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: Holly Goodhead on September 06, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
-
I bolted this on the end of SB's WS's but it doesn't flag up so its here:
Something I picked up from CAL's book: SB claims JM told her on 26th/27th Aug about JB's involvement with the murders (at that time a mercenary).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1663
On 29th Aug a party was held at SB/JM's home to celebrate JM's 21st. During the party SB "jokingly" gestured to put cream on JB's neck as he was sorting out JM's birthday cake out:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1671
Hmmm so JM tells SB JB had a direct hand in murdering his entire immediate family and 2/3 days later SB wants to joke around with JB. Had I been SB I'm pretty damn certain I wouldn't have wanted JB anywhere near me
50
-
She probably had one over the eight and was befuddled, like all wimmin are at parties. 8((()*/
-
I bolted this on the end of SB's WS's but it doesn't flag up so its here:
Something I picked up from CAL's book: SB claims JM told her on 26th/27th Aug about JB's involvement with the murders (at that time a mercenary).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1663
On 29th Aug a party was held at SB/JM's home to celebrate JM's 21st. During the party SB "jokingly" gestured to put cream on JB's neck as he was sorting out JM's birthday cake out:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1671
Hmmm so JM tells SB JB had a direct hand in murdering his entire immediate family and 2/3 days later SB wants to joke around with JB. Had I been SB I'm pretty damn certain I wouldn't have wanted JB anywhere near me
She either didn't believe Julie or was very stupid. Who approaches a murderer in such a manner? Is this the same friend who went on a spending spree when they (innocently!) reported a cheque book missing/stolen? Nice folk! Good at stories and plotting though.
-
She probably had one over the eight and was befuddled, like all wimmin are at parties. 8((()*/
And/or swooning over JB's animal magnetism...
...JB roaring around in his silver Vauxhall Astra GT with his dyed hair, sunbed tan and Hugo Boss suit... 8(>(( &%+((£ 8)><(
-
She either didn't believe Julie or was very stupid. Who approaches a murderer in such a manner? Is this the same friend who went on a spending spree when they (innocently!) reported a cheque book missing/stolen? Nice folk! Good at stories and plotting though.
Or JM hadn't told her at that point bearing in mind there was probably nothing to tell and SB's WS is dated 10th Sept!
-
Or JM hadn't told her at that point bearing in mind there was probably nothing to tell and SB's WS is dated 10th Sept!
That seems the most likely reason for being so at ease, with JB.
I have known people to run around chasing each other with shaving foam at parties, but I doubt that would be the case ,if they thought for one moment they were in the presence of a murderer.
You are probably right there, Holly. SB hadn’t been told at all and was quite at ease in the company of JB and wanted his attention.
-
And/or swooning over JB's animal magnetism...
...JB roaring around in his silver Vauxhall Astra GT with his dyed hair, sunbed tan and Hugo Boss suit... 8(>(( &%+((£ 8)><(
Just think if he'd got his maulers on a £45,000 bird-pulling Porsche 911! ?>)()< (and before you correct me... no, it wasn't a kit-car)... AE would have turned purple!
That Bob Miller comment at the cottage pre-funeral tickled me... when JB opened his new jacket, pointed to the Hugo Boss logo and exclaimed -
"See this... I'm the BOSS!!!"
-
Why would Mugford make up her story about telling SB?
-
Why would Mugford make up her story about telling SB?
JM and SB were training to become teachers. They both also committed fraud using a cheque book and had these charges dropped. Had the charges not been dropped I believe it would have impacted negatively on their chosen career. DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and hey ho his prayers were answered...JM and SB and the silencer/blood. I can go along with one dodgy cop and the rellies conspiring on the basis they believed JB guilty ie Noble Cause Corruption with JM and SB put under pressure to 'cooperate'. What I cant go along with is EP hiding or forgetting a call from NB; EP shooting SC etc, etc.
Why would SB want to joke around with JB squeezing cream (dairy) on his neck if she thought he was responsible for arranging to have his entire immediate family wiped out including two sleeping 6 year old children? 99.9% of women on the planet wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a guy let alone joke around with him in a physical way!
-
JM and SB were training to become teachers. They both also committed fraud using a cheque book and had these charges dropped. Had the charges not been dropped I believe it would have impacted negatively on their chosen career. DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and hey ho his prayers were answered...JM and SB and the silencer/blood. I can go along with one dodgy cop and the rellies conspiring on the basis they believed JB guilty ie Noble Cause Corruption with JM and SB put under pressure to 'cooperate'. What I cant go along with is EP hiding or forgetting a call from NB; EP shooting SC etc, etc.
Why would SB want to joke around with JB squeezing cream (dairy) on his neck if she thought he was responsible for arranging to have his entire immediate family wiped out including two sleeping 6 year old children? 99.9% of women on the planet wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a guy let alone joke around with him in a physical way!
