of which, she admitted it without having to — and she eventually paid all the money back.
To go onto the NOTW deal: Julie never approached them. THEY approached her — AFTER she’d been to the police and told them the whole putrid truth. So Julie had no IDEA that she’d get paid for speaking to the press when she went to the police voluntarily; she didn’t even know if she herself would be implicated in Jeremy murdering his family. He’d warned her the police wouldn’t believe her — yet she still confessed because the stress must have been unbearable.
What you also “conveniently “ forget to say is that Jeremy Bamber went to the press BEFORE the press approached Julie, and signed a £40k deal exclusive that if he was found innocent he’d sell them his story.
Not only did he approach THEM, FIRST, but he pestered them whilst on remand demanding he wanted £100k. They told him NO, but what does that tell you about his psyche? He was bartering for blood money.
-
Agatha,
I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.
Suspect Aunt Agatha knows Bamber was seeing Anji Greaves and may well know when and why their relationship ended
Wonder if AA knows it was Anji Bamber was on the phone to and not Virginia as has been written ?
It’s quite possible Virginia lied to the police to cover for her sister and/or Bamber
-
Wonder if AA knows it was Anji Bamber was on the phone to and not Virginia as has been written ?
It’s quite possible Virginia lied to the police to cover for her sister and/or Bamber
Bamber’s relationship with Anji Greaves started on 18th August 1985 according to her interview with the Sun - 2 days after the families funerals & he was still clearly leading JM on
Re 4th September 1985 JM stated,
“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do
Source for the above
Julie Mugford witness statement page 28 (http://i.imgur.com/BobIW.jpg)
-
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today, nor would her evidence stand up in court. She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
She did what she was told to do.
JM was clearly in an abusive relationship AA
“I was annoyed with him about the call as he had told me he had asked out another women. The phone then rang again and it was Virginia. I walked out of the room and into the bedroom as I was so angry. I picked a Chinese box of Jeremy and threw it against a mirror which smashed. When that broke he came into the room with the phone, still on it to Virginia and then put it down.
He asked me why I did it and I said it was a cruel thing to do to ask out another women whilst I was there
He became very cross and I slapped his face.
He then got hold of my right arm and twisted it up my back, pushed me onto the bed and then he raised his arm as if to hit me
And Bamber treated you in a similar way to how he treated JM
-
Agatha,
I’m reluctant to waste my time posting to you because you don’t seem to read what’s been written.
Julie Mugford was never arrested — ever.
The one crime she carried out (cheque fraud claiming her cheque book had been stolen) she openly admitted to the police. She felt scared and ashamed for what she’d done when she went shopping with her friend one Saturday and bought clothes and a coffee machine for JB; then when she gave the coffee machine to jeremy in order to “impress” him, because she was stupid, naive and gullible, she unwittingly put herself deeper into his clutches. I dare say he encouraged her to do that. After all, why would she have told him she’d done such a thing? A normal boyfriend would be disgusted and alarmed. Yet not only did she tell him, she bought him an expensive gift too, which he eagerly accepted.
It’s obvious she was under his control.
In the same way he “suddenly” coerced her into being a “watch out” when he burgled and stole money from his own family’s caravan park. I don’t believe the thought suddenly occurred to him as they strolled along. He pre-planned it. Not just for the cash; but to tighten his grip on her. He knew she was besotted; knew she didn’t want to let him down; and so she went along with it to please him. She was his Bonnie to his self-styled Clyde, and she was trapped.
I can just see how Jeremy threatened her near the end of their relationship, and told the terrified, gullible Julie: “If you say a WORD about the murders I will tell the police YOU committed bank fraud! Your teaching career will go down the pan. You’ll lose me. And you’ll end up being a waitress in a pizza parlour for the rest of your life — and that’s after you’ve spent years in prison!”
That’s why he felt confident that she wouldn’t squeal on him when they broke up: he had something on her.
Of course, you can’t compare a shopping spree on “stolen” cheques with MURDERING all your family, but Julie was young, gullible and absolutely terrified.
In the event, she had to confess as she couldn’t stand the strain. And that’s why the police, CPS and bank didn’t press charges against her. On top of which, she admitted it without having to — and she eventually paid all the money back.
To go onto the NOTW deal: Julie never approached them. THEY approached her — AFTER she’d been to the police and told them the whole putrid truth. So Julie had no IDEA that she’d get paid for speaking to the press when she went to the police voluntarily; she didn’t even know if she herself would be implicated in Jeremy murdering his family. He’d warned her the police wouldn’t believe her — yet she still confessed because the stress must have been unbearable.
What you also “conveniently “ forget to say is that Jeremy Bamber went to the press BEFORE the press approached Julie, and signed a £40k deal exclusive that if he was found innocent he’d sell them his story.
Not only did he approach THEM, FIRST, but he pestered them whilst on remand demanding he wanted £100k. They told him NO, but what does that tell you about his psyche? He was bartering for blood money.
Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]
A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.
-
Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]
A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.
These type of arrangements occur all the time. Det Sgt Stan Jones was the mastermind behind the plan to have Julie exonerated as long as she apologised to the bank and paid back the money. Jones was in the bank while the girls pled for mercy from the bank manager. It was all agreed well in advance of course by the head bummers in both organisations. The police needed Julie's testimony and she had to be seen to be white as white.
There is no doubt Julie got off lightly, had she been prosecuted for cheque fraud she would have been kicked out of college too and the Canadian government would today be missing a very capable manager in their education department.
-
By using the phone before he got shot?
Gunit, forensics and ballistics proved that Nevill was FIRST shot upstairs on the landing and top of the stairs
He’d been asleep in bed with June when the shootings began and was shot four times in the mouth and arm as he reached the stairs on the landing after rushing out the bedroom; he managed to get downstairs into the kitchen to phone for urgent help. He wasn’t able to reach the phone, but had he, he would have called 999 as he must have seen June being shot. She needed URGENT medical help from paramedics; even though he probably knew she was dead. He was in SHOCK.
Are you suggesting that the gunman didn’t shoot Nevill as he tried to make it downstairs? Why would he have left Nevill free to phone the police from the kitchen? He chased after Nevill and that’s when he beat him to a pulp because he’d run out of bullets.
Think about it: How did Nevill’s smear of blood get onto the wallpaper INTO the kitchen before he tried to get to the phone if he wasn’t bleeding?
Nevill never left that kitchen after entering it, so that smear of blood just outside the kitchen could have only got there when Nevill was going INTO it?
Which means conclusively that Nevill had been shot BEFORE entering the kitchen.
-
Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]
A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.
Thank you, Gunit
Can you please give me an actual link to that?
You’ve just put “Mr Dovey w/s 20/03/2002” but haven’t given me the source
TYI
-
Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]
A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.
More like she was asked if there was anything that Bamber knew about her that might discredit her as a witness and it was cleared up for that reason.
-
Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?
Jeremy hid it in as much as he put it in a box and tucked it deep inside the cupboard right at the very back where it would barely be noticed
AP’s silencer was kept in the cupboard too, and JB made sure that was on show inside.
Naturally, when the initial police team searched, and they were sloppy, there’s no denying that, they assumed AP’s silencer was the one for the .22
In that respect, JB had a degree of foresight, but the police got severely reprimanded for their incompetence and even today police use that case for training purposes to show officers what mistakes not to make.
Oh, forgot to add, Jeremy had to leave it in the house in case the police eventually realised there was one missing. He had washed it, forensics said, but he was unable to see the microscopical spatter of blood INSIDE, and also missed the small particles of blood and paint that was left on there before he put it at the back of the cupboard — including the single grey hair attached to it which could have only been Nevill’s, and was sadly lost before forensics could study it. But as the only person there had grey hair it was obvious it was Nevill’s anyway.
-
Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?
They had no reason to look for it.
-
They had no reason to look for it.
Good point, Caroline
Why would police officers who had no/little knowledge of firearms think to look for a silencer, especially as the rifle on Sheila’s lap appeared intact?
They even admitted they didn’t do a thorough search; they just took what they spotted when they looked around
-
Thank you, Gunit
Can you please give me an actual link to that?
You’ve just put “Mr Dovey w/s 20/03/2002” but haven’t given me the source
TYI
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1165.0
-
Good point, Caroline
Why would police officers who had no/little knowledge of firearms think to look for a silencer, especially as the rifle on Sheila’s lap appeared intact?
They even admitted they didn’t do a thorough search; they just took what they spotted when they looked around
Did you hear that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they 'didn't do a thorough search'. What a pathetic response. Who else should we get to do a thorough search, I wonder? An open day maybe? Bring a cake and search a room? Now why would that be, you may ask yourselves, no thorough search? Could it be, perhaps, that the police were BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE (shouting like Ispy does for effect) for many. many days. And then, ladies and gentlemen, members of the accused's family turn up mob handed during those intervening days, rifle through the house, taking any baubles they thought might make a few quid, and stumble upon a PIVOTAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE (more shouting) that the police apparently WEREN'T LOOKING FOR because they thought Sheila overpowered Nevill, killed everyone and shot herself TTWWIICCEE!!
No further questions, your honour.
-
These type of arrangements occur all the time. Det Sgt Stan Jones was the mastermind behind the plan to have Julie exonerated as long as she apologised to the bank and paid back the money. Jones was in the bank while the girls pled for mercy from the bank manager. It was all agreed well in advance of course by the head bummers in both organisations. The police needed Julie's testimony and she had to be seen to be white as white.
There is no doubt Julie got off lightly, had she been prosecuted for cheque fraud she would have been kicked out of college too and the Canadian government would today be missing a very capable manager in their education department.
The arrangements may occur all the time but are they acceptable? No-one knows whether the police are helping a witness or blackmailing them, do they?
-
No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too
What foresight do you think JM would have had regarding the murders AA ?
-
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.
JM’s testimony was hardly a red herring - it appears to have also exposed Bamber’s emotional and psychologically abusive nature
Julie Mugford’s witness statements evidence Bamber’s gaslighting of her
"Survivors also ‘bond’ with their abusers through intense, traumatic experiences, which makes them likely to protect their abusers due to their own sense of cognitive dissonance about the abuser’s true self. They are conflicted due to the nature of the trauma, the dependence they developed as an effort to survive, as well as the fear of retaliation from their often more powerful partners. As a result, by the time survivors speak their truth, society may doubt their credibility.
https://www.theshaktijournal.com/how-society-enables-malignant-narcissists-and-gaslights-their-victims/
‘Malignant narcissists display a severe lack of empathy, a penchant for exploiting others and an excessive sense of entitlement. Given the nature of their pathological, hard-wired behavior, many are unlikely to change. Millions of survivors around the world are affected by their cruel and callous mistreatment, a form of insidious, psychological torment we call narcissistic abuse.
Covert malignant narcissists don’t just charm their relationship partners; they also fool law enforcement, lawyers, ADAs, judges, friends, family members and bosses every day. They are able to obtain followers and build harems that carry out their dirty work for them. They can sabotage, stalk, harass and retraumatize their victims even after they’ve supposedly ‘discarded’ them. They become enraged and vindictive should their victims leave first. They can even make their victims look like the abusers. How can this be?
-
They had no reason to look for it.
The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood. If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?! He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?!
-
The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood. If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?! He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?!
Why would he have thought that - how would SC have shot herself with ‘a silencer attached’ ? *&^^&
-
The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood. If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?! He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?!
The police officers only collect evidence: they don’t closely inspect it. In fact, they handle it carefully and put it in a sealed bag.
A PC having to collect all the evidence isn’t going to scrutinise each item. They just bag everything up. Besides, they aren’t experienced in firearms and even if they were it wouldn’t occur to them that the small thread protector was unattached.
That’s a real “clutching at straws” wish.... *%87
Anyway, I thought you had fresh evidence that he’s innocent: don’t you feel confident with this new revelation you have?
-
Why would he have thought that - how would SC have shot herself with ‘a silencer attached’ ? *&^^&
Maybe he assumed Crispy had unscrewed it and put it away?
Jeremy did suggest to DS Jones that maybe Crispy shot Sheila the second time...
-
There are no connections to the video you’ve posted and the murders at White House farm
There’s a man on Twitter who is convinced Brookside sent Sheila mad and it’s all their fault
I don’t know what sort of mental illness he has, but he connects almost every crime mainly to Brookside, but also Eastenders, Coronation Street and evening Marilyn Monroe
-
Julie Mugford’s witness statements evidence Bamber’s gaslighting of her
https://www.theshaktijournal.com/how-society-enables-malignant-narcissists-and-gaslights-their-victims/
‘Malignant narcissists display a severe lack of empathy, a penchant for exploiting others and an excessive sense of entitlement. Given the nature of their pathological, hard-wired behavior, many are unlikely to change. Millions of survivors around the world are affected by their cruel and callous mistreatment, a form of insidious, psychological torment we call narcissistic abuse.
Covert malignant narcissists don’t just charm their relationship partners; they also fool law enforcement, lawyers, ADAs, judges, friends, family members and bosses every day. They are able to obtain followers and build harems that carry out their dirty work for them. They can sabotage, stalk, harass and retraumatize their victims even after they’ve supposedly ‘discarded’ them. They become enraged and vindictive should their victims leave first. They can even make their victims look like the abusers. How can this be?
She cried through most of it, and cross examination was almost impossible.
Wouldn’t JM’s crying during cross examination be suggestive of trauma Aunt Agatha ?
-
P
Jeremy did suggest to DS Jones that maybe Crispy shot a Sheila the second time...
An example of his gaslighting behaviour
-
Well jeremys QC Rivlin did not think so, he’s questioned many witnesses who have not behaved in the manner she did.
-
Well jeremys QC Rivlin did not think so, he’s questioned many witnesses who have not behaved in the manner she did.
It was not Mr Rivlins job to suggest Bamber had gaslighted Julie Mugford nor was it his job to declare her his victim but she clearly was
Don’t know how many murder trials you’ve attended nor whether or not you’ve ever spoken to Mr Rivlin but witnesses often cry whilst given evidence in court in cases like this AA
-
More like she was asked if there was anything that Bamber knew about her that might discredit her as a witness and it was cleared up for that reason.
It could be....or more than likely not in my opinion.
You’re all just making this very difficult....the majority of things on here can be perceived to have happened in different ways depending on each individual perception on the case.
I don’t like wasting time having to be told how people were thinking at the time...I can think for myself thank you very much, it’s misleading and conjecture..
It’s hold no weight.
-
Well jeremys QC Rivlin did not think so, he’s questioned many witnesses who have not behaved in the manner she did.
Julie Mugford crying during cross examination is evidence she was clearly upset and most probably traumatised
-
It could be....or more than likely not in my opinion.
You’re all just making this very difficult....the majority of things on here can be perceived to have happened in different ways depending on each individual perception on the case.
I don’t like wasting time having to be told how people were thinking at the time...I can think for myself thank you very much, it’s misleading and conjecture..
It’s hold no weight.
What exactly are you claiming is misleading Aunt Agatha ?
-
The police officers only collect evidence: they don’t closely inspect it. In fact, they handle it carefully and put it in sealed bag.
A PC having to collect all the evidence isn’t going to scrutinise each item. They just bag everything up. Besides, they aren’t experienced in firearms and even if they were it wouldn’t occur to them that the small thread protector was unattached.
That’s a real “clutching at straws” wish.... *%87
Anyway, I thought you had fresh evidence that he’s innocent: don’t you feel confident with this new revelation you have?
The officer responsible for removing the rifle from SC's body and making it safe was A/PS Woodcock who was firearms trained.
If the relatives connected the blood/paint why would a firearms officer not do the same with an absence of blood on the thread protector and/or around the muzzle in general?
Yes I am confident with the new forensic tests.
-
It could be....or more than likely not in my opinion.
You’re all just making this very difficult....the majority of things on here can be perceived to have happened in different ways depending on each individual perception on the case.
I don’t like wasting time having to be told how people were thinking at the time...I can think for myself thank you very much, it’s misleading and conjecture..
It’s hold no weight.
You’ve made numerous conflicting statements over the years Aunt Agatha - would like to know why
-
The officer responsible for removing the rifle from SC's body and making it safe was A/PS Woodcock who was firearms trained.
If the relatives connected the blood/paint why would a firearms officer not do the same with an absence of blood on the thread protector and/or around the muzzle in general?
Yes I am confident with the new forensic tests.
@)(++(*
-
Jeremy hid it in as much as he put it in a box and tucked it deep inside the cupboard right at the very back where it would barely be noticed
AP’s silencer was kept in the cupboard too, and JB made sure that was on show inside.
Naturally, when the initial police team searched, and they were sloppy, there’s no denying that, they assumed AP’s silencer was the one for the .22
In that respect, JB had a degree of foresight, but the police got severely reprimanded for their incompetence and even today police use that case for training purposes to show officers what mistakes not to make.
Oh, forgot to add, Jeremy had to leave it in the house in case the police eventually realised there was one missing. He had washed it, forensics said, but he was unable to see the microscopical spatter of blood INSIDE, and also missed the small particles of blood and paint that was left on there before he put it at the back of the cupboard — including the single grey hair attached to it which could have only been Nevill’s, and was sadly lost before forensics could study it. But as the only person there had grey hair it was obvious it was Nevill’s anyway.
