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: Joanne on February 04, 2014, 12:17:06 PM
-
I have a copy of great crimes and trials of Jeremy Bamber, I'm unsure how to share it from my video files at home, so if someone could tell me (if anyone's interested), let me know.
-
I have a copy of great crimes and trials of Jeremy Bamber, I'm unsure how to share it from my video files at home, so if someone could tell me (if anyone's interested), let me know.
You might run into copyright problems with that as it's a BBC production, Joanne.
I've looked online if it can be viewed streaming but only the first series is available, not the second which contained the Bamber programme.
From viewing a short intro trailer though, it looks like a rare film that hasn't been on the net before.
Perhaps someone else may come across a link, although I doubt it as it would have been familiar to us now as all the other programmes about the case.
The only other way is to download it for around £3.
-
I didn't think of that, although I should have done. Just watching it now, it's good. I'm sure it's the one that was on in French on YT although that's not where I got it for.
-
I didn't think of that, although I should have done. Just watching it now, it's good. I'm sure it's the one that was on in French on YT although that's not where I got it for.
You're right... it is the same video as the French one which John posted here in Nov 2012. The brass microscope at the start is similar to one in the English version intro-trailer...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=812.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=812.0)
According to Wikipedia it was a BBC series, but the opening and end credits only contain references to Marshall-Cavendish so it was probably a bought-in independent production, if it was ever shown at all by Auntie.
A rough interpretation of some of what Julie Mugford said in a post-trial interview is at Reply#7.
-
I can't ever remember seeing it but I think it follows another series I had in DVD's about the 70's with Robert Powell narrating and made by Nugus/Martin. I wonder what else they did? I just love their work, it's straight forward, plain, tells you what you need to know and then finishes!
-
Just watching the said programmes I have the following questions (due to things said in this programme)-:
It is said Sheila was too moody and unpredictable to be a successful model and was expelled from 2 schools before going to Lucy Clayton's modelling school-was she expelled from main stream school or modelling schools?
Jeremy was in court over other charges (not the family killings) but was out on bail and allowed to go to St Tropez when Julie went to the police and the police waited for Jeremy at the port and arrested him on his return-Was this for the burglary at the caravan park?
It was said that the CoE adoption society organised the adoption of both Sheila and Jeremy, was there not a social services dept back then and local authority checking? How long did the CoE run adoptions?
They mentioned the phone calls and said that if Neville had called Jeremy whilst being attacked then it would have rendered the phone line at WHF and to Jeremy's un-usable, so I'm thinking that Jeremy made up the phone call from his dad to his house but called the police from WHF twice-once as himself and once as Neville and then left the phone dangling at WHF before he went enabling the police to listen in (if indeed they did) before returning home.
The police said that even though it took them time to get to WHF, they arrived before Jeremy and the only reason Jeremy called them at all was to establish an alibi (one that he wasn't there) but I can't work that one out.
It was also said that Neville was shot once and fell to his knee's and Jeremy battered him with the rifle butt which is appalling and then he was shot further times and June managed to crawl to Sheila's room before being shot more time. How afraid must Mr and Mrs Bamber have been?
-
Good of you to offer to upload Joanne. I would very much like to see it. I've seen the French version but struggled to fully interpret with my school girl French.
If copyright is applicable might it be possible to upload to YouTube and shared that way? It seems authentic videos are uploaded to YouTube and shared? I'm assuming its legal?
-
Good of you to offer to upload Joanne. I would very much like to see it. I've seen the French version but struggled to fully interpret with my school girl French.
If copyright is applicable might it be possible to upload to YouTube and shared that way? It seems authentic videos are uploaded to YouTube and shared? I'm assuming its legal?
First, to upload you need a YouTube account. Easy enough, although for anything longer than 15 minutes you have to increase the limit from the default, but it also says you must own the copyright or have the necessary rights for anything you upload.
See here... https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4523193?rd=1 (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4523193?rd=1)
Unless someone can advise on an alternative.
-
I think it'd breach copyright to be honest. They only 2 ways I can think would be to send copies to people via Royal mail or try and work out how to let people view it from my files.
-
You're right... it is the same video as the French one which John posted here in Nov 2012. The brass microscope at the start is similar to one in the English version intro-trailer...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=812.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=812.0)
According to Wikipedia it was a BBC series, but the opening and end credits only contain references to Marshall-Cavendish so it was probably a bought-in independent production, if it was ever shown at all by Auntie.
A rough interpretation of some of what Julie Mugford said in a post-trial interview is at Reply#7.