It's so weird it must be true. Your post does not explain why she told this lie. She also claimed she told another female friend before telling a male person before going to the cops. Tell you what her problem was: nothing to do with what her unconcious or concious minds thought and not only to do with being passed over - this fraudster, actress and thief was (rightly) worried about her own complicity for murder and had to take a huge risk in talking to the cops.
What did Sue Battersby say about when she was told?
-
It's so weird it must be true. Your post does not explain why she told this lie. She also claimed she told another female friend before telling a male person before going to the cops. Tell you what her problem was: nothing to do with what her unconcious or concious minds thought and not only to do with being passed over - this fraudster, actress and thief was (rightly) worried about her own complicity for murder and had to take a huge risk in talking to the cops.
What did Sue Battersby say about when she was told?
Just as happened with Sheila, some people want to invest Julie with super-human powers. Apparently, Julie was hard-bitten, duplicitious, bitter, vengeful.
I just think that Julie was young, misled, trapped, confused and frightened. And dragged along with Bamber's loony, dangerous pipe dreams.
And don't ever forget, Bamber asked Sheila (for the first time EVER) when she and the boys would next be at the farm. For Bamber, all the pieces fell into place, it was shit or bust.
Why did Bamber call Julie twice, that night? Once for bragging reassurance, then for an alibi to cover his sorry, murdering arse.
-
It's so weird it must be true. Your post does not explain why she told this lie. She also claimed she told another female friend before telling a male person before going to the cops. Tell you what her problem was: nothing to do with what her unconcious or concious minds thought and not only to do with being passed over - this fraudster, actress and thief was (rightly) worried about her own complicity for murder and had to take a huge risk in talking to the cops.
What did Sue Battersby say about when she was told?
Did DS Jones contact JM on some pretence prior to anyone being told anything?
There are numerous reasons for lying:
- Threat of very serious criminal charges eg perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal charges re cheque book fraud, OCP break-in and cannabis dealing which would have impacted her chances of joining the teaching profession
- Angry over JB ending the relationship
- 25k deal with NoW
She doesn't appear to have received any legal representation re her police interviews only re the NoW deal? According to CAL's book her parents divorced when she was 10 yoa. No male figure was present at trial only her mother. Where was her birth father or step-father? I feel uncomfortable about a young, just 21 yoa, female mid 80's in EP's male dominated oh so capable hands without any independent legal representation and no male figure around eg father.
-
Did DS Jones contact JM on some pretence prior to anyone being told anything?
There are numerous reasons for lying:
- Threat of very serious criminal charges eg perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal charges re cheque book fraud, OCP break-in and cannabis dealing which would have impacted her chances of joining the teaching profession
- Angry over JB ending the relationship
- 25k deal with NoW
She doesn't appear to have received any legal representation re her police interviews only re the NoW deal? According to CAL's book her parents divorced when she was 10 yoa. No male figure was present at trial only her mother. Where was her birth father or step-father? I feel uncomfortable about a young, just 21 yoa, female mid 80's in EP's male dominated oh so capable hands without any independent legal representation and no male figure around eg father.
You aren't getting it. I am not asking why she framed Bamber. I'm asking why she might have lied about when she told Battersby.
ETA it's interesting that she had no legal advice at interview and also that her witness statement is not recorded as having been made under caution. She committed the extremely serious offence of concealing Bamber's offences, at least, and may well have been liable as an accessory to them as well. I suspect some of the PII material relates to the deal she got in return for her testimony.
And I bet Battersby's account is true. If we had her trial evidence we could settle it.
-
You aren't getting it. I am not asking why she framed Bamber. I'm asking why she might have lied about when she told Battersby.
Or perhaps you aren't making yourself clear &%+((£ Either way please keep your hair on 8((()*/ Coz DS Jones coached JM and SB with a story and timeline and they messed up.
Can you explain please why SB states in her WS of 10th September that she did not see JM or JB for a couple of weeks after the tragedy and then in her WS of 23rd September states JM and JB stayed overnight at the house she shared with JM whilst she was living there on 11th August? She also states that when the police collected JM on 7th Aug she asked the police if JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes. Strange that the police would commit to divulging that sort of info to SB when its questionable whether the police surgeon had certified their deaths and the relatives were told the police were unable to comment at that time?
SB's WS states she didn't see JM or JB for a couple of weeks post tragedy:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1661
SB's WS states JM and JB spent the night of 11th Aug at her home whilst she was there
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1671
SB's WS confirms she asked the police to confirm JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1669
ETA it's interesting that she had no legal advice at interview and also that her witness statement is not recorded as having been made under caution. She committed the extremely serious offence of concealing Bamber's offences, at least, and may well have been liable as an accessory to them as well. I suspect some of the PII material relates to the deal she got in return for her testimony.