Absolute nonsense....I never found that on the statements....the police never came forward and stated ‘we couldn’t find,it Your Honour’ cos Jeremy bid it from us. B/S!
Stop misleading people...they’re not as stupid as you think.
-
Absolute nonsense....I never found that on the statements....the police never came forward and stated ‘we couldn’t find,it Your Honour’ cos Jeremy bid it from us. B/S!
Stop misleading people...they’re not as stupid as you think.
Why would you expect to find that written in one of the police statements AA?
-
It was not Mr Rivlins job to suggest Bamber had gaslighted Julie Mugford nor was it his job to declare her his victim but she clearly was
Don’t know how many murder trials you’ve attended nor whether or not you’ve ever spoken to Mr Rivlin but witnesses often cry whilst given evidence in court in cases like this AA
Jeremy became a victim of this vicious scorned woman who thought only of herself and a way out. She did what she was supposed to do. That’s was the deal.
-
Stop misleading people...they’re not as stupid as you think.
I find a lot of your posts misleading AA and have posted examples of this - but you ignore them; why ?
-
Jeremy became a victim of this vicious scorned woman who thought only of herself and a way out. She did what she was supposed to do. That’s was the deal.
Have you ever considered that you may come across as a ‘vicious scorned women’ AA and that what you say of JM are your projections ?
-
Don’t know how many murder trials you’ve attended nor whether or not you’ve ever spoken to Mr Rivlin but witnesses often cry whilst given evidence in court in cases like this AA
[/quote]
I’ve not attended any, however that is irrelevant.
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was crying because she was bloody lying....she couldn’t stop once she had started. She knew were it was going and she was in pieces.
That’s more plausible.
-
Jeremy became a victim of this vicious scorned woman who thought only of herself and a way out. She did what she was supposed to do. That’s was the deal.
There’s no evidence of JM having gaslighted anyone
But there’s a wealth of evidence Bamber’s gaslighting and manipulation are second nature to him
-
I’ve not attended any, however that is irrelevant.
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was crying because she was bloody lying....she couldn’t stop once she had started. She knew were it was going and she was in pieces.
That’s more plausible.
Now you are being silly AA
Do you cry when your lying ?
-
Good point, Caroline
Why would police officers who had no/little knowledge of firearms think to look for a silencer, especially as the rifle on Sheila’s lap appeared intact?
They even admitted they didn’t do a thorough search; they just took what they spotted when they looked around
That’s quite a ridiculous point!
-
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was clearly upset and most probably traumatised as I’ve said before AA
She may well have been experiencing a wealth of emotions, including guilt for having not recognised Bamber’s previous comments about killing his family were not throw away comments but that he intended on carrying them out
-
Did you hear that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they 'didn't do a thorough search'. What a pathetic response. Who else should we get to do a thorough search, I wonder? An open day maybe? Bring a cake and search a room? Now why would that be, you may ask yourselves, no thorough search? Could it be, perhaps, that the police were BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE (shouting like Ispy does for effect) for many. many days. And then, ladies and gentlemen, members of the accused's family turn up mob handed during those intervening days, rifle through the house, taking any baubles they thought might make a few quid, and stumble upon a PIVOTAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE (more shouting) that the police apparently WEREN'T LOOKING FOR because they thought Sheila overpowered Nevill, killed everyone and shot herself TTWWIICCEE!!
No further questions, your honour.
I think that’s more like than what Ispy proposed. &^^&*
-
Why would he have thought that - how would SC have shot herself with ‘a silencer attached’ ? *&^^&
She didn’t!!
-
She didn’t!!
Of course she didn’t
Bamber murdered his family
But you choose to not see it because you cannot admit he groomed and conned you
-
Jeremy became a victim of this vicious scorned woman
There’s no evidence of JM being ‘vicious’ or ‘scorned’ Aunt Agatha
But there’s a wealth of evidence showing Bamber was and is
What’s vicious or scorned about what JM has written here Aunt Agatha ?
“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do
-
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was crying because she was bloody lying....
She clearly wasn’t AA
“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do
-
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was crying because she was bloody lying....
Bamber was lying to Julie about numerous things though AA and I suspect you know this
He started a relationship with Anji Greaves 2 days after the funerals and never once did he tell Julie the truth about this- therefore if she didn’t know how could she be ‘scorned’ ?
Plus she said she told him - he could have his freedom
“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do
-
She was clearly upset and most probably traumatised as I’ve said before AA
She may well have been experiencing a wealth of emotions, including guilt for having not recognised Bamber’s previous comments about killing his family were not throw away comments but that he intended on carrying them out
Traumatised yes, I agree. But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.
If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath. She looking at prison.
Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.
-
Traumatised yes, I agree. But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.
If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath. She looking at prison.
Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.
Julie Mugford wasn’t dumped as you suggest she was Aunt Agatha - she’d had enough of his selfish, hurtful personality
Here is what she stated,
“In the cafe we started talking and I asked him what was going on in respect of our relationship. He said it had already been sold out.
I told him he was selfish and that I couldn’t let him get away with hurting people anymore. He said, ‘you mean I either confess; going to the police or I carry on the relationship with you’
He thought I was giving him an alternative.
We discussed our relationship further and basically he could have freedom and do what he wanted to do
-
The officer responsible for removing the rifle from SC's body and making it safe was A/PS Woodcock who was firearms trained.
If the relatives connected the blood/paint why would a firearms officer not do the same with an absence of blood on the thread protector and/or around the muzzle in general?
Yes I am confident with the new forensic tests.
Ooops I meant absence of blood on the thread!
-
Of course she didn’t
Bamber murdered his family
But you choose to not see it because you cannot admit he groomed and conned you
Groomed is definitely the wrong word here Nicholas.
I was not his lawyer, he didn’t try to persuade me in any way whatsoever regarding my thinking over the case. He didn’t need to. I had the paperwork, as little as it was then, and that’s all we both had.
There was no room for ‘grooming’....
-
Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.
Don’t find it at all ‘ridiculous’ to suggest Julie Mugford was traumatised because she’d come to learn Bamber had murdered his family and attempted to pin the blame of his sister
-
Really? Yet I assume you would like to conduct a civil discussion with me?
Is your attitude right, do you think?
Yet in a different post, you admitted that Essex Police HAD messed up the crime scene and lost "vital evidence".
But I'm wrong about everything, you say?
Perhaps, yes. As you say, perhaps it is a testament to the strength of the case against him.
A black cab driver circa 30 years ago: "If a top QC couldn't get the Birmingham Six off in an appeal, what does that tell you, eh guv'nor? I once had that Reggie Kray in the bad of me cab once. Gentleman he was....."
I don't find your point very convincing! Sorry.
The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.
To be honest, this is the only useful part of your post. If you had just stuck to facts like this and you could be a bit more civil, we could have a useful discussion and I may well change from thinking Bamber probably did it to accepting that he definitely did it.
I do know already about what you say, but my understanding of the evidence is different. I will look again.
Please refer to a post in which I have stated, suggested or even implied any of this. If you can't, then I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from making allegations like this. Please be careful about what you say to people.
I have read the case through. If we assume he did hide the moderator, then it was hid at the scene. Why didn't the police find it?
There is no evidence he used the moderator in the kilings, but I find it interesting that you cling to this evidence, even though it's not necessary for you to do say. You could throw the moderator away. Indeed, isn't that what the trial judge said in his summing-up to the jury?
I know she lied. She admits it herself. The question is whether we should believe what she said subsequently. My question is: Why should I? Neither you nor anybody else can give me a strong reason.
I suspect she was arrested, I don't know it, and I note that Essex Police are hiding behind PII certificates.
Your facts aren't quite right there. She wasn't a volunteer. Her testimony was coerced and she was given immunity, not so much for her own benefit, but for the Crown, though it did benefit her.
Sorry but she could have learned all this from other sources, including Jeremy. Remember that even if Jeremy told her these things, that doesn't make him guilty, since Jeremy himself could have gleaned the information from innocent sources.
But just to refresh my memory, perhaps you could quickly link to her statements where she provided all this information?
The critical part of her statement was hearsay (and also untrue). You are wrong when you say that hearsay evidence was inadmissible at that time in English criminal trials. There have always been exceptions to the common law rule against hearsay, including hearsay involving criminal admissions by an accused.
Also, arguably it wasn't technically hearsay on the basis that both Bamber himself and McDonald were open to cross-examination - indeed, I assume this was one of the reasons McDonald was called, the other one being to quash the notion of a hitman in the jury's minds and point the finger solely at Jeremy.
Sorry but here you fall into the classic trap of trying to deodorise Julie Mugford. I needn't take it seriously or respond further. Both Julie Mugford and Jeremy Bamber were abominable individuals, and she was a criminal in her own right.
Well, it is a truism that the police must have moved the body at some stage, and it's also not controversial to suppose that the police moved her when they found her as (I assume) they would have had to safe the rifle and maybe attempt to resuscitate her, depending on what they found. So my point actually stands. You've just misunderstood me.
I'm not ignoring facts. I'll get on to discussing the Bible in due time. I appreciate you adding your own views, but it would be more helpful if you could calm down a bit.
You make some good points here, but you also make the assumption that the moderator was used in the killings. It may have been. I'll need to re-consider the points you make above about the DNA found in the moderator.
That's an argument from incredulity. Why not clean herself?
There was more than one loaded gun in the house and you've admitted that the police missed "vital evidence" [your words]. Why is it laughable?
No, I think he probably did it, actually. I've said that half-a-dozen times. Please don't impugn my motives.
I’m not replying to all your answers as they don’t warrant my time: you’ve written lots of words but said very little
It’s also difficult to reply when you’ve quoted everything in your super long post: I can see your replies, but I can’t see what you’re replying to — so I don’t know what you’re referring to
I shall reply to this one, though:
“ bigeye on May 17, 2020, 04:52:44 PM
And despite the initial mistakes made by the police under the orders of Taff Jones, the police photographer was actually praised for being so thorough and complete in his taking of pictures of all the bodies and crime scene. They even moved Sheila’s arm to show the blood stain beneath it on her nightdress — so how you can say the photographs cannot be relied upon?”
“The camera can lie.
I say we can't rely on the police for the reasons YOU yourself have just given in this post and in a previous post in which you admitted the police had destroyed "vital evidence".
But I am not maligning the police. I do also agree with you that the police have a difficult job to do and it's easy for me to sit here and criticise. In fact, I don't blame the police at all. I blame the mistake and I'm glad the police have reformed their practices. They learned from it. What else can we ask? They're only human and they do their best.
Another point to reflect on is that it must have been terrible for the police officers who came on the scene. You may guffaw at this, but this may even have affected the senior officers' emotions and, although I appreciate it's their job, Taff Jones and others may have even gone through a sort of PTSD themselves and that may even explain the initial mistakes.”
You saying the camera can lie is silly.. Yes, when amateurs take poor photographs, they can, and professional photographers can alter images, obviously, especially now with photoshop etc. But police have to take ACCURATE photographs, hence why they use specialised photographers who have the top equipment to take clear, defined, detailed images. They’re highly experienced photographers who take photos of bodies from all angles, including pictures of the crime scene — so no — those photos of the WHF soc do not lie at all. Indeed, experts have been commissioned to study those very images not just for the trial, but throughout all the decades when Bamber has made several fruitless attempts to get out of jail. The photos are so detailed and clear, which is why the photographer was highly praised
The police were only useless at the very start, and that was due to Taff Jones who had severe emotional issues, allegedly. There were even rumours that he may have had a brain tumour: such was his bizarre behaviour. After they slung him off the case the ball of justice started rolling.
And you suggesting Taff Jones and all the other police made mistakes that first day due to PTSD shows you have no insight into it. PTSD doesn’t manifest itself until many months after a tragedy. It begins to build up slowly — you don’t suddenly get struck down with it within seconds of a tragic event.
There’s other things you’ve said in your post which are equally wrong, and I don’t agree with any of your hypothesis whatsoever. I’m also surprised how you act as though it’s just YOU who has to be convinced. And you seem to be treating this as though we’re all in a court room and you’re the judge 😌
Well, I’m afraid you’re not a judge, nor a barrister — and neither am I. But I don’t haughtily demand people convince me of certain factors, and then if I’m not satisfied write “We shall all move on from that now, that subject’s closed”. 😤 May I ask what your profession is?
-
What foresight do you think JM would have had regarding the murders AA ?
Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.
Wouldn’t you?
Unless of course it never happened.
-
Don’t find it at all ‘ridiculous’ to suggest Julie Mugford was traumatised because she’d come to learn Bamber had murdered his family and attempted to pin the blame of his sister
Not really, no.
You’ve been suggesting for a long time that Jeremy had been telling her of these plans before he was supposed to have done it.
Why would she be shocked and traumatised. She supposedly knew already...according to you.
-
Groomed is definitely the wrong word here Nicholas.
I was not his lawyer, he didn’t try to persuade me in any way whatsoever regarding my thinking over the case. He didn’t need to. I had the paperwork, as little as it was then, and that’s all we both had.
There was no room for ‘grooming’....
‘Grooming is a process by which offenders gradually draw victims into a sexual relationship and maintain that relationship in secrecy. At the same time, offenders may also fill roles within the victims’ families that make them trusted and valued family friends.
Aunt Agatha you’ve stated how Bamber wanted to keep your relationship ‘private’ - or a secret
You’ve also claimed he became godfather/parent to your sons
This is suggestive of grooming
-
Not really, no.
You’ve been suggesting for a long time that Jeremy had been telling her of these plans before he was supposed to have done it.
Why would she be shocked and traumatised. She supposedly knew already...according to you.
No, it’s according to Julie’s evidence
Have you ever read her witness statements ? Maybe try reading them again as you seem to have forgotten
-
Not really, no.
You’ve been suggesting for a long time that Jeremy had been telling her of these plans before he was supposed to have done it.
Why would she be shocked and traumatised.
For certain if Julie ever truly thought he planned to carry out the killings she’d have told someone
But she obviously didn’t know then what a murderer looked and behaved like
-
‘Grooming is a process by which offenders gradually draw victims into a sexual relationship and maintain that relationship in secrecy. At the same time, offenders may also fill roles within the victims’ families that make them trusted and valued family friends.
Aunt Agatha you’ve stated how Bamber wanted to keep your relationship ‘private’ - or a secret
You’ve also claimed he became godfather/parent to your sons
This is suggestive of grooming
There is no suggestion of grooming here.
I was part of his private life, his life, or what very little he did haveof a life, was broadcast over the tabloids. I was spared that horror due to me remaining in the background and protected.
As for godfather, my choice. Not his.
-
There is no suggestion of grooming here.
I was part of his private life, his life, or what very little he did haveof a life, was broadcast over the tabloids. I was spared that horror due to me remaining in the background and protected.
As for godfather, my choice. Not his.
I'm being groomed, Auntie Ag, by Holly.
I quite like it.
-
There is no suggestion of grooming here.
I was part of his private life, his life, or what very little he did haveof a life, was broadcast over the tabloids. I was spared that horror due to me remaining in the background and protected.
As for godfather, my choice. Not his.
Why? Because she was lying
-
There is no suggestion of grooming here.
I was part of his private life, his life, or what very little he did haveof a life, was broadcast over the tabloids. I was spared that horror due to me remaining in the background and protected.
As for godfather, my choice. Not his.
You weren’t ‘protected’ you said you had to go to the police twice
Bamber had the choice to say he didn’t want to be your sons godfather - would suggest that was a mutual choice AA - not yours alone
-
No, it’s according to Julie’s evidence
Have you ever read her witness statements ? Maybe try reading them again as you seem to have forgotten
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
-
I'm being groomed, Auntie Ag, by Holly.
I quite like it.
Enjoy while you can 8@??)(
-
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
Do you know what brainwashing is AA ?
You wouldn’t be wasting your time reading Julie’s statements as they are her words
-
You weren’t ‘protected’ you said you had to go to the police twice
Bamber had the choice to say he didn’t want to be your sons godfather - would suggest that was a mutual choice AA - not yours alone
The police had nothing to do with Jeremy whatsoever.
I foolishly unmasked myself and was attacked. I went to the police, twice. End of!
-
The police had nothing to do with Jeremy whatsoever.
I foolishly unmasked myself and was attacked. I went to the police, twice. End of!
What do you mean you ‘foolishly unmasked yourself twice’ ?
-
The police had nothing to do with Jeremy whatsoever.
I foolishly unmasked myself and was attacked. I went to the police, twice. End of!
You obviously went to the police for a reason
But it seems they did nothing so maybe nothing happened to you ?
-
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
If you had viewed this case objectively then you would have also considered what Julie had said was true and that Bamber was lying
Instead you’ve decided to only see things from the viewpoint that Bamber wasn’t lying
-
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
By who ?
Do you make things up AA?
-
I foolishly unmasked myself and was attacked.