Thanks for that.
-
Just watching the said programmes I have the following questions (due to things said in this programme)-:
It is said Sheila was too moody and unpredictable to be a successful model and was expelled from 2 schools before going to Lucy Clayton's modelling school-was she expelled from main stream school or modelling schools?
Jeremy was in court over other charges (not the family killings) but was out on bail and allowed to go to St Tropez when Julie went to the police and the police waited for Jeremy at the port and arrested him on his return-Was this for the burglary at the caravan park?
It was said that the CoE adoption society organised the adoption of both Sheila and Jeremy, was there not a social services dept back then and local authority checking? How long did the CoE run adoptions?
They mentioned the phone calls and said that if Neville had called Jeremy whilst being attacked then it would have rendered the phone line at WHF and to Jeremy's un-usable, so I'm thinking that Jeremy made up the phone call from his dad to his house but called the police from WHF twice-once as himself and once as Neville and then left the phone dangling at WHF before he went enabling the police to listen in (if indeed they did) before returning home.
The police said that even though it took them time to get to WHF, they arrived before Jeremy and the only reason Jeremy called them at all was to establish an alibi (one that he wasn't there) but I can't work that one out.
It was also said that Neville was shot once and fell to his knee's and Jeremy battered him with the rifle butt which is appalling and then he was shot further times and June managed to crawl to Sheila's room before being shot more time. How afraid must Mr and Mrs Bamber have been?
SC attended two boarding schools. I understand she left the first, based in Sussex, by mutual consent; Sheila was unhappy and the school felt she was not progressing as was expected. The second, based in Norfolk, she was expelled from but apparently it was on the last day of term when high pranks were the order of the day. There's no evidence her behaviour was ever anti-social or disruptive etc.
Successful models need self-confidence which SC lacked as evidenced by Dr F's wit stat along with wit stats of others. As previously discussed on Red and Blue there's no evidence that SC secured any paid assignments other than possibly the one in Tokyo. I say possibly as it may have been a case that the course at Lucy Clayton's, paid for by June, may have included one guaranteed assignment. When in Tokyo SC wrote to CC saying she was struggling to cope mentally and asked CC to arrange an appointment for her to see a psychiatrist on her return. Perhaps indicative of *PTSD (adoption) and *attachment disorder (failure to bond with primary caregivers) bought on by being in an alien environment with strangers.
I believe JB was on bail when he went to St Tropez in respect of the OCP burglary. JB was arrested and charged with the murders upon his return from South of France at Dover.
I believe adoptions were arranged via agencies and churches but I think they were overseen by social services. As far as I am aware the suitability of prospective adoptive parents was assessed by face-to-face interviews with the would be adopters and extended family members and various other checks carried out eg suitability of home environment etc. I am stunned that June was allowed to adopt JB given her admission to a psychiatric hospital due to her decision to adopt SC. I am not sure if medical history was checked. If June went private perhaps it was overlooked.
I think far too much emphasis is placed on the kitchen phone being found off the cradle. It proves absolutely nothing. It could well be a case that SC attempted to make a farewell call to someone. Or simply took the phone off the hook as she didn't want anyone phoning. FE's wit stat shows that the psychotic attack she experienced around Mar '85 was brought on by a telephone conversation going awry with a friend. Apparently some technological problem on the phone/line which SC interpreted as threatening. AE's wit stat states SC was a little guarded about a phone call she attempted to make from AE's home to her mother (adoptive or birth ?) SC had to abandon making the call as she was unable to recall the number (?) JB states he received a phone call from NB and was cut off. He tried to call back and was unable to get through. Perhaps the reason for this was that NB was on the phone to EP as per second log? Am I right in thinking that the next time the line was dialled was when EP tried to get through via an operator and a dog was heard barking? I am undecided about the so-called second log ie administrative error or two genuine calls one from JB and the other from NB? The logs certainly use different language and state different birth years for SC. There appears to be some genuine confusion over her year of birth as evidenced by her birth and death certificates.
NB was shot at least three times in the bedroom and once on the stairs before receiving at least 3 further shots in the kitchen. Had the kitchen shots not supervened the bedroom shots would have killed him. I don't believe he ever got into a struggle with anyone. June received all shots in the main bedroom where her body was found.