JM withheld the fact she claimed JB told her on 7th Aug he arranged for MM to carry out the murders which EP were unable to substantiate.
And I bet Battersby's account is true. If we had her trial evidence we could settle it.
Why do you bet SB's account is true? How would her trial evidence settle it?
-
snip
Why do you bet SB's account is true? How would her trial evidence settle it?
Because when you lie you don't tell falsifiable lies that would destroy your own credibility, so JM would not say she told SB unless she knew SB would back her up and the most likely reason why SB would back her up would be if she did tell SB. Of course, if you are suggesting that SB, with nothing at all to gain, lied to help JM, well, fine but, if she did, she was taking an enormous risk.
If we had her trial evidence we would know whether Rivlin or Lawson cross examined her about when JM told her. If they could tease it out of her that JM hadn't then that would undermine the credibility of the key prosecution witness.
I am not ignoring the rest of your post but have to read the material. Anyway, I see you have Stan Jones conspiring with JM and SB to frame Bamber. Fair dinkum. The more the merrier as far as a good ole CT goes, eh?
-
Because when you lie you don't tell falsifiable lies that would destroy your own credibility, so JM would not say she told SB unless she knew SB would back her up and the most likely reason why SB would back her up would be if she did tell SB. Of course, if you are suggesting that SB, with nothing at all to gain, lied to help JM, well, fine but, if she did, she was taking an enormous risk.
If we had her trial evidence we would know whether Rivlin or Lawson cross examined her about when JM told her. If they could tease it out of her that JM hadn't then that would undermine the credibility of the key prosecution witness.
I am not ignoring the rest of your post but have to read the material. Anyway, I see you have Stan Jones conspiring with JM and SB to frame Bamber. Fair dinkum. The more the merrier as far as a good ole CT goes, eh?
SB also had charges against her for fraud dropped?
Four female prosecution witnesses, aged circa 13 years, lied at Stefan Kizskos trial for a laugh. Prosecution witnesses provide misleading witness testimony for a whole host of reasons.
"Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
The QC at Stefan Kiszko's trial was David Waddington who later became Home Secretary and yet he was unable to break the girls during cross-examination so what chance was there for JB with the "mild mannered" GR?
-
SB also had charges against her for fraud dropped?
Four female prosecution witnesses, aged circa 13 years, lied at Stefan Kizskos trial for a laugh. Prosecution witnesses provide misleading witness testimony for a whole host of reasons.
"Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
The QC at Stefan Kiszko's trial was David Waddington who later became Home Secretary and yet he was unable to break the girls during cross-examination so what chance was there for JB with the "mild mannered" GR?
Good answer. Still, there remains a problem in figuring out why JM's overall story took the shape it did if she was lying. There was no need to implicate herself at all. If lying, she could easily have left out all the stuff going back to 1984 about burning the house down and what not. So this business with SB is a small part of a larger puzzle.
-
Good answer. Still, there remains a problem in figuring out why JM's overall story took the shape it did if she was lying. There was no need to implicate herself at all. If lying, she could easily have left out all the stuff going back to 1984 about burning the house down and what not. So this business with SB is a small part of a larger puzzle.
And if JB fessed up all this stuff why not keep her sweet and on side over the coming months and then dump her?
-
And if JB fessed up all this stuff why not keep her sweet and on side over the coming months and then dump her?
I see you tend to answer questions with your own questions. You highlight the classic problem. There's the murder part and the getting away with it part and the second is not less complicated than the first, especially where you have collaborators.
I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface. She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone. He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her. I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were. She called his bluff. And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up. So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.
-
I see you tend to answer questions with your own questions. You highlight the classic problem. There's the murder part and the getting away with it part and the second is not less complicated than the first, especially where you have collaborators.
I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface. She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone. He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her. I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were. She called his bluff. And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up. So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.
The "classic problem" is one that features widely in MoJs namely unreliable prosecution witnesses.
Anyhow this is weird EP effectively segregate JM by housing her at the police college after her friend, Liz Rimmington, phoned EP on her behalf. JM states SB was unaware she was there and yet she bumped into SB on the premises
Although JM claims they were unable to communicate. At this point JM claims she hadn't fessed up about the cheque book but she assumes SB was there as a result of the cheque book. If this was the case why did SB fess up then and why would it be dealt with by EP when SB lived and worked in London where the crime was also committed?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=289.0;attach=1170
-
The "classic problem" is one that features widely in MoJs namely unreliable prosecution witnesses.