Do you mean you told strangers your name and that you were Bamber’s girlfriend ?
-
Enjoy while you can 8@??)(
What’s do you find funny about grooming AA ?
-
As for godfather, my choice. Not his.
Do you think it was a wise choice to make Bamber your sons godfather ?
If you died would it have meant he then looks after your boys?
-
Groomed is definitely the wrong word here Nicholas.
I was not his lawyer, he didn’t try to persuade me in any way whatsoever regarding my thinking over the case. He didn’t need to. I had the paperwork, as little as it was then, and that’s all we both had.
There was no room for ‘grooming’....
What’s having the paperwork got to do with it?
-
The police had nothing to do with Jeremy whatsoever.
I foolishly unmasked myself and was attacked. I went to the police, twice. End of!
You’ve claimed you were ‘attacked’ because of Bamber and ‘other women‘- think you refer to them as bamberettes
I suspect the police did have something to do with Bamber because his name would have been brought up by you when you contacted them - twice
This would then have been passed on to prison security - well it should have been - regardless, I suspect your reports to the police were Bamber related and as such you would have provided the police with yet more evidence of his gaslighting
Doesn’t your insight suggest this to you AA ?
-
You’ve claimed you were ‘attacked’ because of Bamber and ‘other women‘- think you refer to them as bamberettes
I suspect the police did have something to do with Bamber because his name would have been brought up by you when you contacted them - twice
This would then have been passed on to prison security - well it should have been - regardless, I suspect your reports to the police were Bamber related and as such you would have provided the police with yet more evidence of his gaslighting
Doesn’t your insight suggest this to you AA ?
I’ve answered more than enough questions Nicholas. No more. Believe what you want. I’m not interested.
-
I’ve answered more than enough questions Nicholas.
You’ve answered very few questions AA
-
This was agreed. Bamber and his team have been aware of this from the beginning, as was I.
You weren’t around in ‘the beginning’ Aunt Agatha
If, as you claim, Julie Mugford was allegedly offered a new identity - why does it appear she didn’t take up the offer ?
-
If JM were charged with any criminal offences how long would she have had a criminal record for Aunt Agatha?
Could you rephrase the question please by elaborating further.
If JM had been charged with and found guilty of cheque fraud for example, what would her punishment have been and how long would it have remained on her record ?
-
A deal with the NOW only upon him being found guilty.
New identity to a country of her choosing.
A clear criminal record.
A new life.....thats just for starters!
What ‘crimes’ are you claiming Bamber told you JM committed ?
-
All I’m saying is, she would not got away with it today,
What are you claiming she ‘got away with’ ?
-
I’ve answered more than enough questions Nicholas. No more. Believe what you want. I’m not interested.
Your posts suggest you are, especially the ones to Ispywithmybigeye
Have you had the Cartier watch looked over and been told it’s a fake AA ?
-
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!
-
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
I don’t believe Bamber was ‘threatened’ as you’ve claimed AA and there’s no evidence to suggest such a letter existed
If this were true, Bamber & his current solicitor or CT would back up your claims
Maybe they should be asked
-
I’ve told you I cannot prove this as I have no paperwork.
Dismiss it if you wish but you’re wasting time bringing this subject up as it was approached many, many years ago.
-
I’ve told you I cannot prove this as I have no paperwork.
Dismiss it if you wish but you’re wasting time bringing this subject up as it was approached many, many years ago.
You brought the subject up AA - here
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
And you didn’t say you ‘cannot prove this as I have no paperwork’ what you said was
‘I do not have that letter in my possession and never did’
-
I’ve told you I cannot prove this as I have no paperwork.
Dismiss it if you wish but you’re wasting time bringing this subject up as it was approached many, many years ago.
Am not sure if you are implying Bamber received a threatening letter and told you about it or something else?
You’ve made claim
‘That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened’
By who was he allegedly threatened ?
-
‘That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened’
If Bamber received a ‘legal letter’ as you claim AA ‘threatening him’ surely he or his campaign team would have publicised it ?
Why are you only mentioning this now?
-
If Bamber received a ‘legal letter’ as you claim AA ‘threatening him’ surely he or his campaign team would have publicised it ?
Why are you only mentioning this now?
I’m fed up of you going on about it, it’s pathetic, stating you know everything. That old chestnut has passed.
-
How many ‘deals’ did Bamber have set up at the time?
We know of the one with the Sun through his then girlfriend Anji Greaves; she was sat waiting in a hotel with a journalist
Eric Allison claimed in 2011
‘Bamber is clever and strategic. He has courted a number of news organisations over the years. He divides the evidence he has gathered and packages "exclusives" to different newspapers.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/10/jeremy-bamber-innocent-of-murder-appeal
There don’t appear to be many news organisations left who are willing to report on BamBer’s BS
-
I’m fed up of you going on about it, it’s pathetic, stating you know everything. That old chestnut has passed.
You brought it up AA
But why have you brought it up now?
If Bamber received a ‘legal letter’ as you claim AA ‘threatening him’ surely he or his campaign team would have publicised it ?
I don’t recall ever hearing this before ?
-
I’m fed up of you going on about it, it’s pathetic, stating you know everything. That old chestnut has passed.
I’ve no idea what you’re referring to *%87
-
I’m fed up of you going on about it, it’s pathetic, stating you know everything. That old chestnut has passed.
You stated
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
Have you made this up Aunt Agatha ?
The only time I’m aware of JM having made any public comment on the case since Bamber was found guilty was around the time of his appeal in 2002 and recently when she allegedly said she’s not been approached by producers of ITV’s WHF
She allegedly said earlier this year,
“I haven’t participated at all in the show or seen it.
“I haven’t spoken to the actress who is playing me and don’t know her.
“I doubt I will have access to it over here so I don’t think I will be watching it.”
And around the time of his appeal 2001/02 JM allegedly stated,
“As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5264307/woman-whose-evidence-helped-nail-killer-jeremy-bamber-has-been-found-living-in-canada/
-
The officer responsible for removing the rifle from SC's body and making it safe was A/PS Woodcock who was firearms trained.
If the relatives connected the blood/paint why would a firearms officer not do the same with an absence of blood on the thread protector and/or around the muzzle in general?
Yes I am confident with the new forensic tests.
The officer who bagged and sealed the gun didn’t study it in detail: that wasn’t his job — that was for forensics. He wasn’t looking for traces of dried blood on the muzzle, and obviously didn’t even take notice of the fact the thread protector wasn’t on the rifle.
He was in a house with five dead bodies who’d all been brutally shot dead, and in which one of the young victims was so terribly injured when shot in the face that even the police have refused to let people see the horrendous trauma: that officer must have felt sickened to the core being surrounded by such horrendous sights...and you’re saying he would have noticed a small little thing like the thread protector not being on the end of the rifle? He never mentioned the lack of blood on the barrel, either, did he? Which proves he didn’t study them as he had no need to.
You’re just trying to create yet another boring conspiracy — and so far none of your conspiracies have washed. JB is STILL imprisoned and has failed EVERY attempt at trying to worm his way out.
As you’re confident with this NEW “new fresh” evidence, why are you so desperate to have a reconstruction carried out? You do realise the court would ignore such rubbish, don’t you? Ask Pete, your husband who you claim is an ex-lawyer...😌 What did Pete specialise in?
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
You have stated in the past you couldn’t care one way or another AA or words to that effect
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
Who was it looked into by AA ?
-
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
What difference does that make ?
-
Who was it looked into by AA ?
I don’t know, his lawyers I would hazard a guess at .
-
You have stated in the past you couldn’t care one way or another AA or words to that effect
Well I was wrong, I trusted the CT would get him,out and they haven’t.
It’s been too long now, he will die in there if we all sit idly by.
He def deserves a re-trial, at the very least!
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
Agatha,
Why did you give Jeremy’s wetsuit to a charity shop? You said you were looking after all his items, so why did you give it away?
Surely he’d be upset that you did that?
So what possessed you to do it? Did it not occur to you that besides the fact he’d entrusted you with looking after his belongings, you gave the wetsuit away that may have provided evidence? In the same way you say you keep his pony tail for DNA reasons...although, his DNA is on record...maybe you weren’t aware?
-
Well I was wrong, I trusted the CT would get him,out and they haven’t.
Why do you appear to blame Bamber’s CT because ‘they haven’t’ got him out?
You didn’t get him out either
-
Agatha,
Why did you give Jeremy’s wetsuit to a charity shop? You said you were looking after all his items, so why did you give it away?
Surely he’d be upset that you did that?
So what possessed you to do it? Did it not occur to you that besides the fact he’d entrusted you with looking after his belongings, you gave the wetsuit away that may have provided evidence? In the same way you say you keep his pony tail for DNA reasons...although, his DNA is on record...maybe you weren’t aware?
Or maybe Bamber indicated to her or hinted in some way that there was no need to keep hold of it ?
-
What difference does that make ?
I have no idea. you're asking the wrong person about todays position.
-
I have no idea. you're asking the wrong person about todays position.
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
-
I have no idea. you're asking the wrong person about todays position.
You said Bamber claimed this before the CT were involved
So could it be possible he only made this up to you ?
I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
There’s been no mention of Bamber having requested Julie take a lie detector test
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
So, Jeremy must have requested it before he took one himself?
-
Why do you appear to blame Bamber’s CT because ‘they haven’t’ got him out?
You didn’t get him out either
You're right!
-
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).
----------
Brancher, can you give your breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre.
Obviously you need to include 1/2 phone calls, a kitchen fight, one rifle load, two reloads and 26 shots. I trust you know where the cartridges were.
A breakdown of Jeremy committing the massacre has already been done, which matches the crime scene evidence.
-
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
----------
You do know there are over 60 pieces of incrimimating forensic evidence. But appreciate the silencer is the most dramatic as the relatives found it.
-
Don’t know how many murder trials you’ve attended nor whether or not you’ve ever spoken to Mr Rivlin but witnesses often cry whilst given evidence in court in cases like this AA
I’ve not attended any, however that is irrelevant.
Rivlin made an explicit point as to how he found it near impossible her to cross examine her due to her cracking up and breaking down (my words but his views seeming) under the strain.
She was crying because she was bloody lying....she couldn’t stop once she had started. She knew were it was going and she was in pieces.
That’s more plausible.
Julie broke down as her heart was breaking at having to remember all the horrific details.
Once the flood gates open it pours out like a tsunami — and that’s a TRUE sign of someone with genuine emotions and who’s telling the truth. That’s when they’re at their most vulnerable and don’t care how the truth hurts. Julie felt shame that she’d not realised Jeremy was being serious when he told her he wanted to kill his family; she felt shame that she didn’t step forward sooner, because she was weak, frightened, confused, and was fighting her feelings she then had for him — trying to work out how she could be in love with a man who’d killed his family. It was when the twins were mentioned she REALLY fell to pieces ...
Julie wasn’t a scorned woman: that was propaganda made up by the defence, as it was their only shot at trying to cast doubt on her. A genuinely scorned woman would have been angry, acted disgusted, and would have been relatively calm. Julie didn’t once show any of those emotions. And why would a scorned woman feel such grief for the family, especially the twins, a year after the event if Jeremy hadn’t done it...
-
She didn’t!!
First true thing you’ve said, Ag
“No, she didn’t “
You’re right that Sheila didn’t shoot her self — Jeremy shot her
-
Traumatised yes, I agree. But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.
If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath. She looking at prison.
Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.
Julie would never have been prosecuted had Jeremy been found innocent.
The case would have simply ended and they’d all gone on their merry way...a guilty man would have got away with murder.
It’s pathetic to even consider that Julie would have sabotaged any chance of getting back with Jeremy by deliberately walking into the police station and giving statements taking many, many hours, saying how he’d murdered his family.
The police interviewed over WEEKS, and never once tripped her up. She was telling the absolute truth.
Julie wouldn’t have told such a heinous lie, knowing she’d not only lose him forever, but she’d forever be a pariah of society had she been discovered that she was making it all up out of spite. Her career would have been over. Future relationships would have been blighted. Her reputation would have been in tatters. She’d have been friendless, and no-one would have believed a word she said again.
-
Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.
Wouldn’t you?
Unless of course it never happened.
But Jeremy didn’t say to Julie hs family were dead, or about to be murdered.
He just said “Something’s wrong at the farm”
That could have meant anything...
So why would she have phoned the police when she thought Jeremy was sorting the problem out himself?
-
‘Grooming is a process by which offenders gradually draw victims into a sexual relationship and maintain that relationship in secrecy. At the same time, offenders may also fill roles within the victims’ families that make them trusted and valued family friends.
Aunt Agatha you’ve stated how Bamber wanted to keep your relationship ‘private’ - or a secret
You’ve also claimed he became godfather/parent to your sons
This is suggestive of grooming
Why would Jeremy want to keep Agatha a secret?
That’s strange...
Was he embarrassed about something?
-
You weren’t ‘protected’ you said you had to go to the police twice
Bamber had the choice to say he didn’t want to be your sons godfather - would suggest that was a mutual choice AA - not yours alone
I don’t even believe Agatha has twin sons...let alone the ridiculous, impossible notion that Jeremy became Godfather.
-
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
Bollx
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
I imagine whoever this alleged “blackmailer” was must have been incredibly thick
What were they hoping to do?
Get Jeremy imprisoned ? *%87
-
Julie would never have been prosecuted had Jeremy been found innocent.
And you claim you studied law?
The case would have simply ended and they’d all gone on their merry way...a guilty man would have got away with murder.
You’re talking such nonsense, it’s embarrassing.
It’s pathetic to even consider that Julie would have sabotaged any chance of getting back with Jeremy by deliberately walking into the police station and giving statements taking many, many hours, saying how he’d murdered his family.
The police interviewed over WEEKS, and never once tripped her up. She was telling the absolute truth.
Julie wouldn’t have told such a heinous lie, knowing she’d not only lose him forever, but she’d forever be a pariah of society had she been discovered that she was making it all up out of spite. Her career would have been over. Future relationships would have been blighted. Her reputation would have been in tatters. She’d have been friendless, and no-one would have believed a word she said again.
It’s ludicrous for you to think she’d do that, and actually shows how YOUR mind works.
Julie's reputation would have been irreparable if she'd been charged with robbing the caravan site office and with conspiring to defraud a bank.
-
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).
----------
Brancher, can you give your breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre.
Obviously you need to include 1/2 phone calls, a kitchen fight, one rifle load, two reloads and 26 shots. I trust you know where the cartridges were.
A breakdown of Jeremy committing the massacre has already been done, which matches the crime scene evidence.
Not forgetting that Sheila was weak, frail, lacked coordination and strength; was shaky, disorientated, and could barely move or hold anything due to the Haloperidol in her system — which toxicology reports proved.
Another big problem for Jeremy was when he was on remand his defence team brought in a firearms expert to do an exact reconstruction loading the bullets of the actual murder weapon.
Freddie Mead, the firearms expert hired by the defence went to the laboratory in Huntingdon on the 29th April, 1986 where the murder weapon was kept.
He was asked to examine the photographs of the bodies, X-rays, crime scene, and study the clothing, the rifle, silencer, bullets and cartridge cases.
He was then asked to do the reconstruction with the rifle.
Freddie Mead said, “I loaded the the cartridge into the magazine without touching the bullets (as requested), which was all fine and good — yes, you can do it, but it’s contrived. You’ve got to put the base of the cartridge case in and then press it and slide it down without touching the bullet itself, which isn’t easy. Once you get up to the ninth and tenth cartridge it’s damn near impossible.”
The defence team gave Jeremy this deeply disappointing news, which clearly didn’t make him a happy bunny.
-
Not forgetting that Sheila was weak, frail, lacked coordination and strength; was shaky, disorientated, and could barely move or hold anything due to the Haloperidol in her system — which toxicology reports proved.
Another big problem for Jeremy was when he was on remand his defence team brought in a firearms expert to do an exact reconstruction loading the bullets of the actual murder weapon.
Freddie Mead, the firearms expert hired by the defence went to the laboratory in Huntingdon on the 29th April, 1986 where the murder weapon was kept.
He was asked to examine the photographs of the bodies, X-rays, crime scene, and study the clothing, the rifle, silencer, bullets and cartridge cases.
He was then asked to do the reconstruction with the rifle.
Freddie Mead said, “I loaded the the cartridge into the magazine without touching the bullets (as requested), which was all fine and good — yes, you can do it, but it’s contrived. You’ve got to put the base of the cartridge case in and then press it and slide it down without touching the bullet itself, which isn’t easy. Once you get up to the ninth and tenth cartridge it’s damn near impossible.”
The defence team gave Jeremy this deeply disappointing news, which clearly didn’t make him a happy bunny.
However, another expert, who also gave evidence for the Crown, said that the .22 Anschutz was unlikely to produce backspatter - and even less likely to when fitted with a silencer.
Major Freddy Mead, a firearms expert appearing for the defence, noted that there were no grounds for believing that the silencer had been used at all during the attacks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-455875/Is-Bambis-killer-innocent.html
-
Julie's reputation would have been irreparable if she'd been charged with robbing the caravan site office and with conspiring to defraud a bank.