Adoptees - education
http://nancyverrier.com/miscelleneous-information/
•Because of trauma many adoptees have difficulty in school due to problems with attention, distractibility, and stimulus discrimination
Attachment Disorders (Failure to bond with primary caregivers)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/youth-justice/yjb-toolkits/parenting/specialist-issues-attachment-disorder.pdf
http://cme.med.harvard.edu/cmeups/pdf/03314610.pdf
Serve and Return Interaction Shapes Brain Circuitry, Science of Neglect, Maternal Depresssion (June's depression and the potential negative impact on SC)
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/three_core_concepts/serve_and_return/
Joanne did you really want to know all this? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* At least it keeps me out of trouble with the numpties on Blue ie no breaking the "truce" @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
First, to upload you need a YouTube account. Easy enough, although for anything longer than 15 minutes you have to increase the limit from the default, but it also says you must own the copyright or have the necessary rights for anything you upload.
See here... https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4523193?rd=1 (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4523193?rd=1)
Unless someone can advise on an alternative.
Thank you Myster.
Just looking at 'The New Evidence' (ITV docu circa Apr '12) on YouTube it states Mark Williams-Thomas uploaded this. And 'Crimes That Shook Britain' was uploaded by the actor who played JB, Johnny Escobar. I assume they must have had copyright or perhaps it falls into the category below?
As it's so old it might fall under 'public domain'?
http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en-GB/faq.html
Might be worth contacting Marshall Cavendish to establish what the position is?
http://www.marshallcavendish.co.uk/contentview.aspx?article_id=4
-
It's all there but you have to look at it logically. Jeremy said he spoke to his father on the phone. Assuming for a moment that this is correct then it had to have been before he was first shot which we know for sure occurred in the master bedroom.† So ask yourself the question why did Nevill leave the phone off the hook and go upstairs? You could argue that he pursued a crazed Sheila up the stairs only to be shot but if that was the case Jeremy would have heard it. Jeremy claims there were no sounds, just silence? If there was a crazed Sheila running amok around the house don't you think there would have been lots of noise, people shouting, dog barking etc?
†Note: Nevill was never near the phone after being shot since his initial jaw injury would have made speaking extremely difficult. Add to this the fact that he was bleeding profusely after the first barrage of shots, had he touched the phone and dialed it there would have been blood on the handset, the dialer, the sideboard and on the kitchen floor by the phone. There wasn't any blood there.
-
Thanks for the point's Holly, very interesting 8((()*/
-
It's all there but you have to look at it logically. Jeremy said he spoke to his father on the phone. Assuming for a moment that this is correct then it had to have been before he was first shot which we know for sure occurred in the master bedroom.† So ask yourself the question why did Nevile leave the phone off the hook and go upstairs? You could argue that he pursued a crazed Sheila up the stairs only to be shot but if that was the case Jeremy would have heard it. Jeremy claims there were no sounds, just silence? If there was a crazed Sheila running amok around the house don't you think there would have been lots of noise, people shouting, dog barking etc?
†Note: Nevile was never near the phone after being shot since his initial jaw injury would have made speaking extremely difficult. Add to this the fact that he was bleeding profusely after the first barrage of shots, had he touched the phone and dialed it there would have been blood on the handset, the dialer, the sideboard and on the kitchen floor by the phone. There wasn't any blood there.
I'm a woman! I don't do logical @)(++(*
Ok if we assume NB made the call to JB. NB then for whatever reason cuts the call short and phones EP, as per second log, hence JB is unable to get through when he attempts to call back. NB then replaces receiver on cradle. SC then lifts receiver at some later stage and for whatever reason leaves it off cradle? Alternatively, NB leaves receiver off cradle having cut short his call to JB either to phone EP or in haste in an attempt to manage the situation unfolding at WHF.
I would appreciate clarification on the following:
1. JB claims NB phoned him. The call was cut short. JB attempted to call NB back and was unable to get through. Is JB claiming the line was engaged? If not what signal/sound was heard?
2. I think I'm right in saying JB did not attempt to make contact with WHF again eg after he dressed and was about to leave Goldhanger? Think I might have done.
3. Who was next to try and make contact with WHF and what time did this occur? Was this was when EP arranged for an operator to intervene and open up the line when the dog was heard barking?
As far as I can see the fact the receiver was off the cradle in the kitchen doesn't really tell us anything? 8-)(--)
-
I'm a woman! I don't do logical @)(++(*
Ok if we assume NB made the call to JB. NB then for whatever reason cuts the call short and phones EP, as per second log, hence JB is unable to get through when he attempts to call back. NB then replaces receiver on cradle. SC then lifts receiver at some later stage and for whatever reason leaves it off cradle? Alternatively, NB leaves receiver off cradle having cut short his call to JB either to phone EP or in haste in an attempt to manage the situation unfolding at WHF.