Anyhow this is weird EP effectively segregate JM by housing her at the police college after her friend, Liz Rimmington, phoned EP on her behalf. JM states SB was unaware she was there and yet she bumped into SB on the premises
Although JM claims they were unable to communicate. At this point JM claims she hadn't fessed up about the cheque book but she assumes SB was there as a result of the cheque book. If this was the case why did SB fess up then and why would it be dealt with by EP when SB lived and worked in London where the crime was also committed?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=289.0;attach=1170
I'm afraid I don't begin to understand your post. I read your link too. Aren't you supposed to be arguing that JM lied when she said she had confided in SB before the pie-throwing party?
-
SB's first witness statement has the story of JM telling her on 26 or 27 Aug that JB was responsible for the murders. See p.8 here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=529.0
I would like to know why JM and SB would make up this particular part of their story.
-
I'm afraid I don't begin to understand your post. I read your link too. Aren't you supposed to be arguing that JM lied when she said she had confided in SB before the pie-throwing party?
Try reading all of JM WS's from 2002 instead of just the one I posted above:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.msg4967#msg4967
The above relates to the pair fessing up about the cheque book.
As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies. It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence. As you said pity we can't read the cross-examination transcripts. JM and SB were undergraduates.
If DS Jones put pressure on JM to 'cooperate' a narrative had to start somewhere. It had to fit to some degree with her WS of 8th Aug along with other known facts and what she had initially told others. Very difficult thing to do without inconsistencies showing through which IMO they do. But it's all down to perceptions. If you believe JB guilty then by definition you're likely to believe JM/SB. If you read SB's WS she makes herself out to be a real goody two shoes eg objected strongly to JB and JM bringing cannabis into the house she shared with JM. Fair enough. Yet JM tells her JB paid a mercenary to kill his family and she doesn't seem to have the same qualms about JB then entering her home to attend JM's 21st birthday party. In fact she even wants to fool around with him in a joking/playful way by squeezing dairy cream on his neck &%+((£
-
Try reading all of JM WS's from 2002 instead of just the one I posted above:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.msg4967#msg4967
The above relates to the pair fessing up about the cheque book.
As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies. It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence. As you said pity we can't read the cross-examination transcripts. JM and SB were undergraduates.
If DS Jones put pressure on JM to 'cooperate' a narrative had to start somewhere. It had to fit to some degree with her WS of 8th Aug along with other known facts and what she had initially told others. Very difficult thing to do without inconsistencies showing through which IMO they do. But it's all down to perceptions. If you believe JB guilty then by definition you're likely to believe JM/SB. If you read SB's WS she makes herself out to be a real goody two shoes eg objected strongly to JB and JM bringing cannabis into the house she shared with JM. Fair enough. Yet JM tells her JB paid a mercenary to kill his family and she doesn't seem to have the same qualms about JB then entering her home to attend JM's 21st birthday party. In fact she even wants to fool around with him in a joking/playful way by squeezing dairy cream on his neck &%+((£
I agree that the obvious questions arise: why didn't SB contact the cops right away and what was she doing horsing around with JB two days after finding out he was a mass murderer? Those are great questions. What you don't seem to appreciate is the even starker one: why, since those are so obvious, make that lie up?
I don't believe her (and JM) because I think Bamber is guilty. I think he's guilty because I believe her and JM (albeit, I think JM's version is self-serving and designed to obscure her active role in the murders).
I think (per Lee's account) SB was spraying lots of folks with the cream so Im not sure it was a Bamber-specific thing. Also JM was in fear of being murdered herself and/or being taken down with Bamber so she had every reason to act normally until she finally decided to tell all and, as her buddy, SB had to act normally too. What was Bamber to think if SB suddenly went all frosty on him?
-
Well, I have read the 2002 statement now and I do not share your take on it, Holly Goodhead. I should mention I was practising criminal law at one of London's leading firms in the 80s and I maybe know a little more about these things than some. The purpose of that statement is to address the suspicion that Mugford gave her evidence in return for immunity from prosecution for the cheque fraud. There is absolutely nothing intrinsically improbable about it as far as it goes. Had I been acting for her and/or Sue I am pretty confident the bank could have been persuaded not to press charges given the freely-made admissions and the offer of recompense. Banks don't tend to see either every day and honesty, being thus rare, tends to be well received in these situations.
However, what is glaringly obvious to me is the much larger problem presented by JM's evidence. In telling her story the way she did, she admits the offence of 'concealing' (see CJA 1967) murder. That is extremely serious. Far more than any cheque fraud. She could have been imprisoned for many, many years for that offence, of which she was undoubtedly guilty. Also, unless you were born yesterday, you cannot seriously believe that, on her own account (which she need never have contrived if she were making the whole thing up) she spent the best part of a year listening to Bamber planning to murder his parents, helping him commit one crime against his own family that we know about and supplying him with temazapam for the declared purpose of letting him to test its efficacy for use in a murder plot without having been involved in some degree.