Julie didn’t Rob the Caravan Park — thief Jeremy Bamber did.
He sprung it on her and told her to wait outside as a lookout. He coerced her. And she’d have got off with a slapped wrist.
The cheque book of hers she reported stolen was wrong, yes, but it was hardly akin to the Great Train Robbery. She confessed to it, repaid the money, and that was the end of the matter.
Stop making her out to be a gangster — it’s ludicrous.
-
However, another expert, who also gave evidence for the Crown, said that the .22 Anschutz was unlikely to produce backspatter - and even less likely to when fitted with a silencer.
Major Freddy Mead, a firearms expert appearing for the defence, noted that there were no grounds for believing that the silencer had been used at all during the attacks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-455875/Is-Bambis-killer-innocent.html
You’re posting notes that have been distorted by Jeremy Bamber’s team and which the Daily Mail simply printed.
His defence team have been cherry picking snippets without giving the true facts and full picture — why do you think he always fails?😌
-
Julie broke down as her heart was breaking at having to remember all the horrific details.
Once the flood gates open it pours out like a tsunami — and that’s a TRUE sign of someone with genuine emotions and who’s telling the truth. That’s when they’re at their most vulnerable and don’t care how the truth hurts. Julie felt shame that she’d not realised Jeremy was being serious when he told her he wanted to kill his family; she felt shame that she didn’t step forward sooner, because she was weak, frightened, confused, and was fighting her feelings she then had for him — trying to work out how she could be in love with a man who’d killed his family. It was when the twins were mentioned she REALLY fell to pieces ...
Julie wasn’t a scorned woman: that was propaganda made up by the defence, as it was their only shot at trying to cast doubt on her. A genuinely scorned woman would have been angry, acted disgusted, and would have been relatively calm. Julie didn’t once show any of those emotions. And why would a scorned woman feel such grief for the family, especially the twins, a year after the event if Jeremy hadn’t done it...
What horrific details?
Was she there that night?
Did she do it?
Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?
She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.
-
What horrific details?
Was she there that night?
Did she do it?
Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?
She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.
Can you explain how lying causes trauma AA ?
-
Julie didn’t Rob the Caravan Park — thief Jeremy Bamber did.
He sprung it on her and told her to wait outside as a lookout. He coerced her. And she’d have got off with a slapped wrist.
The cheque book of hers she reported stolen was wrong, yes, but it was hardly akin to the Great Train Robbery. She confessed to it, repaid the money, and that was the end of the matter.
Stop making her out to be a gangster — it’s ludicrous.
Pointing out that a person committed a crime isn't 'making them out to be a gangster'; please don't exaggerate. The cheque book wasn't hers and she didn't report it stolen; please try to get the facts correct.
The only evidence that Julie was coerced into partaking in the caravan site robbery is her word. You may believe every word she said, but that doesn't make it true.
-
Can you explain how lying causes trauma AA ?
Figure it out for yourself.
I’ve already gone into this before about lying under oath and the stress of the consequences that could manifest if Jeremy was not found guilty.
That’s traumatic !
-
Julie would never have been prosecuted had Jeremy been found innocent.
The case would have simply ended and they’d all gone on their merry way...a guilty man would have got away with murder.
It’s pathetic to even consider that Julie would have sabotaged any chance of getting back with Jeremy by deliberately walking into the police station and giving statements taking many, many hours, saying how he’d murdered his family.
The police interviewed over WEEKS, and never once tripped her up. She was telling the absolute truth.
Julie wouldn’t have told such a heinous lie, knowing she’d not only lose him forever, but she’d forever be a pariah of society had she been discovered that she was making it all up out of spite. Her career would have been over. Future relationships would have been blighted. Her reputation would have been in tatters. She’d have been friendless, and no-one would have believed a word she said again.
Do you honestly believe, that if Jeremy walked away, he would not want JM questioned and arrested for perjury?
She would be looking at seven years in prison if found guilty.
Now that’s traumatic!
-
What horrific details?
Was she there that night?
Did she do it?
Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?
She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.
Can you explain how lying causes trauma AA ?
Figure it out for yourself.
I’ve already gone into this before about lying under oath and the stress of the consequences that could manifest if Jeremy was not found guilty.
That’s traumatic !
So if you believe Julie lied under oath and her ‘uncontrollable crying’ and she had alleged ‘self induced trauma’ - as you see it.
How has she been able to live with herself ?
Don’t you think her trauma would have increased over time ?
-
What horrific details?
Was she there that night?
Did she do it?
Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?
She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.
Wouldn’t have thought that would need explaining AA
-
So if you believe Julie lied under oath and her ‘uncontrollable crying’ and she had alleged ‘self induced trauma’ - as you see it.
How has she been able to live with herself ?
Don’t you think her trauma would have increased over time ?
I don’t presume to know what people think, feel or otherwise as you continue to do.
I have no idea of how her lies have impacted on her life and I don’t really care tbh
-
I don’t presume to know what people think, feel or otherwise as you continue to do.
These are clearly your projections AA
-
I don’t presume to know what people think, feel or otherwise as you continue to do.
That’s exactly what you appear to do AA
-
I have no idea of how her lies have impacted on her life and I don’t really care tbh
No you’ve never struck me as the caring type AA
-
What horrific details?
Was she there that night?
Did she do it?
Then what horrific details was she crying uncontrollably about?
She was lying....and that is enough to cause trauma, though self enduced I must add.
Don’t ask silly questions, Ag
Julie had to relive in the courtroom al the details Jeremy told her...how the family were shot dead; how many bullets were pumped into their heads
She had to relive the images of seeing them all in the mortuary....
Would that not effect you?
She also must have been repelled by that monster staring at her, knowing she’d once been intimate with him...a murderer. Mass murderer. Child murderer.
And you think it was abnormal that she was in pieces?
-
I’m not in the mood for making it up. I want Jeremy out of there.
He read a letter to me over the phone a very long time ago regarding the lie detector test.
I cannot recall what it said or he stated but I know it was looked into and blocked. It couldn’t go any further at the time.
As for,today, I have absolutely no idea what can and cannot be,done about it. I doubt the position has changed much but it was something Jeremy requested. THIS was before the CT so maybe that’s why they have not mentioned it.
I have nothing further to add.
Can you remind me what "CT" stands for, please.
-
Pointing out that a person committed a crime isn't 'making them out to be a gangster'; please don't exaggerate. The cheque book wasn't hers and she didn't report it stolen; please try to get the facts correct.
The only evidence that Julie was coerced into partaking in the caravan site robbery is her word. You may believe every word she said, but that doesn't make it true.
Julie and her friend reported their cheque book stolen — I need to check — I thought it was Julie’s but it may have been her friend, but they did it together and the cheque book “stolen” was either Julie’s or her friend’s. They both went shopping with it on the Saturday in Oxford Street.
It’s you who exaggerates, Gunit, and you still know little about the whole case — which shows how you've taken sides without knowing all the facts. How biased is that?
You don’t want to believe Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park, but he admitted to it in court. Doesn’t that convince you? He said HOW he broke in, and said some feeble excuse that he “wanted to prove a point”. And now you’re suggesting Julie did it? FGS...
-
Can you remind me what "CT" stands for, please.
CT=Campaign Team
-
Pointing out that a person committed a crime isn't 'making them out to be a gangster'; please don't exaggerate. The cheque book wasn't hers and she didn't report it stolen; please try to get the facts correct.
The only evidence that Julie was coerced into partaking in the caravan site robbery is her word. You may believe every word she said, but that doesn't make it true.
Julie didn't know in advance what he was planning to do. He didn't even need to force his way in as he knew how to retrieve the door key from a string behind the door. All Julie knew was that he gained entry to Osea Caravan Park site office, something he was entitled to do as member of the family. She was not to know he intended to rob cash from the place and trash it so as to make it look like a burglar had done it. Julie didn't partake in the robbery, she was effectively a bystander.
-
Don’t ask silly questions, Ag
Julie had to relive in the courtroom al the details Jeremy told her...how the family were shot dead; how many bullets were pumped into their heads
She had to relive the images of seeing them all in the mortuary....
Would that not effect you?
She also must have been repelled by that monster staring at her, knowing she’d once been intimate with him...a murderer. Mass murderer. Child murderer.
And you think it was abnormal that she was in pieces?
Do you think she would have been thinking about this whilst giving her evidence - I don’t, but imagine she would have been under immense pressure during his trial
-
Julie didn't know in advance what he was planning to do. He didn't even need to force his way in as he knew how to retrieve the door key from a string behind the door. All Julie knew was that he gained entry to Osea Caravan Park site office, something he was entitled to do as member of the family. She was not to know he intended to rob cash from the place and trash it so as to make it look like a burglar had done it. Julie didn't partake in the robbery, she was effectively a bystander.
8((()*/
-
Julie didn't know in advance what he was planning to do. He didn't even need to force his way in as he knew how to retrieve the door key from a string behind the door. All Julie knew was that he gained entry to Osea Caravan Park site office, something he was entitled to do as member of the family. She was not to know he intended to rob cash from the place and trash it so as to make it look like a burglar had done it. Julie didn't partake in the robbery, she was effectively a bystander.
Too right! It was ALL Bambers idea, he wanted money and he got it.
-
Julie and her friend reported their cheque book stolen — I need to check — I thought it was Julie’s but it may have been her friend, but they did it together and the cheque book “stolen” was either Julie’s or her friend’s. They both went shopping with it on the Saturday in Oxford Street.
It’s you who exaggerates, Gunit, and you still know little about the whole case — which shows how you've taken sides without knowing all the facts. How biased is that?
You don’t want to believe Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park, but he admitted to it in court. Doesn’t that convince you? He said HOW he broke in, and said some feeble excuse that he “wanted to prove a point”. And now you’re suggesting Julie did it? FGS...
For someone who claims to be knowledgeable you make plenty of mistakes, Ispy. I know Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park but I was speaking of Julie's involvement.
They went to the Campsite with the intention of committing the crime, she told the police, so she agreed to it before they left the house. Julie did it without a doubt. After they'd done it they walked back to the Mill Beach Hotel where his car was parked. They went in, had a drink and a few games of pool. [JM w/s 10/9/85]
-
Too right! It was ALL Bambers idea, he wanted money and he got it.
It may have been his idea, but Julie left the house with him knowing full well where they were going and what they were going to do. [JM w/s 10/8/85]
-
Do you think she would have been thinking about this whilst giving her evidence - I don’t, but imagine she would have been under immense pressure during his trial
It must have flitted through her mind as she looked at him...don’t forget, they were both in that courtroom together for many, many hours...there’d have been breaks when the QCs conferred etc...Jeremy would have caught her eye at some time during all those hours she was sat in the witness box...
I’m not saying she thought about their intimate times together, but just seeing him sat there must have reminded her that they were once a couple, and it must have been both traumatic and surreal
-
For someone who claims to be knowledgeable you make plenty of mistakes, Ispy. I know Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park but I was speaking of Julie's involvement.
They went to the Campsite with the intention of committing the crime, she told the police, so she agreed to it before they left the house. Julie did it without a doubt. After they'd done it they walked back to the Mill Beach Hotel where his car was parked. They went in, had a drink and a few games of pool. [JM w/s 10/9/85]
You need to post the link, Gunit
I’m not trawling through documents
-
It may have been his idea, but Julie left the house with him knowing full well where they were going and what they were going to do. [JM w/s 10/8/85]
Like I said, post the link
TY
-
For someone who claims to be knowledgeable you make plenty of mistakes, Ispy. I know Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park but I was speaking of Julie's involvement.
They went to the Campsite with the intention of committing the crime, she told the police, so she agreed to it before they left the house. Julie did it without a doubt. After they'd done it they walked back to the Mill Beach Hotel where his car was parked. They went in, had a drink and a few games of pool. [JM w/s 10/9/85]
Julie was unaware, Gunit
I don’t believe you yourself are au fait with all the case, are you? Yet you’re stating Julie knew what they were about to do.
-
Julie was unaware, Gunit
I don’t believe you yourself are au fait with all the case, are you? Yet you’re stating Julie knew what they were about to do.
You’re wrong.
Before making allegations please get your facts correct.
You amaze me with you're certainties based on nothing except your imagination. You obviously don't know what Julie Mugford said in her statements and you obviously don't care. No wonder you're unable to provide cites; you appear to be making it up as you go along. I suggest you get your facts correct, Ispy.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9668;image
-
You amaze me with you're certainties based on nothing except your imagination. You obviously don't know what Julie Mugford said in her statements and you obviously don't care. No wonder you're unable to provide cites; you appear to be making it up as you go along. I suggest you get your facts correct, Ispy.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1932.0;attach=9668;image
Would it really matter if cites were provided? You would still find excuses. I searched the house yesterday for my copy of Wilkes's book and then spent all night (as John will confirm), trying to post it to answer your question and still more excuses - not even a 'thanks for that' %56&
-
Would it really matter if cites were provided? You would still find excuses. I searched the house yesterday for my copy of Wilkes's book and then spent all night (as John will confirm), trying to post it to answer your question and still more excuses - not even a 'thanks for that' %56&
Yes it would. It enables the reader to see what the poster is basing their post on. That can be opinion, memory, a newspaper article, witness statements, court transcripts or hearsay. They aren't all reliable. I don't make excuses and I try to provide reliable cites for my posts. In my opinion don't need to say thank for something which should have been provided without having to be asked for.
-
Yes it would. It enables the reader to see what the poster is basing their post on. That can be opinion, memory, a newspaper article, witness statements, court transcripts or hearsay. They aren't all reliable. I don't make excuses and I try to provide reliable cites for my posts. In my opinion don't need to say thank for something which should have been provided without having to be asked for.
You most certainly di make excuses, Bamber planned and executed the Osea robbery, but you don't want to dwell on that, you'd rather concentrate on Julie - who may not have even known what his intentions were until it happened. Jeremy is responsible for the caravan park robbery - there is no excuse for blame shifting onto Julie.
-
You most certainly di make excuses, Bamber planned and executed the Osea robbery, but you don't want to dwell on that, you'd rather concentrate on Julie - who may not have even known what his intentions were until it happened. Jeremy is responsible for the caravan park robbery - there is no excuse for blame shifting onto Julie.
Agreed, it’s utterly sickening IMO.
-
You most certainly di make excuses, Bamber planned and executed the Osea robbery, but you don't want to dwell on that, you'd rather concentrate on Julie - who may not have even known what his intentions were until it happened. Jeremy is responsible for the caravan park robbery - there is no excuse for blame shifting onto Julie.
Do you mean 'it suddenly snook up on her?' hmm!
-
Do you mean 'it suddenly snook up on her?' hmm!
Sorry AA, I don't understand you post?
-
Julie was unaware, Gunit
I don’t believe you yourself are au fait with all the case, are you? Yet you’re stating Julie knew what they were about to do.
You’re wrong.
Before making allegations please get your facts correct.
I do believe that Jeremy was a bad influence on Julie, but she had a choice: she could have chosen to be nowhere near the caravan site while he was committing the burglary. She could have said she wanted nothing to do with it. But, she didn't. She chose to be there, acting as a lookout. He didn't carry her there!!!
-
For someone who claims to be knowledgeable you make plenty of mistakes, Ispy. I know Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park but I was speaking of Julie's involvement.
They went to the Campsite with the intention of committing the crime, she told the police, so she agreed to it before they left the house. Julie did it without a doubt. After they'd done it they walked back to the Mill Beach Hotel where his car was parked. They went in, had a drink and a few games of pool. [JM w/s 10/9/85]
If you’re going to correct my error, at least do it without cherry picking, and withholding facts which shows what JB is
Yes, I agree I did make a mistake — but considering how much I’ve ploughed through — and this isn’t a courtroom — there’s bound to be the odd error when posting quickly on a forum. You yourself make them frequently...
I fast-read and scan quickly, and it’s only when I need to make a solid official letter/document that I edit after checking my source, cross referencing and correcting my typos etc.
Whatever, you’re right in that Julie did indeed know what Jeremy TOLD HER he planned to do — and she stupidly went along with it, obviously, as she was naive and besotted.
He told her to stay outside the campsite as a lookout, and then spent 15 minutes inside stealing the money.
Whilst Julie was outside, at his orders, she said she was frightened.
It’s clear he was controlling her.
Julie gained nothing from the burglary he committed , except a meal he bought her with the money he stole from his family.
I’m pleased you’ve brought this up, as we can now put to bed the desperate accusations some people have made.
1) Julie was never arrested or even implicated in this crime he coerced her into
2) Julie VOLUNTEERED this information to the police
3) It’s worth noting by what she said in her statement, that she was incredibly naive, stupid, and gullible — and it’s obvious that Jeremy was using her and stringing her along, knowing she was besotted and under his spell.