I would appreciate clarification on the following:
1. JB claims NB phoned him. The call was cut short. JB attempted to call NB back and was unable to get through. Is JB claiming the line was engaged? If not what signal/sound was heard?
2. I think I'm right in saying JB did not attempt to make contact with WHF again eg after he dressed and was about to leave Goldhanger? Think I might have done.
3. Who was next to try and make contact with WHF and what time did this occur? Was this was when EP arranged for an operator to intervene and open up the line when the dog was heard barking?
As far as I can see the fact the receiver was off the cradle in the kitchen doesn't really tell us anything? 8-)(--)
1. From memory he claimed the call was cut off and when he tried to call back it was engaged.
2. He never said if he ever tried to contact the farm after he phoned the police.
3. Yes, Essex police tried after JB phoned them and then asked the operator to open the line.
The handset being off the cradle in itself doesn't tell us much but the circumstances surrounding the call and the lack if any blood on or around it tells much.
-
1. From memory he claimed the call was cut off and when he tried to call back it was engaged.
2. He never said if he ever tried to contact the farm after he phoned the police.
3. Yes, Essex police tried after JB phoned them and then asked the operator to open the line.
The handset being off the cradle in itself doesn't tell us much but the circumstances surrounding the call and the lack if any blood on or around it tells much.
Ok thanks. I must admit my knowledge on the phones is a bit sketchy so I think I'll read up on this a bit more.
-
Thanks for the point's Holly, very interesting 8((()*/
You're welcome 8((()*/ I do tend to blather away when I get going @)(++(*
Shall we contact Marshall Cavendish re the video to see if we can get approval to upload it?
-
Thank you Myster.
Just looking at 'The New Evidence' (ITV docu circa Apr '12) on YouTube it states Mark Williams-Thomas uploaded this. And 'Crimes That Shook Britain' was uploaded by the actor who played JB, Johnny Escobar. I assume they must have had copyright or perhaps it falls into the category below?
As it's so old it might fall under 'public domain'?
http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en-GB/faq.html (http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en-GB/faq.html)
Might be worth contacting Marshall Cavendish to establish what the position is?
http://www.marshallcavendish.co.uk/contentview.aspx?article_id=4 (http://www.marshallcavendish.co.uk/contentview.aspx?article_id=4)
Well the film will still be in copyright, (70 years from the death of the creator) public domain or not, if I'm reading the following correctly...
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm)
Odd that Johnny Escobar uploaded the 47 minute-long film he appeared in even though he wasn't the creator, unless he had permission from the production company.
If you want to contact Marshall-Cavendish feel free Holly. For me it means registering for an additional G-mail account, and to be honest I don't want the hassle of yet another e-mail address.
If you feel it's worth it, try it. They can only say yay, nay, or that the copyright belongs to the film makers.
Failing that you can always ask Joanne for a copy if she's willing to do one for you. Might be the easiest route.
-
Well the film will still be in copyright, (70 years from the death of the creator) public domain or not, if I'm reading the following correctly...
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm)
Odd that Johnny Escobar uploaded the 47 minute-long film he appeared in even though he wasn't the creator, unless he had permission from the production company.
If you want to contact Marshall-Cavendish feel free Holly. For me it means registering for an additional G-mail account, and to be honest I don't want the hassle of yet another e-mail address.
If you feel it's worth it, try it. They can only say yay, nay, or that the copyright belongs to the film makers.
Failing that you can always ask Joanne for a copy if she's willing to do one for you. Might be the easiest route.
Oh that's ok Myster. I don't want to put you to any extra administrative work on my account. I think I can buy a copy for £3 as per your post (think it was your post). I just thought it might contain some new material for debate.
Meanwhile I'll just gaze longingly at Johnny Escobar ?{)(** Love the bit when he goes for the phone and we see a strong shoulder and V-shaped torso ?{)(**
-
Oh that's ok Myster. I don't want to put you to any extra administrative work on my account. I think I can buy a copy for £3 as per your post (think it was your post). I just thought it might contain some new material for debate.
Meanwhile I'll just gaze longingly at Johnny Escobar ?{)(** Love the bit when he goes for the phone and we see a strong shoulder and V-shaped torso ?{)(**
I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.
Don't you become an Escobarette, and BTW that rear view was just me as a stand-in, his body wasn't manly enough. 8(0(*
-
I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.