Now, the police may be stupid but they aren't that stupid and even if they are, prosecuting counsel certainly are not. The really big question is therefore not about how they got off the cheque book fraud but about the much more grave offences I have described. It's not surprising this aspect has not come into focus. The reason should be obvious. The only person who could bring it up is Bamber but he can't do so without blowing the whole charade.
If the cops had conclusive evidence of his guilt such that they did not need her, she would have been in the dock with him (on the unrealistic assumption that she had confessed in the terms of her statements).
-
I agree that the obvious questions arise: why didn't SB contact the cops right away and what was she doing horsing around with JB two days after finding out he was a mass murderer? Those are great questions. What you don't seem to appreciate is the even starker one: why, since those are so obvious, make that lie up?
I don't believe her (and JM) because I think Bamber is guilty. I think he's guilty because I believe her and JM (albeit, I think JM's version is self-serving and designed to obscure her active role in the murders).
I think (per Lee's account) SB was spraying lots of folks with the cream so Im not sure it was a Bamber-specific thing. Also JM was in fear of being murdered herself and/or being taken down with Bamber so she had every reason to act normally until she finally decided to tell all and, as her buddy, SB had to act normally too. What was Bamber to think if SB suddenly went all frosty on him?
Why? As I've already explained I believe JM and SB were coached by EP to come up with the testimony which was later used in court in part to convict JB so it should be obvious inconsistencies are an inenvitable outcome. In other words EP, JM and SB didn't get their stories right. If there are disadvantages to telling the truth and advantages to lying why tell the truth especially when a) you're not averse to a bit of dishonesty and b) you're being encouraged along a certain road by officialdom and possibly others? 8(0(*
"I wasn't actually ever frightened of Jeremy. I didn't think he'd actually do anything to hurt me":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s
You're right it wasn't a JB specific thing but as far as I'm aware SB hadn't recently been told that any of the other party goers had recently arranged for a mercenary to murder their immediate families! Subtle difference 8(0(*
-
Well, I have read the 2002 statement now and I do not share your take on it, Holly Goodhead. I should mention I was practising criminal law at one of London's leading firms in the 80s and I maybe know a little more about these things than some. The purpose of that statement is to address the suspicion that Mugford gave her evidence in return for immunity from prosecution for the cheque fraud. There is absolutely nothing intrinsically improbable about it as far as it goes. Had I been acting for her and/or Sue I am pretty confident the bank could have been persuaded not to press charges given the freely-made admissions and the offer of recompense. Banks don't tend to see either every day and honesty, being thus rare, tends to be well received in these situations.
However, what is glaringly obvious to me is the much larger problem presented by JM's evidence. In telling her story the way she did, she admits the offence of 'concealing' (see CJA 1967) murder. That is extremely serious. Far more than any cheque fraud. She could have been imprisoned for many, many years for that offence, of which she was undoubtedly guilty. Also, unless you were born yesterday, you cannot seriously believe that, on her own account (which she need never have contrived if she were making the whole thing up) she spent the best part of a year listening to Bamber planning to murder his parents, helping him commit one crime against his own family that we know about and supplying him with temazapam for the declared purpose of letting him to test its efficacy for use in a murder plot without having been involved in some degree.
Now, the police may be stupid but they aren't that stupid and even if they are, prosecuting counsel certainly are not. The really big question is therefore not about how they got off the cheque book fraud but about the much more grave offences I have described. It's not surprising this aspect has not come into focus. The reason should be obvious. The only person who could bring it up is Bamber but he can't do so without blowing the whole charade.
If the cops had conclusive evidence of his guilt such that they did not need her, she would have been in the dock with him (on the unrealistic assumption that she had confessed in the terms of her statements).
Share my take on what anglolawyer?
-
Or perhaps you aren't making yourself clear &%+((£ Either way please keep your hair on 8((()*/ Coz DS Jones coached JM and SB with a story and timeline and they messed up.
Can you explain please why SB states in her WS of 10th September that she did not see JM or JB for a couple of weeks after the tragedy and then in her WS of 23rd September states JM and JB stayed overnight at the house she shared with JM whilst she was living there on 11th August? She also states that when the police collected JM on 7th Aug she asked the police if JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes. Strange that the police would commit to divulging that sort of info to SB when its questionable whether the police surgeon had certified their deaths and the relatives were told the police were unable to comment at that time?
SB's WS states she didn't see JM or JB for a couple of weeks post tragedy:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1661
SB's WS states JM and JB spent the night of 11th Aug at her home whilst she was there
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1671
SB's WS confirms she asked the police to confirm JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1669
JM withheld the fact she claimed JB told her on 7th Aug he arranged for MM to carry out the murders which EP were unable to substantiate.