4) I’ve found even more revelations which I shall remind you of later
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Would it really matter if cites were provided? You would still find excuses. I searched the house yesterday for my copy of Wilkes's book and then spent all night (as John will confirm), trying to post it to answer your question and still more excuses - not even a 'thanks for that' %56&
Doesn’t surprise me, Caroline
April accused me today of lying about the psychiatrist who the defence brought in to assess Jeremy
When I did post the evidence — spending time looking though CAL’s book — April didn’t even apologise
I’m starting to wonder who’s who on here...
I know you’re 100% genuine, you’ve admitted you weren’t sure at first, and corresponded with him until you realised he wasn’t being truthful. Sadly, not everyone can see through his fake persona, and even if they do have suspicions they tell themselves they must be wrong and he’s innocent.
-
It may have been his idea, but Julie left the house with him knowing full well where they were going and what they were going to do. [JM w/s 10/8/85]
There is no 'may' about it, that said, how does she become the main focus for vilification?
Interesting that he staged that C/S too!
-
If you’re going to correct my error, at least do it without cherry picking, and withholding facts which shows what JB is
Yes, I agree I did make a mistake — but considering how much I’ve ploughed through — and this isn’t a courtroom — there’s bound to be the odd error when posting quickly on a forum. You yourself make them frequently...
I fast-read and scan quickly, and it’s only when I need to make a solid official letter/document that I edit after checking my source, cross referencing and correcting my typos etc.
Whatever, you’re right in that Julie did indeed know what Jeremy TOLD HER he planned to do — and she stupidly went along with it, obviously, as she was naive and besotted.
He told her to stay outside the campsite as a lookout, and then spent 15 minutes inside stealing the money.
Whilst Julie was outside, at his orders, she said she was frightened.
It’s clear he was controlling her.
Julie gained nothing from the burglary he committed , except a meal he bought her with the money he stole from his family.
I’m pleased you’ve brought this up, as we can now put to bed the desperate accusations some people have made.
1) Julie was never arrested or even implicated in this crime he coerced her into
2) Julie VOLUNTEERED this information to the police
3) It’s worth noting by what she said in her statement, that she was incredibly naive, stupid, and gullible — and it’s obvious that Jeremy was using her and stringing her along, knowing she was besotted and under his spell.
4) I’ve found even more revelations which I shall remind you of later
The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.
-
Sorry AA, I don't understand you post?
Do you really believe, having read Julie's statement that during their journey, the walk to the office from the car, that she had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going to hepoen next.
A bit like a lamb to the slaughter.
She knew! She knew exactly what was happening and she was game just as much as Jeremy. It might have been his idea, well thats what she states, and she was not willing in any way, even though she could of stopped the whole thing at any point.
I don't believe her. However you wish to describe it, it was a 50/50 premeditated crime that they both are guilty of. Equally guilty. Jeremy stooped low, but she could stoop just as low, no problem.
-
Do you really believe, having read Julie's statement that during their journey, the walk to the office from the car, that she had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going to hepoen next.
A bit like a lamb to the slaughter.
She knew! She knew exactly what was happening and she was game just as much as Jeremy. It might have been his idea, well thats what she states, and she was not willing in any way, even though she could of stopped the whole thing at any point.
I don't believe her. However you wish to describe it, it was a 50/50 premeditated crime that they both are guilty of. Equally guilty. Jeremy stooped low, but she could stoop just as low, no problem.
I don't think it was 50/50 at all, more like 80/20. It was his own family he was stealing from and even in that crime, he stanged the scene. She couldn't have stopped him, he'd have dine it anyway.
-
The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.
****and opinions are just like arseholes - everyone's got one.
Some just don't recognise the sh*t that comes out of the venomous orafices.
-
EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.
My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt. I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe. I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons. Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.
If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.
Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory:
1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.
2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be.
3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.
4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.
5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.
6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.
7. There was blood on the Bible. At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.
8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone. Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber. I take a different view. I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.
9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility). Facts that point to Sheila are:
9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur.
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.
Notes:
(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case. Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence. I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.
(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied. It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.
(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings. Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent. It may be that it wasn't that moderator. Or it may be no moderator was used at all. I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously. It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police. Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty. People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.
(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.
Brancher I would recommend you would get more out of the forum and assist the moderating team in keeping 'law and order' if you either start up new threads with a narrow theme or retrieve old ones, again with a narrow theme.
As G-Unit said your OP raises some good points but it is very unwieldy.
-
Julie didn't know in advance what he was planning to do. He didn't even need to force his way in as he knew how to retrieve the door key from a string behind the door. All Julie knew was that he gained entry to Osea Caravan Park site office, something he was entitled to do as member of the family. She was not to know he intended to rob cash from the place and trash it so as to make it look like a burglar had done it. Julie didn't partake in the robbery, she was effectively a bystander.
Julie was keeping dixie, John. I think she knew what he was going to do.
-
Brancher I would recommend you would get more out of the forum and assist the moderating team in keeping 'law and order' if you either start up new threads with a narrow theme or retrieve old ones, again with a narrow theme.
As G-Unit said your OP raises some good points but it is very unwieldy.
The Sun is shining; we have a partial lifting of Lockdown allowing us to meet others outside (heyday for the doggers); tennis and golf resumed with restrictions; garden centres have reopened. I want narrow themed threads I can dip in and out of 8((()*/
-
Julie was keeping dixie, John. I think she knew what he was going to do.
Yep...
-
The Sun is shining; we have a partial lifting of Lockdown allowing us to meet others outside (heyday for the doggers); tennis and golf resumed with restrictions; garden centres have reopened. I want narrow themed threads I can dip in and out of 8((()*/
You mean dog-walkers... hopefully!
-
Yep...
But we know OCP mgr James Carr had already put his suspicions to DS Jones re JB's involvement.
-
Doesn’t surprise me, Caroline
April accused me today of lying about the psychiatrist who the defence brought in to assess Jeremy
When I did post the evidence — spending time looking though CAL’s book — April didn’t even apologise
I’m starting to wonder who’s who on here...
I know you’re 100% genuine, you’ve admitted you weren’t sure at first, and corresponded with him until you realised he wasn’t being truthful. Sadly, not everyone can see through his fake persona, and even if they do have suspicions they tell themselves they must be wrong and he’s innocent.
Me too!
How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?
If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother? He's on a whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.
-
Me too!
How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?
If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother? He's on a whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.
The over-zealous castigation / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?
-
I don't think it was 50/50 at all, more like 80/20. It was his own family he was stealing from and even in that crime, he stanged the scene. She couldn't have stopped him, he'd have dine it anyway.
JB claims he had a grievance with OCP in that he and AE had the same responsibilities and both were 8% shareholders but his remuneration was less than AE's. It seems he put this to a controlling director who also happened to be his mother and was told 'When you learn to live properly'. If this is true I've no idea what was meant by it. It could have been a reference to JB having JM stay over at his. What motivated him? Checking security is BS? A sense of being treated unfairly if there's some truth in June withholding or just greed?
Assuming he had access to the tills at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's there doesn't appear to have been any dishonesty on his part. The owners of Sloppy Joe's even had him living in with them along with the manageress LR who was a close pal of JM's.
-
The over-zealous castigation / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?
It may indicate that something of the crime and/or it's perpetrator has reached the complainant on a personal level which they don't feel has been resolved, OR they're directing their anger at any convenient someone, other than the cause of it, because it's not possible for them to direct it at the cause.
-
The over-zealous castigation / vilification of someone who's guilt has been well established in law, i.e. he's been dealt with legally, although probably not to the total satisfaction of the bereaved, speaks to an unconscious need for 'overkill'. Why is that?
Why indeed? If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars. And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero.
If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.
-
JB claims he had a grievance with OCP in that he and AE had the same responsibilities and both were 8% shareholders but his remuneration was less than AE's. It seems he put this to a controlling director who also happened to be his mother and was told 'When you learn to live properly'. If this is true I've no idea what was meant by it. It could have been a reference to JB having JM stay over at his. What motivated him? Checking security is BS? A sense of being treated unfairly if there's some truth in June withholding or just greed?
Assuming he had access to the tills at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's there doesn't appear to have been any dishonesty on his part. The owners of Sloppy Joe's even had him living in with them along with the manageress LR who was a close pal of JM's.
Ha!! I recognize those words!!! They're a mix of bribe, threat, and admonition, probably aimed at several areas of his life, and having no bearings on his potential as a working shareholder. I can see that Jeremy might have felt unfairly treated/hard done by. However, June's words really don't mean much, given that Ann was several years Jeremy's senior and may well have put more graft into the business. To me, there's a sense of revenge, against June, about what Jeremy did. It's very doubtful that his hands would have been in anyone else's tills.
-
Why indeed? If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars. And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero.
If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.
Supposing it struck a personal chord with you, though? Possibly you knew of a serious crime committed close to you in which the suspected perpetrator had walked free? Might you then not have a deeper and emotional interest in believing yourself to be ensuring that one particular prisoner never got released?
-
Supposing it struck a personal chord with you, though? Possibly you knew of a serious crime committed close to you in which the suspected perpetrator had walked free? Might you then not have a deeper and emotional interest in believing yourself to be ensuring that one particular prisoner never got released?
I'll ponder that if I may.
-
The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.
Last night I posted proof that Jeremy was diagnosed a psychopath by his own defence psychiatrist: I took my time to find the source, and didn’t even get a thank you.
I was unaware that one has to put in every post they write whether it’s factual or an opinion...surly that must be obvious?
-
Me too!
How do we know that you're not playing Devil's advocate ISpy?
If you're so convinced JB is guilty as charged and there's no new forensic evidence why bother? He's on a whole life tarrif with no hope of parole. Dead duck for those who think as you do.
That’s too ridiculous to warrant a reply...
I do indeed know he’s guilty — he was convicted 35 years ago
But it’s people such as yourself, Holly, who claim he’s innocent; who are doing their utmost to help him get free, that astonishes me
-
Why indeed? If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars. And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero.
If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.
You can use my name, you know 😌
I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?
I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange 🤷♀️
-
That’s too ridiculous to warrant a reply...
I do indeed know he’s guilty — he was convicted 35 years ago
But it’s people such as yourself, Holly, who claim he’s innocent; who are doing their utmost to help him get free, that astonishes me
You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.
-
You can use my name, you know 😌
I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?
I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange 🤷♀️
Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago. My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.
-
Last night I posted proof that Jeremy was diagnosed a psychopath by his own defence psychiatrist: I took my time to find the source, and didn’t even get a thank you.
I was unaware that one has to put in every post they write whether it’s factual or an opinion...surly that must be obvious?
Why should anyone thank a member for complying with the rules? Should you be thanked each time you refrain from abusing fellow members too?
You proved that CAL said something in her book, you didn't prove it was true.
If it were obvious whether posters were posting fact or opinion cites wouldn't be needed. It wasn't obvious when you claimed Julie Mugford didn't know in advance that Jeremy was going to burgle the camp site. You even claimed it as fact, until you were confronted with the evidence.
When members do that others have to spend time finding the real facts while the offender is free to repeat the offense on another thread. It's the poster's job to find support for their claims, not the responder.
-
Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago. My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.
I said “almost” 10 years...I was too lazy to see when you joined. I apologise.
So, you’ve been doing all this relentlessly for seven years...that’s somewhat longer than contributing to a forum for a couple of months 😌
I congratulate you on your steel and determination, and I hope you’re prepared for disappointment when he loses his next attempt to appeal. Although, you must be used to that by now...😙
-
You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.
I must say, I do admire your optimism and sense of humour😌
-
Why should anyone thank a member for complying with the rules? Should you be thanked each time you refrain from abusing fellow members too?
You proved that CAL said something in her book, you didn't prove it was true.
If it were obvious whether posters were posting fact or opinion cites wouldn't be needed. It wasn't obvious when you claimed Julie Mugford didn't know in advance that Jeremy was going to burgle the camp site. You even claimed it as fact, until you were confronted with the evidence.
When members do that others have to spend time finding the real facts while the offender is free to repeat the offense on another thread. It's the poster's job to find support for their claims, not the responder.
I suggest, Gunit, that you read my posts correctly
April implied that Jeremy hadn’t been diagnosed a psychopath by the psychiatrist his defence brought in. I told her he had. In my original post I made an error by saying the psychiatrist told Jeremy when I meant to write his defence told him
It was an obvious and somewhat petty error that put April in a bad mood for some reason
I then found the evidence in CAL’s book, which YOU STILL refute...you’re now suggesting CAL has made libellous statements in her book. That’s rubbish, and you know that.
You seem to be a stickler for cites, evidence, facts — and when they are presented to you, you say they’re not true
Then you wonder why I can’t be bothered to waste my time searching...
Anyway, you’ll be relieved to know I’m off out into my garden now to sunbathe, have another BBQ with a friend who’s coming round, and so you won’t have to monitor any more posts from me today 😊
Toodles...have a lovely sunny day 🌝
-
I suggest, Gunit, that you read my posts correctly
April implied that Jeremy hadn’t been diagnosed a psychopath by the psychiatrist his defence brought in. I told her he had. In my original post I made an error by saying the psychiatrist told Jeremy when I meant to write his defence told him
It was an obvious and somewhat petty error that put April in a bad mood for some reason
I then found the evidence in CAL’s book, which YOU STILL refute...you’re now suggesting CAL has made libellous statements in her book. That’s rubbish, and you know that.
You seem to be a stickler for cites, evidence, facts — and when they are presented to you, you say they’re not true
Then you wonder why I can’t be bothered to waste my time searching...
Anyway, you’ll be relieved to know I’m off out into my garden now to sunbathe, have another BBQ with a friend who’s coming round, and so you won’t have to monitor any more posts from me today 😊
Toodles...have a lovely sunny day 🌝
I asked myself, was there no end to this person's talent for misrepresentation and myself replied that there wasn't, and to prove it, you've done it again.
SO! Just to clear up the debacle of the psychiatrist who assessed him and first diagnosed him as a psychopath. It was information I've had for the last 6 years. His words, passed on to me, being "He's a liar, a fantasist, and undoubtedly, a psychopath". It can possibly be confirmed that I put this information out LONG before you were interested in the case -I may even have shared it with you when you first joined- whatever, it hasn't been accepted because I can't prove that it was said. I DO find it odd that the psychiatrist YOU mention, uses, according to your claim, remarkably similar words to the one in my story, but if one psychiatrist diagnoses him as being a psychopath, why should not another? RIGHT! Given that I've known that story for YEARS, why would I imply that he hadn't been diagnosed a psychopath? I implied nothing! I CLAIMED the psychiatrist didn't breeze into his cell to break the good news to him that the diagnosis couldn't be used in court, to which you subsequently said was a typo, and as a result, I should apologize.
Now, whilst you appear to be having a ripping time, dining out on the fact that I haven't apologized -something I have no intention of doing, your mistakes being your own responsibility, just like you won't apologize for misrepresenting my words- the incident you're making a meal of was simply the example I used of your great talent for misrepresentation, something, I note, I'm not alone in mentioning. Please feel free to continue dropping my name into your posts, although I'm guessing you'll achieve little by so doing, other than to be the cause of irritation.
Have a wonderful afternoon in the garden. Enjoy the sun, and don't drink too much. Better to keep a clear head when impressing fingers on keyboards.
Toodle Pip, Old Bean
-
You can use my name, you know 😌
I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?
I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange 🤷♀️
Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons. Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Victor Nealon, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were all convicted but TOTALLY INNOCENT. I remember an “expert” in the Sally Clarke case when she was on trial for murdering her three children saying “one death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder”. The jury convicted on those powerful words. The “expert “ was later struck off.
-
I asked myself, was there no end to this person's talent for misrepresentation and myself replied that there wasn't, and to prove it, you've done it again.
SO! Just to clear up the debacle of the psychiatrist who assessed him and first diagnosed him as a psychopath. It was information I've had for the last 6 years. His words, passed on to me, being "He's a liar, a fantasist, and undoubtedly, a psychopath". It can possibly be confirmed that I put this information out LONG before you were interested in the case -I may even have shared it with you when you first joined- whatever, it hasn't been accepted because I can't prove that it was said. I DO find it odd that the psychiatrist YOU mention, uses, according to your claim, remarkably similar words to the one in my story, but if one psychiatrist diagnoses him as being a psychopath, why should not another? RIGHT! Given that I've known that story for YEARS, why would I imply that he hadn't been diagnosed a psychopath? I implied nothing! I CLAIMED the psychiatrist didn't breeze into his cell to break the good news to him that the diagnosis couldn't be used in court, to which you subsequently said was a typo, and as a result, I should apologize.
Now, whilst you appear to be having a ripping time, dining out on the fact that I haven't apologized -something I have no intention of doing, your mistakes being your own responsibility, just like you won't apologize for misrepresenting my words- the incident you're making a meal of was simply the example I used of your great talent for misrepresentation, something, I note, I'm not alone in mentioning. Please feel free to continue dropping my name into your posts, although I'm guessing you'll achieve little by so doing, other than to be the cause of irritation.
Have a wonderful afternoon in the garden. Enjoy the sun, and don't drink too much. Better to keep a clear head when impressing fingers on keyboards.
Toodle Pip, Old Bean
8@??)(
-
You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.