Here's the link, £3 basic + 60p VAT...
http://www.worldmediarights.com/index.php?hidAction=episode&eid=128&name=The_Bamber_Family_Murders (http://www.worldmediarights.com/index.php?hidAction=episode&eid=128&name=The_Bamber_Family_Murders)
-
If anyone wants, I can try e-mailing it to them or send them a copy on a disc, I don't mind because the disc's are like 20p and it's about 50p to post them, I generally do a lot for people wanting them.
-
I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.
Don't you become an Escobarette, and BTW that rear view was just me as a stand-in, his body wasn't manly enough. 8(0(*
Really... 8**8:/:...
-
Really... 8**8:/: ...
Of course it was!.. now would I lie to you ? 8((()*/ ... you've not seen my six-pack yet. 8)-)))
Didn't get paid as much as Johnny Broom though !!! 8()(((@#
-
Did you download the video Holly ?... and discover anything new, such as that Julie Mugford was telling the truth all along ! 8((()*/
-
Of course it was!.. now would I lie to you ? 8((()*/ ... you've not seen my six-pack yet. 8)-)))
Didn't get paid as much as Johnny Broom though !!! 8()(((@#
8)-)))
-
8)-)))
For viewing by private appointment only, I'm afraid ! @)(++(*
-
Did you download the video Holly ?... and discover anything new, such as that Julie Mugford was telling the truth all along ! 8((()*/
Not yet but it's on my 'to do' list.
If JM's wit stats are anything to go by I think I might struggle to find her anything other than a brazen liar but I shall try to keep an open mind.
She was no angel:
- Cheque book fraud
- Assisting JB in OCP break-in
- Pot dealing
She also claims the following:
- Step-father used physical violence against her
- An unknown man brutally raped her in France
- Then boyfriend brutally murdered 5 members of his immediate family
As I said before if the above are all true then she was very unlucky as statistically it is unlikely. If one or more are lies then it shows a propensity towards dishonesty as evidenced by her criminal past.
-
For viewing by private appointment only, I'm afraid ! @)(++(*
Awwww don't be shy. If you've got it, flaunt it 8(>((
-
Not yet but it's on my 'to do' list.
If JM's wit stats are anything to go by I think I might struggle to find her anything other than a brazen liar but I shall try to keep an open mind.
She was no angel:
- Cheque book fraud
- Assisting JB in OCP break-in
- Pot dealing
She also claims the following:
- Step-father used physical violence against her
- An unknown man brutally raped her in France
- Then boyfriend brutally murdered 5 members of his immediate family
As I said before if the above are all true then she was very unlucky as statistically it is unlikely. If one or more are lies then it shows a propensity towards dishonesty as evidenced by her criminal past.
But wasn't Jeremy Bamber the instigator of two of those ? If she had never met him which other woman might have become part of his burgling and drug dealing plans ?
From what I understand her step-father wasn't present at the trial; why would Julie want him there if what she claimed was true. She was supported only by her mother and Stan Jones of course.
-
Awwww don't be shy. If you've got it, flaunt it 8(>((
There's a time and a place, but not on a public forum... I've learned the hard way ! 8(8-))
-
But wasn't Jeremy Bamber the instigator of two of those ? If she had never met him which other woman might have become part of his burgling and drug dealing plans ?
From what I understand her step-father wasn't present at the trial; why would Julie want him there if what she claimed was true. She was supported only by her mother and Stan Jones of course.
I'm pretty sure JB was the instigator of the OCP break-in/burglary. JM seemed quite keen to sell the cannabis around campus eg according to SB's wit stat JM visited a bank for the sole purpose of acquiring some coin plastic money bags to package and distribute the cannabis in. JB was not involved in the cheque book fraud so to my mind this demonstrates that JM was more than capable of getting involved in petty crime without any encouragement from JB. It could be argued that had JB been with say Suzette Ford or Anji Greaves, or indeed most other women from a similar background, they might well have curtailed the OCP break-in and/or selling cannabis for profit. I for one would not have taken part in the OCP break-in and I very much doubt any of my friends would have done. I've no problem with cannabis users for own use. I'm not sure where the law currently stands on cannabis for own use.
In any event to my mind it shows the pair as being dishonest and untrustworthy. It is in no way indicative of JB being capable of murder but could be indicative of JM being an unreliable prosecution witness ie her ability to tell the truth.
Re JM's claims about her step-father, anonymous rapist and JB murdering his family we only have her word for this.
Does anyone know what happened to JM's birth father? I read JM's mother remarried but no idea whether she was widowed or her first marriage was dissolved? If the latter I wonder where JM's birth father was during the trial?