Why do you bet SB's account is true? How would her trial evidence settle it?
Any views on the above contradictions in WS's anglolawyer?
-
Share my take on what anglolawyer?
On the statement. What else?
-
On the statement. What else?
Which aspects of the statement?
-
Why? As I've already explained I believe JM and SB were coached by EP to come up with the testimony which was later used in court in part to convict JB so it should be obvious inconsistencies are an inenvitable outcome. In other words EP, JM and SB didn't get their stories right. If there are disadvantages to telling the truth and advantages to lying why tell the truth especially when a) you're not averse to a bit of dishonesty and b) you're being encouraged along a certain road by officialdom and possibly others? 8(0(*
"I wasn't actually ever frightened of Jeremy. I didn't think he'd actually do anything to hurt me":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s
You're right it wasn't a JB specific thing but as far as I'm aware SB hadn't recently been told that any of the other party goers had recently arranged for a mercenary to murder their immediate families! Subtle difference 8(0(*
In your link to JM saying she was not afraid of Bamber, if you listen right through, she says words to this effect: I was not afraid of him but he became afraid of me which is why I became afraid of him.
The supposedly 'subtle difference' you refer to at the party is not a relevant one. It may well have been that not inviting or disinviting JB to the party would have seemed strange to him and put him on his guard. They certainly would not want that. If that is so, then treating him normally once he was there simply followed and if SB was going at it with the foam, why not include him? This is really nothing.
-
Which aspects of the statement?
This:
As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies. It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence.
-
Any views on the above contradictions in WS's anglolawyer?
No, not really. SB also fails to mention in one of her statements that JM came into see her after the 3.00 a.m. phone call (a visit I believe was planned between JB and JM to make sure his call to JM had registered within JM's house). I tend to attribute these things to ordinary forgetfulness and to be suggestive of truthfulness rather than the opposite. You would probably be suspicious if their stories exactly tallied. It's always useful when you consider something to be a lie to try to work out what purpose the lie serves. You don't seem too bothered by that part.
-
In your link to JM saying she was not afraid of Bamber, if you listen right through, she says words to this effect: I was not afraid of him but he became afraid of me which is why I became afraid of him.
The supposedly 'subtle difference' you refer to at the party is not a relevant one. It may well have been that not inviting or disinviting JB to the party would have seemed strange to him and put him on his guard. They certainly would not want that. If that is so, then treating him normally once he was there simply followed and if SB was going at it with the foam, why not include him? This is really nothing.
Yes she starts off saying she wasn't ever [def of ever = any time] frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her and she became frightened of him &%+((£
Would that be in the court of anglolawyer @)(++(*
I'm sorry but if your best mate tells you her boyfriend recently arranged for a mercenary to murder 5 members of his family, all of whom had in fact recently been murdered, the norm would be to report the incident to the police straight away ie on the 27th/28th when they ate at the Pizza Hut. Not to invite him to a 21st birthday party a couple of days later and fool about with him, in effect a mass murderer, spraying dairy cream. They were not undercover cops carrying out a covert operation. If you want to find ways to justify their actions. or lack of them, so be it. I will not be going round in circles with you.
I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:
- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal
I've no doubt it will all come out in the end with a judge led inquiry after JB's conviction has been quashed. In this day and age of accountability and transparency I don't think it will be brushed under the carpet like it was in Stefan Kizsko's case.
-
This:
I was referring to all the WS's not just the ones dated 2002.
-
On the statement. What else?
I thought you said you didn't understand my post &%+((£
-
No, not really. SB also fails to mention in one of her statements that JM came into see her after the 3.00 a.m. phone call (a visit I believe was planned between JB and JM to make sure his call to JM had registered within JM's house). I tend to attribute these things to ordinary forgetfulness and to be suggestive of truthfulness rather than the opposite. You would probably be suspicious if their stories exactly tallied. It's always useful when you consider something to be a lie to try to work out what purpose the lie serves. You don't seem too bothered by that part.
Forgetting you entered a bedroom at 3am is surely a bit different to saying you didn't see your best friend and her boyfriend for about two weeks after such a tragedy when in fact 4 days after the tragedy they actually stayed overnight in your home?
I agree memories fade, people forget the sequence of events especially if they are mundane and have no particular reason to remember them at the time etc and yet many who believe JB guilty think he should have perfect recall and seize on any anything less as indicative of guilt.