That will never happen.
-
You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.
How many times have the CoA declared a person ‘innocent’ following the overturning of their conviction ?
-
Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago. My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.
What year did you register on the blue forum?
-
Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago. My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.
You have been going on about it for at least 2 years.
-
Why indeed? If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars. And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero.
If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.
Isn’t it interesting how you make this claim yet according to Bamber and people like Aunt Agatha much has changed regarding the case over the past 33 years - what with new disclosures for example and ‘new’ discoveries
-
Isn’t it interesting how you make this claim yet according to Bamber and people like Aunt Agatha much has changed regarding the case over the past 33 years - what with new disclosures for example and ‘new’ discoveries
Holly is discounting all of that and asking that the COA concentrates on her test results (whatever they are - whenever they materialise).
-
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
Can you confirm whether or not Bamber told you this AA before the question is posed to others
Did Bamber tell you this
or
did you make it up ?
-
Can you confirm whether or not Bamber told you this AA before the question is posed to others
Did Bamber tell you this
or
did you make it up ?
I have told you he read a letter to me, over the phone.
-
I have told you he read a letter to me, over the phone.
But he could have written it himself to read out to you.
-
But he could have written it himself to read out to you.
Or there could have been no letter and he made it up
-
I have told you he read a letter to me, over the phone.
Approx what year was this can you remember
Was it around the time you first met or towards the end of your relationship and do you recall the name of the solicitor who allegedly sent him the letter ?
-
Or there could have been no letter and he made it up
Could now be the right time to ask yourself "But just supposing............" about those 'facts' you have no way of checking?
-
But he could have written it himself to read out to you.
I have not seen the original. I've stated that too.
-
Approx what year was this can you remember
Was it around the time you first met or towards the end of your relationship and do you recall the name of the solicitor who allegedly sent him the letter ?
It was def before 1999. I have no solid information or nothing to refer to. If ever I decide to go through my letters and come across it, that is if it was mentioned at all, I will update.
-
It was def before 1999. I have no solid information or nothing to refer to. If ever I decide to go through my letters and come across it, that is if it was mentioned at all, I will update.
Whilst you’re searching for that letter, Ag, see if per chance you stumble upon the statement Jeremy claimed DCI Jones made when he turned up at the soc (2/3 hours after the raid?) claiming (according to only Jeremy) that he found the silencer under the bed.
That statement which Jeremy claims existed and which he insisted he sent to his solicitor’s office never arrived: maybe he sent it to your address by mistake?😳
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons. Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Victor Nealon, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were all convicted but TOTALLY INNOCENT. I remember an “expert” in the Sally Clarke case when she was on trial for murdering her three children saying “one death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder”. The jury convicted on those powerful words. The “expert “ was later struck off.
So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?
For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?
-
Whilst you’re searching for that letter, Ag, see if per chance you stumble upon the statement of DCI Jones who allegedly claimed when he turned up at the soc (2/3 hours after the raid?) he found the silencer under the bed.
That statement which Jeremy claims existed and which he insisted he sent to his solicitor’s office never arrived: maybe he sent it to your address by mistake?😳
Sorry, I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.
-
Sorry, I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.
When you say you ‘threw everything out‘ - did you shred it beforehand given the sensitive nature of its content ?
-
Sorry, I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.
Auntie A, that really struck a chord with me. It was death which, 10 years ago, caused me to part from my adored partner and naturally, although we didn't live at the same address, my house was littered with his stuff. I moved home 6 years ago and it all came with me. I still have it, even his clothes. I could no more part with anything connected to him, than fly, so I wonder how you felt about getting rid of stuff which connected you with Jeremy.
-
So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?
For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?
Read my post again. I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty. Why are you trying to promote arguments?
-
So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?
For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?
The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:
Michael Stone - Damian Daley
Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls
Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls
Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford
The above all protest their innocence.
JB - 99.9% innocent imo
Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo
Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it
-
Read my post again. I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty. Why are you trying to promote arguments?
You stated "Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons."
You don't define the percentage of incorrect convictions. Is it Some, not everyone or all? Try and be clear in what you say, thank you.
-
You stated "Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons."
You don't define the percentage of incorrect convictions. Is it Some, not everyone or all? Try and be clear in what you say, thank you.
"Just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they are guilty."
"Not everyone who is convicted is guilty".
These statements from Daisy are clear enough for me.
They are also true.
As for percentages, no reason for Daisy to know and nothing to do with her point. Maybe ask the Ministry of Justice or academic lawyers/criminologists?
When I was young, it was very common for defendants in the Crown Court to be acquitted. I recall the acquittal figure hovered around 50%, give or take. This is because, back then, there was still respect for due process and the institution of the jury, and it was considered - rightly - difficult for the prosecution to prove a case against somebody.
That underlying ethos/philosophy has been lost from the system now.
This erosion of due process can only underpin Daisy's observations.
We are now living through a harsh/convictionist era, which is reflected in the prevailing mindsets/attitudes on this Forum.
I would also argue that we only have jury trials in the nominal sense now.
Somebody called "Holly Goodhead" messaged me with advice, suggesting narrower topics for threads. This is good advice, but in response, I would point out that, if you read my original post in this thread, my purpose here is clear. I believe Jeremy Bamber is probably guilty, but I want to settle the matter in my mind.
The reason I wanted to move on from Julie Mugford is because, unless you have some strong arguments for me, I can't see the benefit to you or I in discussing her any more on this thread. There are other points to discuss.
Where I am at the moment is: If you throw out Julie Mugford and the moderator, could a jury still convict Bamber, or could an appellate bench still uphold his convictions?
I'm not sure. That's what I'm curious about.
Thanks.
-
Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
-
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
Maybe the two who couldn’t make their minds up in Bamber’s case didn’t have the ‘mental capacitor’ to which you refer but the other 10 did ?
-
Maybe the two who couldn’t make their minds up in Bamber’s case didn’t have the ‘mental capacitor’ to which you refer but the other 10 did ?
Maybe 10 wanted to watch Eastenders? Who knows.
-
One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
How long did Bamber’s trial go on for, was it several days or weeks?
Say for example it went on for 4 days, that jury member would need to have been asleep for 2 of those 4 days for your argument to make sense and be believed
Did the jury member fall asleep for 10 mins, 20 mins, 2 hours ? Do you have an accurate time for how long they fell asleep?
Surely they didn’t sleep for days at a time - that would have been picked up on and addressed Daisy
Not hearing half the evidence is an exaggeration on your part is it not ?
-
Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
Yes, he may have been asleep. Droning, monotonous voices, warmth, post lunch lethargy, can all contribute. However, it may equally well be that it was his way of concentrating.
A lady of my acquaintance had a jury foreman who claimed that as it was obvious what the result was going to be, could they please get on with it as he'd told his wife he wouldn't be late home.
-
Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons. Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Victor Nealon, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were all convicted but TOTALLY INNOCENT. I remember an “expert” in the Sally Clarke case when she was on trial for murdering her three children saying “one death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder”. The jury convicted on those powerful words. The “expert “ was later struck off.
Wasn’t the ‘expert’ reinstated on appeal Daisy
-
I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty.
And not everyone maintaining innocence is innocent Daisy
You recently posted on Gary Walkers case.
Don’t believe he’s innocent Daisy - he strikes me as another chancer like Bamber
-
Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons. Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Victor Nealon, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were all convicted but TOTALLY INNOCENT.
How do you know they were ‘totally innocent’ Daisy ?
-
Read my post again. I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty. Why are you trying to promote arguments?
Youb saw the black side of Bamber Daisy first hand.
-
How do you know they were ‘totally innocent’ Daisy ?
Might be something to do with the fact they had their convictions quashed!
-
And not everyone maintaining innocence is innocent Daisy
You recently posted on Gary Walkers case.
Don’t believe he’s innocent Daisy - he strikes me as another chancer like Bamber
Nor does a referral by the CCRC equate to innocence - even if a Judicial Review forced them to make a U-turn
-
Might be something to do with the fact they had their convictions quashed!
The quashing of a conviction does not signify innocence Daisy. The Court of Appeal (CoA) don’t look at innocence or guilt they only look at the safety of a conviction.
How may convictions have the CoA overturned and declared the individual involved innocent ?
You’ll be hard pressed to find many such cases Daisy
-
Youb saw the black side of Bamber Daisy first hand.
But she’s dismissed the ‘black side’ she witnessed first hand - he’s still innocent in her eyes
-
[quote author=APRIL link=topic=11490.msg592668#msg592668 date=159013551
Auntie A, that really struck a chord with me. It was death which, 10 years ago, caused me to part from my adored partner and naturally, although we didn't live at the same address, my house was littered with his stuff. I moved home 6 years ago and it all came with me. I still have it, even his clothes. I could no more part with anything connected to him, than fly, so I wonder how you felt about getting rid of stuff which connected you with Jeremy.
[/quote]
Everybody's different and my relationship with Jeremy was not the same as yours and your partners.
I threw away 'paperwork'. It was old and all came fro Justice for All. I threw away Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations transcript that I had received before it was published. To me, it wasn't Jeremy and I had no reason to keep them any longer.
We all have to let go at some point.
I have however kept all his personal items which I cannot see me throwing away. So there's a difference... I was not talking about personal possession as as it was not a personal possession that Ispy was interested in.
Therefore, in contradiction to myself, i never disposed of his personal letters either or his gifts.
Hope it clears that up. I don't think I'm as ruthless as you think April.... Or I hope I'm not.
-
[quote author=APRIL link=topic=11490.msg592668#msg592668 date=159013551
Auntie A, that really struck a chord with me. It was death which, 10 years ago, caused me to part from my adored partner and naturally, although we didn't live at the same address, my house was littered with his stuff. I moved home 6 years ago and it all came with me. I still have it, even his clothes. I could no more part with anything connected to him, than fly, so I wonder how you felt about getting rid of stuff which connected you with Jeremy.
Everybody's different and my relationship with Jeremy was not the same a# yours and your partners.
I threw away 'paperwork'. It was old and all came fro Justice for All. I threw away Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations transcript I received before it was published, to me, it wasn't Jeremy.
I have however kept all his personal items which I cannot see me throwing away. So there's a difference... I was not talking about personal possession as as it was not a personal possession that Ispy was interested in.
Hope it clears that up. I don't think I'm as ruthless as you think April.... Or I hope I'm not.
It wasn't a judgement of you, Auntie A. Bravo for throwing out the superfluous.
-
Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
I don't know about a juror falling asleep, but for me, the issue with the jury is that the decision was only by super-majority. I don't like majority jury decisions, a reform brought in during the 1960s, I believe. I think if a case is put to a jury, the decision to convict should be unanimous.
I think the decision to allow super-majority verdicts was the first nail in the coffin of juries.
In my view, the Bamber case can be seen as part of a gradual decline in English due process. Not that I think Bamber is innocent, and I do think mass murder and child murder are deplorable actions, but if you can't prove a case against somebody, then you have to accept that the defendant must be acquitted, and then resort to other remedies, such as a civil action. A fair system can't really work any other way.
Due process can be likened to a 'fire wall'. It does mean we have to let horrible people go free, but it also means that the chances of innocent people being locked up are minimised. The latter is a much greater evil than the former, and if it is becomes routine/commonplace, we end up in arguments like this and the public (or at least, those who are bothered) start to lose confidence in justice. How do we know we've got the right person? If you even have to ask that question, there's something wrong. Of course, the other side of it is that a fairer system means errors of impunity become common. It's not a perfect world. But maybe if it was easier to gain an acquittal, the police would then improve their techniques? To an extent, that is exactly what has happened.
On the mental capacity question, obviously jurors must be compos mentis, but I assume you mean that jurors should have a certain level of intelligence. I agree that jurors should be at least of average intelligence, but I wouldn't go along with the idea that we need high IQ/super-educated juries. I think all jurors, whatever the intelligence level, are susceptible to biases and prejudices. A high IQ juror will make errors, and may also lack common sense. Everybody has their own prejudices, especially about how people should behave. A high IQ juror has the same weaknesses that you see in systems that rely on bench trials, in that there is a lack of understanding towards the actions and experiences of somebody of significantly lower cognitive ability or different lifestyles/experiences. This is exacerbated if the life experience of the high IQ person is narrow. The same of course could apply the other way. A lower IQ person may lack common-sense or have narrow experience, etc. The solution is to select at random, subject to basic pre-qualifications, knowing that this brings some balance to the panel.
I think one of the reasons we have juries is because they bring common sense and life experience to the table. One juror might say: 'Why did he do it that way? That makes no sense!' Another juror may then pipe up: 'No, it does make sense. I've been in the same situation....', etc.
-
I have however kept all his personal items which I cannot see me throwing away. So there's a difference... I was not talking about personal possession as as it was not a personal possession that Ispy was interested in.
You haven’t though have you AA
You said you took his wetsuit to a charity shop
-
Might be something to do with the fact they had their convictions quashed!
Just as a conviction might not make someone guilty, the fact that they later have the conviction quashed, doesn't make them innocent. They just played the game better on the day.
-
In my view, the Bamber case can be seen as part of a gradual decline in English due process. Not that I think Bamber is innocent, and I do think mass murder and child murder are deplorable actions, but if you can't prove a case against somebody, then you have to accept that the defendant must be acquitted, and then resort to other remedies, such as a civil action. A fair system can't really work any other way.
I don’t agree & you’ve picked the wrong case to argue ‘due process’
The case against Bamber was proved in 1986 - there wasn’t a hung jury and there have been no successful appeals
In fact the more Bamber has appealed the stronger his murder convictions have become
Even his 25 year life sentence was increased to a whole life term
-
I don’t agree & you’ve picked the wrong case to argue ‘due process’
The case against Bamber was proved in 1986 - there wasn’t a hung jury and there have been no successful appeals
In fact the more Bamber has appealed the stronger his murder convictions have become
Even his 25 year life sentence was increased to a whole life term
Thank you and you are very entitled to disagree and I've given you a 'Like'.
See? We can be civil.
-
Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
Asleep for half of all the witness evidence? Who was it, Rip Van Winkle?
-
Just as a conviction might not make someone guilty, the fact that they later have the conviction quashed, doesn't make them innocent. They just played the game better on the day.
IMO, you left out the word "necessarily" !
-
Asleep for half of all the witness evidence? Who was it, Rip Van Winkle?
That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.
-
That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.
Where did you read that? (just asking as a matter of interest)
-
That will be an exaggeration, but the more serious point is that Bamber claims he was asked by Rivlin whether he wanted the sleeping juror thrown off and Rivlin advised against it.
And therein lays the problem - 'Bamber claims'.
-
And therein lays the problem - 'Bamber claims'.
Yes, but presumably Rivlin would confirm or deny it (subject to release of client confidentiality). Then again, Rivlin too would have an incentive to mislead or pretend not to recall the conversation.
To be completely honest, on this point I would be inclined to believe Bamber as I don't see why he would lie about that specifically or why he would want to keep a juror on who had been brought to his attention.
It's not an appeal point anyway.
-
Where did you read that? (just asking as a matter of interest)
Bamber's own blog in 2016:
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html
-
Yes, but presumably Rivlin would confirm or deny it (subject to release of client confidentiality). Then again, Rivlin too would have an incentive to mislead or pretend not to recall the conversation.
To be completely honest, on this point I would be inclined to believe Bamber as I don't see why he would lie about that specifically or why he would want to keep a juror on who had been brought to his attention.
It's not an appeal point anyway.
It's all part of playing the victim.
-
Read my post again. I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty. Why are you trying to promote arguments?
I’m not trying to promote arguments
I’m stating logic and facts
You’re saying that not all convicted criminals are guilty: do you have the statistics?
-
Bamber's own blog in 2016:
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html
Thanks!
-
The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:
Michael Stone - Damian Daley
Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls
Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls
Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford
The above all protest their innocence.
JB - 99.9% innocent imo
Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo
Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it
Julie Mugford wasn’t given immunity on her one-off cheque book spending spree fraud she did one Saturday, on the proviso she owned up about what Jeremy had told her how he murdered his family...
She’d ALREADY volunteered the dreadful truth to the police before they they even knew about the cheque book spreading spree.
So you’re wrong.
Besides, even if Julie had been charged with her friend for falsely reporting her cheque book stolen and then going shopping using it, as she had no criminal convictions; owned up to it (she could have denied it); and paid the bank the money back — had she been charged she’d probably have been fined, given a conditional discharge, and that would have been the end of it.
-
The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:
Michael Stone - Damian Daley
Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls
Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls
Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford
The above all protest their innocence.
JB - 99.9% innocent imo
Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo
Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it
So to the last three you’re admitting you’re not 100% convinced of their guilt
You’re either Guilty or Not Guilty
That means you’re not 100% convinced Jeremy Bamber is innocent...
That also means you’re in the minority: TEN jurors found him GUILTY
And expect for a few muppets everyone else who knows the events are adamant he’s guilty..
-
Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across. One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!
My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”
As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process. There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.
Daisy,
I think you’ve been fed a story
If the court (judge, QC, clerks, solicitors, police, security etc) saw that a juror was asleep they’d be dismissed and a new jury would be sworn in.
I know that for a fact as my relative attends court cases frequently
It’s nonsense to say a juror was asleep...some has lied to you
-
"Just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they are guilty."
"Not everyone who is convicted is guilty".
These statements from Daisy are clear enough for me.
They are also true.
As for percentages, no reason for Daisy to know and nothing to do with her point. Maybe ask the Ministry of Justice or academic lawyers/criminologists?
When I was young, it was very common for defendants in the Crown Court to be acquitted. I recall the acquittal figure hovered around 50%, give or take. This is because, back then, there was still respect for due process and the institution of the jury, and it was considered - rightly - difficult for the prosecution to prove a case against somebody.
That underlying ethos/philosophy has been lost from the system now.
This erosion of due process can only underpin Daisy's observations.
We are now living through a harsh/convictionist era, which is reflected in the prevailing mindsets/attitudes on this Forum.
I would also argue that we only have jury trials in the nominal sense now.
Somebody called "Holly Goodhead" messaged me with advice, suggesting narrower topics for threads. This is good advice, but in response, I would point out that, if you read my original post in this thread, my purpose here is clear. I believe Jeremy Bamber is probably guilty, but I want to settle the matter in my mind.
The reason I wanted to move on from Julie Mugford is because, unless you have some strong arguments for me, I can't see the benefit to you or I in discussing her any more on this thread. There are other points to discuss.
Where I am at the moment is: If you throw out Julie Mugford and the moderator, could a jury still convict Bamber, or could an appellate bench still uphold his convictions?
I'm not sure. That's what I'm curious about.
Thanks.
So if it was very common for defendants to be acquitted years ago because the jury were less inclined to convict somebody — there must have been some compelling evidence against Jeremy Bamber for the jury to have found him guilty...
As you say, and I quote below:
“When I was young, it was very common for defendants in the Crown Court to be acquitted. I recall the acquittal figure hovered around 50%, give or take. This is because, back then, there was still respect for due process and the institution of the jury, and it was considered - rightly - difficult for the prosecution to prove a case against somebody.
That underlying ethos/philosophy has been lost from the system now”
-
You haven’t though have you AA
You said you took his wetsuit to a charity shop
With his permission I got rid of two items, well before 7 yrs ago. Thos items have already been mentioned as removed from my possession.
Dont waste everyone's time repeating the same stuff. Move on.
-
Daisy,
I think you’ve been fed a story
If the court (judge, QC, clerks, solicitors, police, security etc) saw that a juror was asleep they’d be dismissed and a new jury would be sworn in.
I know that for a fact as my relative attends court cases frequently
It’s nonsense to say a juror was asleep...some has lied to you
Jurors do fall asleep and it's up to the judge to decide what to do. The choices are;
To dismiss the juror.
To dismiss the jury.
To do nothing.
-
Jurors do fall asleep and it's up to the judge to decide what to do. The choices are;
To dismiss the juror.
To dismiss the jury.
To do nothing.
who said the juror was asleep in this case?
-
who said the juror was asleep in this case?
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html
-
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html
Ah, you're saying that JEREMY said the juror was asleep? Oh right, in that case it must be true then!!
-
Ah, you're saying that JEREMY said the juror was asleep? Oh right, in that case it must be true then!!
Maybe we should dismiss all hearsay.
-
Maybe we should dismiss all hearsay.
I think we should certainly dismiss the uncorroborated say of a convicted mass murderer desperate to try any trick to get out of jail, yes.
-
Ah, you're saying that JEREMY said the juror was asleep? Oh right, in that case it must be true then!!
No, it was Anthony Arlidge (prosecution) who told the Justice Drake that he was concerned about one of the jurors shutting his eyes once or twice, so the judge lectured the jury on the need to pay attention, then the trial continued.
-
I think we should certainly dismiss the uncorroborated say of a convicted mass murderer desperate to try any trick to get out of jail, yes.
So where's the line of acceptance? What about a confessed criminal's testimony? What about the integrity of someone convicted of interfering with justice?
-
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/sw-shell.html (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/sw-shell.html)
All I saw was a whiteout.
-
All I saw was a whiteout.
Best stick with the nursery slopes then!
Original docs on TB's pinintetest account re juror falling asleep. I'm not signed up to it so unable to provide a link.
-
Jurors do fall asleep and it's up to the judge to decide what to do. The choices are;
To dismiss the juror.
To dismiss the jury.
To do nothing.
Whoever told you that was pulling your leg.
Judges make sure the jury take the case seriously — they have to!
Anyone found asleep is dismissed and they have to bring a new jury in.
It isn’t the House of Lords, you know 🙄
-
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2016/09/on-31st-anniversary-of-jeremys-wrongful.html
🤥
-
🤥
Look on TB's pinintetest account where you'll find official docs relating to this.
-
Ah, you're saying that JEREMY said the juror was asleep? Oh right, in that case it must be true then!!
And he didn’t complain?😳
And no-one else noticed?
His lies are so ludicrous!
-
Look on TB's pinintetest account where you'll find official docs relating to this.
But his ‘documents’ are made-up stories.
They’re all twisted, distorted, fabricated and littered with lies
-
With his permission I got rid of two items, well before 7 yrs ago. Thos items have already been mentioned as removed from my possession.
Dont waste everyone's time repeating the same stuff. Move on.
Out of curiosity, Ag, what colour was the wetsuit and how heavy was it roughly?
-
But his ‘documents’ are made-up stories.
They’re all twisted, distorted, fabricated and littered with lies
The docs are official court transcripts.
-
Out of curiosity, Ag, what colour was the wetsuit and how heavy was it roughly?
Good questions.
-
No, it was Anthony Arlidge (prosecution) who told the Justice Drake that he was concerned about one of the jurors shutting his eyes once or twice, so the judge lectured the jury on the need to pay attention, then the trial continued.
Yes, no juror is allowed to fall asleep/not pay attention
The QC’s, lawyers, judge — and especially the clerk of the courts who are are told to keep an eye on the jury to make sure there’s no eyeballing between the accused and jury — could never get away with falling asleep.
JB has exaggerated that.
Sounds like one of the juror’s closed their eyes to concentrate and picture a scene and the prosecutor had to make sure they weren’t dozing off. That’s all. But they obviously got a stern talking to, rightly so.
I know of a similar case where the jurors were told not to discuss the case they were on to anyone outside the court, including their friends/family etc, as is the case in all trials, and two jurors were overheard discussing the case on the way to the train station and they had to swear a new jury in.
On another case one of the juror’s happened to smile at the girlfriend of the accused in the restaurant in the Old Bailey, even though there was no evidence they knew each other, and that jury were dismissed too.
Courts have eyes everywhere...trust me
-
Yes, no juror is allowed to fall asleep/not pay attention
The QC’s, lawyers, judge — and especially the clerk of the courts who are are told to keep an eye on the jury to make sure there’s no eyeballing between the accused and jury — could never get away with falling asleep.
JB has exaggerated that.
Sounds like one of the juror’s closed their eyes to concentrate and picture a scene and the prosecutor had to make sure they weren’t dozing off. That’s all. But they obviously got a stern talking to, rightly so.
I know of a similar case where the jurors were told not to discuss the case they were on to anyone outside the court, including their friends/family etc, as is the case in all trials, and two jurors were overheard discussing the case on the way to the train station and they had to swear a new jury in.
On another case one of the juror’s happened to smile at the girlfriend of the accused in the restaurant in the Old Bailey, even though there was no evidence they knew each other, and that jury were dismissed too.
Courts have eyes everywhere...trust me
I don't think you need to mitigate this potentially sleeping juror. It happens all the time and, in this case, is utterly irrelevant and just clutching at straws.
-
Out of curiosity, Ag, what colour was the wetsuit and how heavy was it roughly?
Red and black and quite heavy. One couldn’t fold it to put it away and it took up a lot of much needed space at the time.
It was padded so I guess the same weight as whatever they weigh today. Long sleeves and arms.
-
Best stick with the nursery slopes then!
Original docs on TB's pinintetest account re juror falling asleep. I'm not signed up to it so unable to provide a link.
The CT put a lot of effort into getting publicity, and it always backfires on them...they highlight his guilt
I’ve noticed he hasn’t blogged for ages, and hardly ever does.
And why do they post 30 year old photos of him? Except for one taken about 10 years ago there’s been no recent ones. Has he lost his teeth or gone bald? Why no updates, I wonder?
Just think...his brother who skis has all the fun and excitement JB has missed out on for being so evil. That must get to him....
-
Red and black and quite heavy. One couldn’t fold it to put it away and it took up a lot of much needed space at the time.
It was padded so I guess the same weight as whatever they weigh today. Long sleeves and arms.
They're totally different these days, Ag. They were probably the same material, neoprene, but the manufacturing is way different. I'm pretty sure it would be heavier than modern suits.
-
So where's the line of acceptance? What about a confessed criminal's testimony? What about the integrity of someone convicted of interfering with justice?
You believe or disbelieve what you want to, nothing I say will make the blindest bit of difference anyway. Personally if I was attempting to prove that something was true I wouldn't rely on a blog post written by a convicted mass murderer desperate to use any trick to get out of prison, though clearly that doesn't seem to bother others who believe Jeremy never lies and is as honest as the day is long.
-
You believe or disbelieve what you want to, nothing I say will make the blindest bit of difference anyway. Personally if I was attempting to prove that something was true I wouldn't rely on a blog post written by a convicted mass murderer desperate to use any trick to get out of prison, though clearly that doesn't seem to bother others who believe Jeremy never lies and is as honest as the day is long.
You asked for a source. I gave you JB's account and backed it up with official court docs discussing the juror.
-
You believe or disbelieve what you want to, nothing I say will make the blindest bit of difference anyway. Personally if I was attempting to prove that something was true I wouldn't rely on a blog post written by a convicted mass murderer desperate to use any trick to get out of prison, though clearly that doesn't seem to bother others who believe Jeremy never lies and is as honest as the day is long.
I don't understand the connection you're making. Obviously murdering involves lying, but lying about everything?
-
I don't understand the connection you're making. Obviously murdering involves lying, but lying about everything?
"Accept nothing, believe no one and confirm everything" applies to Jeremy Bamber too doesn't it, or do you make an exception in his case because he's such a poor victim?
-
"Accept nothing, believe no one and confirm everything" applies to Jeremy Bamber too doesn't it, or do you make an exception in his case because he's such a poor victim?
Official docs have been posted.
-
I note the founding member of the CT stepped down last Jul for personal reasons:
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/directors-and-management-team
-
Official docs have been posted.
Showing what?
-
I don't understand the connection you're making. Obviously murdering involves lying, but lying about everything?
Not everything - where it matters.
-
Look on TB's pinintetest account where you'll find official docs relating to this.
What is TB'S pinterest account and why would I bother searching for something that presumably you could lay your hands on in a flash?
-
"Accept nothing, believe no one and confirm everything" applies to Jeremy Bamber too doesn't it, or do you make an exception in his case because he's such a poor victim?
I think you should look at those who accept everything that's said by anyone so long as their name isn't Jeremy Bamber. Assuming that he's the only person who told lies is naive.
-
I think you should look at those who accept everything that's said by anyone so long as their name isn't Jeremy Bamber. Assuming that he's the only person who told lies is naive.
Do you accept that Jeremy Bamber told lies, or do you, like Holly, believe that he is an honest person who only spoke the truth about what happened?
-
Do you accept that Jeremy Bamber told lies, or do you, like Holly, believe that he is an honest person who only spoke the truth about what happened?
I know for a fact that he has lied and if Holly and or G-unit believes he's honest, they are both wrong.
-
I know for a fact that he has lied and if Holly and or G-unit believes he's honest, they are both wrong.
Do you have more information please?
-
Do you have more information please?
Of course I do - I'll keep that for another time - Like Holly's tests 8((()*/
-
Of course I do - I'll keep that for another time - Like Holly's tests 8((()*/
I rather suspected you might.
-
I rather suspected you might.
You didn’t answer my question like I rather suspected you wouldn’t.
-
I rather suspected you might.
8(>((
-
You didn’t answer my question like I rather suspected you wouldn’t.
No disappointment there for you then.
-
Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.
Wouldn’t you?
Unless of course it never happened.
What is it you believe Bamber told Julie ‘in the middle of the night’ over the phone that should have warranted her phoning the police ?
-
Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.
Wouldn’t you?
Unless of course it never happened.
Knowing how you regard him, would you really call the police or would you wait to talk to him? Julie knew very little at that point and must have been confused and in a state of shock - mind all over the place.
-
Well, If I’d received such a phone call in the middle of the night, having already supposedly heard him discuss the planning of his family’s deaths, then I would certainly phone the police straight away.
Wouldn’t you?
Unless of course it never happened.
I don't think I would.
I'd find it hard to believe that my judgement was so poor that I'd be with someone capable of doing such a dreadful thing.
I'd lay there, unable to sleep, turning the whole thing over in my mind, trying to believe it wasn't what I was starting to think.
I'd wake up, hoping it had been a nightmare.
I'd probably have thrown up en route from Lewisham to Essex.
I'd have worked myself up to the point of breakdown between trying to act 'normally' and feeling guilty because I hadn't said anything.
I'd have felt the weight of the world lifted from my shoulders when I eventually told what I knew.
-
I don't think I would.
I'd find it hard to believe that my judgement was so poor that I'd be with someone capable of doing such a dreadful thing.
I'd lay there, unable to sleep, turning the whole thing over in my mind, trying to believe it wasn't what I was starting to think.
I'd wake up, hoping it had been a nightmare.
I'd probably have thrown up en route from Lewisham to Essex.
I'd have worked myself up to the point of breakdown between trying to act 'normally' and feeling guilty because I hadn't said anything.
I'd have felt the weight of the world lifted from my shoulders when I eventually told what I knew.
I concur!
-
Knowing how you regard him, would you really call the police or would you wait to talk to him? Julie knew very little at that point and must have been confused and in a state of shock - mind all over the place.
Does Julie mention in her witness statements what he said to her when he phoned her from the pay phone at 5.30am
Wonder if it was normal for him to phone her so much through the night and wake her up so many times ?
-
When the police arrived to collect her that morning was it one of them who told her the family had been murdered?
And did she pack an overnight bag to take with her or did she usually keep spare clothes and toiletries etc at Bamber’s cottage?
-
Knowing how you regard him, would you really call the police or would you wait to talk to him? Julie knew very little at that point and must have been confused and in a state of shock - mind all over the place.
It doesn't matter. If a partner/friend has shown dislike towards his family and has stated on previous occasions that he had wanted to kill, or was going to kill his family, then I certainly would have shared that with my friends
By the time the 'tonight's the nught' call cones through I'd be on the phone, then calling my friends, no matter what the time.
Unless of course, it never happened!
-
It doesn't matter. If a partner/friend has shown dislike towards his family and has stated on previous occasions that he had wanted to kill, or was going to kill his family, then I certainly would have shared that with my friends
By the time the 'tonight's the nught' call cones through I'd be on the phone, then calling my friends, no matter what the time.
Unless of course, it never happened!
Personally, for me, he'd be history after the first time he mentioned it and if his family ended up dead, I'd be on the phone the same day. BUT there will be others who would have acted like Julie, not because they are evil or bad, just a bit pathetic when it comes to men. Most would come good in the end though - just as Julie did.
-
It doesn't matter. If a partner/friend has shown dislike towards his family and has stated on previous occasions that he had wanted to kill, or was going to kill his family, then I certainly would have shared that with my friends
By the time the 'tonight's the nught' call cones through I'd be on the phone, then calling my friends, no matter what the time.
Unless of course, it never happened!
There's NO way I'd tolerate anything 'iffy' about someone, now, but such may come with age and greater confidence. The difference between how I'd have been at Julie's age, is that I shared most boyfriend 'stuff' with my friends.............unless there was something I didn't feel able to reveal. I suspect what Jeremy was sharing with her, came under that heading. I feel that by the time of the "tonight's the night" call, it was too late, anyway, for girly conversations.
-
Does Julie mention in her witness statements what he said to her when he phoned her from the pay phone at 5.30am
Wonder if it was normal for him to phone her so much through the night and wake her up so many times ?
Believe she said Bamber told her not to go to work, he only had one 10p & a police car was coming to pick her up.
What is a surprise is Bamber refuses to discuss what was said in the 10pm call to Julie. Although he phoned her for the first time in 3 days & the call lasted 20 minutes!
-
I think you should look at those who accept everything that's said by anyone so long as their name isn't Jeremy Bamber. Assuming that he's the only person who told lies is naive.
Oh, I haven’t seen many people on here naive enough to think only Jeremy Bamber is a liar and deceitful
-
The docs are official court transcripts.
Yes, and his statements in those official documents are lies
He lied under oath too
Anyway, according to you one shouldn’t believe anything, official or otherwise
Does swearing something under oath mean they’re not lying, then?
-
I don't understand the connection you're making. Obviously murdering involves lying, but lying about everything?