-
Yes she starts off saying she wasn't ever [def of ever = any time] frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her and she became frightened of him &%+((£
Would that be in the court of anglolawyer @)(++(*
I'm sorry but if your best mate tells you her boyfriend recently arranged for a mercenary to murder 5 members of his family, all of whom had in fact recently been murdered, the norm would be to report the incident to the police straight away ie on the 27th/28th when they ate at the Pizza Hut. Not to invite him to a 21st birthday party a couple of days later and fool about with him, in effect a mass murderer, spraying dairy cream. They were not undercover cops carrying out a covert operation. If you want to find ways to justify their actions. or lack of them, so be it. I will not be going round in circles with you.
I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:
- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal
I've no doubt it will all come out in the end with a judge led inquiry after JB's conviction has been quashed. In this day and age of accountability and transparency I don't think it will be brushed under the carpet like it was in Stefan Kizsko's case.
I completely agree Mugford had reasons to lie. I don't think I have suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, I believe her, with the important gloss that she had a vastly more compelling reason to throw him under a bus and save herself.
Your list of her reasons for lying needs a little work btw.
-
snip
I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:
- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal
snip
Let's look at that list of yours:
- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others No. She went to the police without any pressure from them.
Threat of perverting the course of justice - again, no. She went to the police voluntarily.
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers Well, no. She got away with the cheque book fraud. No one was on her trail about that. It only became a bargaining chip (if at all) because she confessed to it as part of her getting clear of her past. Same with the burglary and the drugs.
- Angry over being dumped - very likely but an inadequate motive for condemning an innocent man to life imprisonment, risking a charge of perjury and much worse in the process
- 25k NoW deal - poppycock. This deal was many months down the road when she committed herself by giving the cops a statement in Sep '85.
You have not properly grasped her situation at all since you include things which are irrelevant and exclude the one over-powering driver which accounts for the whole shebang - her own exposure to prosecution for murder and/or concealing. And responses punctuated by emoticons don't compensate for argument.
-
Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was. Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.
That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.
-
I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface. She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone. He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her. I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were. She called his bluff. And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up. So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.
A good post describing exactly what occurred imo. Once exposed, Julie and Susan had everything to lose by lying to police so both had no choice but cooperate. They had no reason to lie after that.
-
Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was. Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.
That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.
Some time in 1984 would be my guess and she was up to her armpits in it with him too, most likely. I simply find it incredible that she would just shrug as the evidence of his intentions mounted up: 'He wants to test the temazapam on himself to see if it will work when he burns the house down killing his entire family? Sure. Why not? It can't possibly mean he's serious.' What?
The game worked perfectly for her, which was not at all inevitable. For different reasons, neither the crown nor the defence had any reason to challenge her claim that she did not think he was serious.
-
Some time in 1984 would be my guess and she was up to her armpits in it with him too, most likely. I simply find it incredible that she would just shrug as the evidence of his intentions mounted up: 'He wants to test the temazapam on himself to see if it will work when he burns the house down killing his entire family? Sure. Why not? It can't possibly mean he's serious.' What?
The game worked perfectly for her, which was not at all inevitable. For different reasons, neither the crown nor the defence had any reason to challenge her claim that she did not think he was serious.
I wonder if there was ever a moment when she was terrified he might be (serious) OR did she convince herself that because of how much she knew they were joined at the hip for ever?
-
I wonder if there was ever a moment when she was terrified he might be (serious) OR did she convince herself that because of how much she knew they were joined at the hip for ever?
I am less charitable toward her than you. I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders. The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill. She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too. All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim. I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger. It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that. He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops. On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m. 26 minutes to explain away. Wow. He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through. That still leaves 16 minutes. IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time. I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.
Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full. Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.
I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth. As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher. She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe. It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)
-
I am less charitable toward her than you. I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders. The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill. She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too. All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim. I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger. It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that. He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops. On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m. 26 minutes to explain away. Wow. He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through. That still leaves 16 minutes. IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time. I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.
Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full. Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.
I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth. As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher. She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe. It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)
Good Heavens!! I had no idea that I sounded charitable. It most certainly hadn't been my intention. Believe me, I hold no brief for Julie.One of my more polite adjectives, describing her, is conniving. I believe it not impossible that Julie had a clue as to what would occur after they'd taken Sheila home from the party at the weekend. I believe she was half expecting Jeremy's call.
Like you, I believe her aim was to be Mrs Bamber -for the reasons you give- flaunting the largest diamond she could find.I think that by getting her story in first, she was able to leave out anything which would reveal just how much she knew. I wonder if their fantasy was Bonny and Clyde.
-
Good Heavens!! I had no idea that I sounded charitable. It most certainly hadn't been my intention. Believe me, I hold no brief for Julie.One of my more polite adjectives, describing her, is conniving. I believe it not impossible that Julie had a clue as to what would occur after they'd taken Sheila home from the party at the weekend. I believe she was half expecting Jeremy's call.