Fair point, Gunit
Jeremy Bamber told Julie to stick to “the truth” as close as possible
Being an experienced liar he knows it’s best to keep as close to the truth as possible, but he’s proof that experience doesn’t necessarily make one a proficient liar, hence how he got tripped up over, and over, and over again...
-
It doesn't matter. If a partner/friend has shown dislike towards his family and has stated on previous occasions that he had wanted to kill, or was going to kill his family, then I certainly would have shared that with my friends
By the time the 'tonight's the nught' call cones through I'd be on the phone, then calling my friends, no matter what the time.
Unless of course, it never happened!
I don’t think Julie took much notice at the time when he said “tonight’s the night”. She probably thought he was talking rubbish and acting a goat. We don’t know what other similar things he spouted when he mouthed off about his family to her — which he frequent did. She probably just thought he was having another outburst.
Then when he rang at approximately 3am/3:15 and said “something’s wrong at the farm” sounding CONCERNED, but not saying what it was, she may have thought it was something minor. Especially as he said “Night honey, I love you”. You’d hardly say that if you thought your sister was about to shoot everyone.
She probably thought he was stoned out his head — he’d said he hadn’t slept all night — so probably thought he’d been smoking weed for hours and was talking crap.
-
When the police arrived to collect her that morning was it one of them who told her the family had been murdered?
And did she pack an overnight bag to take with her or did she usually keep spare clothes and toiletries etc at Bamber’s cottage?
Good point, Nicholas
-
The forensic scientists actually did very well by establishing the blood groups inside the silencer given that they had relatively little to analyse. They found 13 out of a possible 20 of Sheila’s bands/markers in the flake of blood — and in 2002 after advances in analysis had improved, they found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s markers in the same sample — making it a trillion to one that blood could belong to anyone else. How can you possibly say THAT evidence can’t be relied upon? It convinced the court, jury and high court judges — and they have far better knowledge than you do, or anyone else, including me.
Having now refreshed my memory, I've just been posting about this on the other thread about the silencer.
You are misrepresenting the evidence. I sensed that you were, because I have in the past read in some depth on the case, but I needed to go back and check the details.
First, the blood group finding does not prove that it was Sheila's blood. That's simple enough.
Second, the DNA finding was rejected by the 2002 appellate judges. It is based on LCN testing, which cannot establish a source for the DNA trace, and it is also the case that findings are unreliable due to the acknowledged probability of contamination.
Ironically, you ask [to paraphrase]: "How can THAT evidence not be relied on?" Well, I suggest you re-direct your question to the English Court of Appeal, because they decided it could not be relied on. Come back to us when you have an answer.
The current position is this - there is no conclusive evidence that the moderator has Sheila's blood. Nor is there any evidence that the moderator was used in the killings, or even that any silencer/moderator was used at all.
In my view, the moderator is a dead duck. If we were to re-try this case, the moderator would be disregarded by a jury, or a judge would just throw it out altogether.
My view is that the killer, probably Jeremy, did not use a moderator anyway, and I think the relatives and police brought the moderator into evidence innocently, due to their (probably correct) suspicions about Jeremy and their desperation.
I remain of the view that Jeremy probably did this, but I think the convictions are unsafe. So far, nobody has convinced me otherwise. Insulting me and goading me definitely won't convince me and does nothing for your case. Telling me that Jeremy had a hearty breakfast with extra bacon and grinned to somebody at the funeral won't convince me either.
If you can be polite and respectful of other posters and if you can come up with something that convinces me, then I'll be delighted to acknowledge it and I will thank you for it.
-
Having now refreshed my memory, I've just been posting about this on the other thread about the silencer.
You are misrepresenting the evidence. I sensed that you were, because I have in the past read in some depth on the case, but I needed to go back and check the details.
First, the blood group finding does not prove that it was Sheila's blood. That's simple enough.
Second, the DNA finding was rejected by the 2002 appellate judges. It is based on LCN testing, which cannot establish a source for the DNA trace, and it is also the case that findings are unreliable due to the acknowledged probability of contamination.
Ironically, you ask [to paraphrase]: "How can THAT evidence not be relied on?" Well, I suggest you re-direct your question to the English Court of Appeal, because they decided it could not be relied on. Come back to us when you have an answer.
The current position is this - there is no conclusive evidence that the moderator has Sheila's blood. Nor is there any evidence that the moderator was used in the killings, or even that any silencer/moderator was used at all.
In my view, the moderator is a dead duck. If we were to re-try this case, the moderator would be disregarded by a jury, or a judge would just throw it out altogether.
My view is that the killer, probably Jeremy, did not use a moderator anyway, and I think the relatives and police brought the moderator into evidence innocently, due to their (probably correct) suspicions about Jeremy and their desperation.
I remain of the view that Jeremy probably did this, but I think the convictions are unsafe. So far, nobody has convinced me otherwise. Insulting me and goading me definitely won't convince me and does nothing for your case. Telling me that Jeremy had a hearty breakfast with extra bacon and grinned to somebody at the funeral won't convince me either.
If you can be polite and respectful of other posters and if you can come up with something that convinces me, then I'll be delighted to acknowledge it and I will thank you for it.
It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it
I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.
All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.
Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts.
I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it
I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.
All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.
Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts. So why should I bother trying to convince you of the reality, when you steadfastly refuse to accept it — and more importantly — it doesn’t matter what you think as you’re of no consequence and your opinion doesn’t matter. To put it bluntly, no-one cares whether you’re convinced or not, your views are insignificant — and embarrassingly wrong. If you wish to highlight your difficulty in assimilating factual evidence, that’s your prerogative — but don’t expect me to reply to you.
I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌
During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son. I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time. I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood. What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves. The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial. The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.
-
It isn’t me misrepresenting the evidence — it’s you not understanding it
I should remind you that you’re not a forensic scientist; nor a pathologist; and neither a Judge.
All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila. You can’t/won’t believe that, despite you having no scientific understanding, ballistic understanding, legal understanding — and neither are you medically trained.
Added to that, you can’t seem to absorb scientific facts presented by experts. So why should I bother trying to convince you of the reality, when you steadfastly refuse to accept it — and more importantly — it doesn’t matter what you think as you’re of no consequence and your opinion doesn’t matter. To put it bluntly, no-one cares whether you’re convinced or not, your views are insignificant — and embarrassingly wrong. If you wish to highlight your difficulty in assimilating factual evidence, that’s your prerogative — but don’t expect me to reply to you.
I’ve attached an excerpt from the OFFICIAL High Court report, which, if you read it slowly and carefully you may understand 😌
You say "All those three, including the Judges at the Appeal Court too, said that the blood found in the silencer belonged to Sheila." can you show me this determination please?
-
What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves. The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial. The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.
Sounds like you’ve been listening to more BS Daisy
Tell me, how much did Bamber’s trial cost and what’s the break down with regards how much was spent on his defence as trial compared to that of the prosecution?
-
The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.
In the real world - how much time does do you think the prosecution have to find these experts who agree with them Daisy?
And what if the prosecution can’t find an expert who agrees with them ?
-
During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son. I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time. I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood. What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves. The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial. The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.
The taxpayer pays legal aid fees too and Bamber isn't doing so bad. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10555133/jeremy-bamber-500k-legal-aid/
-
During the time I was helping Jeremy I phoned the three forensic scientists. One of them had died and I spoke to his son. I will have to dig out what was discussed as I have archived everything from that time. I seen to remember one of them saying he couldn’t be sure it was Sheilas blood. What we have to remember is the prosecution have an endless pot of money ie the taxpayer but the defence have to pay for everything themselves. The balance is weighed in favour of the prosecution from the start in any criminal trial. The prosecution employs one expert after another until they find one who agrees with their narrative.
Actually, Daisy...that isn’t correct.
The Law Society have made huge cutbacks
That’s affected the CPS and Legal Aid. No longer can people accused of crimes get legal aid as they did back in the 1980s. Parliament has cracked down on throwing thousands of pounds to pay the accused defence...in fact, some charged criminals are entitled to nothing. They’re on their own,
Likewise, the CPS are reluctant to charge a suspect if they think they may not win the case; hence why police are told to persuade the accused to accept a Caution rather than going to court.
Obviously, in serious cases it’s different, but the Law Society most definitely do not have a bottomless pit to prosecute.
It’s also nonsense that the prosecution look for “one expert after another “ to come up with the answer they want. Whoever told you that? Jeremy?
The prosecutors are not corrupt, which you’re implying.
If you think like that, he same could apply to the defence....
In the event, both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer. That’s why at trial the defence barely touched on it, and at the second appeal the defence grappled, stumbled, and his argument was ridiculously weak.
-
Actually, Daisy...that isn’t correct.
The Law Society have made huge cutbacks
That’s affected the CPS and Legal Aid. No longer can people accused of crimes get legal aid as they did back in the 1980s. Parliament has cracked down on throwing thousands of pounds to pay the accused defence...in fact, some charged criminals are entitled to nothing. They’re on their own,
Likewise, the CPS are reluctant to charge a suspect if they think they may not win the case; hence why police are told to persuade the accused to accept a Caution rather than going to court.
Obviously, in serious cases it’s different, but the Law Society most definitely do not have a bottomless pit to prosecute.
It’s also nonsense that the prosecution look for “one expert after another “ to come up with the answer they want. Whoever told you that? Jeremy?
The prosecutors are not corrupt, which you’re implying.
If you think like that, he same could apply to the defence....
In the event, both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer. That’s why at trial the defence barely touched on it, and at the second appeal the defence grappled, stumbled, and his argument was ridiculously weak.
OK in the trial " both the prosecuting expert AND the defence expert came up with the same conclusion: Sheila’s blood was inside the silencer" but later on DNA analysis of the same blood from the silencer it was shown the blood was not Sheila's.
Do you accept the DNA findings or not?
-
Traumatised yes, I agree. But not by Jeremy, other than her dumping her if that would cause trauma, but by the lies and crap she had to spill out under oath.
If he had not been found guilty, that’s would be really traumatic for her, as she’d be found out to be lying under oath. She looking at prison.
Yes, it was very traumatic for her and not for the ridiculous reasons you guys are spouting out here.
Do you think Virginia lied under oath Aunt Agatha?
Or do you think Bamber was seeing both sisters at the same time?
-
Hello to everyone, I am new to this forum but have studied the case and read a great number of posts over the last few weeks. I have a few observations/questions that may not have been covered before, but my apologies if they have:
1. Regarding the reflection/movement in the window seen during the police/JB walk around the front of the farm; it occurs to me that the sash windows would be of considerable age and, most probably, the glass in those window would be produced using old technology as described in this MIT link -https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-does-glass-change-over-time/. As the glass may have been warped or disrupted during the manufacturing process, they may have produced an odd reflection of whatever moon or other light was available that night, which may not have occurred with modern glass.
2. CAL mentions in Appendix 1 that the door to JB's room in the farmhouse was locked and had to be forced open by EP. Has it been established if the key to that room was in the farmhouse or did JB have it? Why was it locked and was it normally locked?
3. Could the cartridge case found on the stairs be a jam that was cleared when the perpetrator returned upstairs?
4. Were NB and June's wallet and handback ever found? If not, then it is reasonable to assume the perpetrator took them and does that rule out Sheila as the killer?
Thanks for your attention and I look forward to any replies and responses,
Pete
-
Hello to everyone, I am new to this forum but have studied the case and read a great number of posts over the last few weeks. I have a few observations/questions that may not have been covered before, but my apologies if they have:
1. Regarding the reflection/movement in the window seen during the police/JB walk around the front of the farm; it occurs to me that the sash windows would be of considerable age and, most probably, the glass in those window would be produced using old technology as described in this MIT link -https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/how-does-glass-change-over-time/. As the glass may have been warped or disrupted during the manufacturing process, they may have produced an odd reflection of whatever moon or other light was available that night, which may not have occurred with modern glass.
2. CAL mentions in Appendix 1 that the door to JB's room in the farmhouse was locked and had to be forced open by EP. Has it been established if the key to that room was in the farmhouse or did JB have it? Why was it locked and was it normally locked?
3. Could the cartridge case found on the stairs be a jam that was cleared when the perpetrator returned upstairs?
4. Were NB and June's wallet and handback ever found? If not, then it is reasonable to assume the perpetrator took them and does that rule out Sheila as the killer?
Thanks for your attention and I look forward to any replies and responses,
Pete
1. Re. the linked article, I doubt the window glass of WHF was medieval though! More likely to have been Crown glass manufactured during the early to mid 19th c. well before the Pilkington float-glass era. I used to live in an old house of a similar age to WHF, fitted with sliding sash windows and original glass in the bedrooms which had slight imperfections, but I doubt they would give the illusion of some imaginary figure inside seen from outside at ground level. Chris Bews sighting might possibly have been reflections of clouds casting shadows as they passed across the moon, or shimmering reflections of branches of the mature tree nearest to the house...
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/bambi-murder-case-1985-aerial-view-of-white-house-farm-tolleshunt-darcy-essex-scene-of-mrs-sheila-caffell-murder-jeremy-nevill-bamber-born-13-january-1961-is-a-former-british-farmer-who-was-sentenced-in-october-1986-to-five-life-terms-after-bein-1716796a (https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/bambi-murder-case-1985-aerial-view-of-white-house-farm-tolleshunt-darcy-essex-scene-of-mrs-sheila-caffell-murder-jeremy-nevill-bamber-born-13-january-1961-is-a-former-british-farmer-who-was-sentenced-in-october-1986-to-five-life-terms-after-bein-1716796a)
2. I haven't read anything about the whereabouts of the key to Jeremy Bamber's bedroom. As it was his home from home, he probably locked it up to stop prying eyes of his parents finding a secret stash of you know what.
3. As only three brass casings were found in the kitchen, when there should have been four, a stovepipe jam cleared on the way upstairs was considered a possibility, but I tend to think (as did the police) that the DRH14 casing on the mid-landing was one of two ejected from the rifle during the last shots to June Bamber's head. Or a fourth missing casing in the kitchen might have been disposed of unknowingly by the clean-up crew.
4. How and why did Jeremy Bamber know that his father's wallet contained £400-500 cash? Nevill's wallet and June's handbag were found by Ann Eaton and presumably their contents (money-wise) were handed over to executor, Basil Cock, on the Saturday (or later) after the murders when the relatives gained access to WHF. Part of Ann Eaton's statements re. the wallet and handbag...
-
Thanks for the comments, but AE's statements don't clarify what happened to NB's wallet, only that JB stated to her that it was missing and contained several hundred pounds in cash and credit cards. So it seems it was missing, which still rules out Sheila.
Pete
-
Another thought is about opportunity; was this the first time that Sheila and the twins came to stay, without Colin or anyone else, since JB came back from his trips abroad?
Pete
-
Thanks for the comments, but AE's statements don't clarify what happened to NB's wallet, only that JB stated to her that it was missing and contained several hundred pounds in cash and credit cards. So it seems it was missing, which still rules out Sheila.
Pete
There might be an additional revelation in the rest of her statements... too much to read through now.
-
Another thought is about opportunity; was this the first time that Sheila and the twins came to stay, without Colin or anyone else, since JB came back from his trips abroad?
Pete
She was at WHF with the twins in March 1985.
-
Another thought is about opportunity; was this the first time that Sheila and the twins came to stay, without Colin or anyone else, since JB came back from his trips abroad?
Pete
One factor which has always been important for me in this case was opportunity. Wasn't it quite inopportune that the perpetrator chose a time when the house was full and didn't choose a time when only Nevill and June were there. None of it makes any sense for an outsider to be involved. Assassins are not stupid by any means, they will always pick a time which suits them.
-
I believe JB stated that his father would get up regularly when the dogs barked (foxes were mentioned). If JB was the perpetrator, he was known to the dogs and the likelihood is they would not have barked and would not have woken NB or the other up. I'm pretty sure this would not have been the case with a paid killer. Obviously, none of this applies to Sheila being responsible.
Another thought is about the key left in the coal shed. It was stated that the other key used to secure the door from inside was sometimes left in the lock and sometimes left on the side. When the police forced entry, the key was in the lock, however, that does not preclude the possibility that JB entered using the coal shed key and put the key into the door before leaving via the window. That would lead the police to think it was an inside job i.e. Sheila.
Pete
-
I believe JB stated that his father would get up regularly when the dogs barked (foxes were mentioned). If JB was the perpetrator, he was known to the dogs and the likelihood is they would not have barked and would not have woken NB or the other up. I'm pretty sure this would not have been the case with a paid killer. Obviously, none of this applies to Sheila being responsible.
Another thought is about the key left in the coal shed. It was stated that the other key used to secure the door from inside was sometimes left in the lock and sometimes left on the side. When the police forced entry, the key was in the lock, however, that does not preclude the possibility that JB entered using the coal shed key and put the key into the door before leaving via the window. That would lead the police to think it was an inside job i.e. Sheila.
Pete
I agree with the first part. In my opinion however, Jeremy simply gained entry via a downstairs window. All he had to do was unsnib it before going home.