Like you, I believe her aim was to be Mrs Bamber -for the reasons you give- flaunting the largest diamond she could find.I think that by getting her story in first, she was able to leave out anything which would reveal just how much she knew. I wonder if their fantasy was Bonny and Clyde.
Blimey! Do you write for 'The Sun' ?
-
I am less charitable toward her than you. I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders. The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill. She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too. All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim. I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger. It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that. He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops. On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m. 26 minutes to explain away. Wow. He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through. That still leaves 16 minutes. IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time. I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.
Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full. Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.
I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth. As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher. She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe. It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)
Jeremy could have potentially landed Julie in it at any time but the difficulty for him was and still is for that matter, that by doing so he would confirm his own guilt. The question of what her involvement if any was, is indeed intriguing, was she in fact complicit?
-
Let's look at that list of yours:
1. - Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others No. She went to the police without any pressure from them.
2. Threat of perverting the course of justice - again, no. She went to the police voluntarily.
3. - Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers Well, no. She got away with the cheque book fraud. No one was on her trail about that. It only became a bargaining chip (if at all) because she confessed to it as part of her getting clear of her past. Same with the burglary and the drugs.
4. - Angry over being dumped - very likely but an inadequate motive for condemning an innocent man to life imprisonment, risking a charge of perjury and much worse in the process
5. - 25k NoW deal - poppycock. This deal was many months down the road when she committed herself by giving the cops a statement in Sep '85.
You have not properly grasped her situation at all since you include things which are irrelevant and exclude the one over-powering driver which accounts for the whole shebang - her own exposure to prosecution for murder and/or concealing. And responses punctuated by emoticons don't compensate for argument.
Sure, why not?
1. How do you know she went to the police without any pressure from them?
2. How do you know she went to the police voluntarily?
3. The DPP agreed with EP that JM should not be prosecuted for any offence. Same for SB. COLP declared that no evidence had been found that prosecution against immunity was granted in exchange for them acting as prosecution witnesses. JM's WS's make it clear she was worried about the potential impact a criminal record would have on her teaching career.
4. I'm less inclined to see JB ending the relationship as a possible reason for her lying but imo she lied her head off. I posted recently about the 4 teenage female prosecution witnesses who lied at Stefan Kiszko's trial for a laugh and because they thought it was funny at the time. They had no real reason to lie and when they admitted to lying years later, when Stefan's conviction was quashed, they went unpunished.
5. Again I'm less inclined to see the NoW deal as a major influencing factor.
How on earth could JM be prosecuted for murder?! It is clear she had no direct involvement in the murders whatsoever. When you say "concealing" I assume you mean perverting the course of justice?
Really ?>)()<
Perhaps best summed up by journalist David Connett from The Independent who attended much of the trial:
"Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling".
-
Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was. Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.
That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.
Well it doesn't appear to have been before the funerals as according to CAL's book/Anthony Pargeter JM was keen to stay at a house AP's in-laws owned on the party island of Ibiza with JB and two friends:
At the funeral of NB, June and SC on Friday 16th August:
"As the afternoon wore on, he retreated into a corner with Brett and Julie, who approached Anthony Pargeter to ask if she and Jeremy could stay at his home in Ibiza with two friends. Anthony explained that the house belonged to his in-laws, but he would make enquiries". (P307)
At the funeral of DC and NC on Monday 19th August:
"The atmosphere at Maygrove Road was deeply subdued, a stark contrast to the bright colours everyone wore, Julie asked Anthony again about the house in Ibiza he assured her he would look into it". (P337)
In a tv interview post trial JM claims she was never frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her as she told him she had to say something so she became frightened of him. &%+((£
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s
Yet according to SB's WS JM phoned her during 1984 and told SB she and JB rowed and she had been frightened:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1651
So we have JM saying she was never frightened of JB up until she told him she had to say something, which seems as though it must have been post the funerals of DC and NC on 19th August, and SB saying JM told her during 1984 she had been frightened of JB.
The pair were/are totally unreliable prosecution witnesses imo.
JM claimed JB admitted to murder by proxy. JB denied this.
-
A good post describing exactly what occurred imo. Once exposed, Julie and Susan had everything to lose by lying to police so both had no choice but cooperate. They had no reason to lie after that.
I think its widely accepted that the police will put pressure on a suspect's partner as they believe he/she will normally be able to reveal something incriminating. I think DS Jones was hot on JM's tail and probably told her, as he did JB in his interviews, that SC could not have shot herself twice (not true based on the pathological evidence); JB was going down and she could be implicated because of the circa 3am phone call. If you have a 21 year old, probably somewhat immature and naïve, without any legal representation told by the police we know JB did it; the relatives think he did it; CC thinks he did it and you could find yourself facing a lengthy prison sentence, that potentially is a scary place.
We have no idea what contact went on between EP, the relatives, CC and JM. I think I'm right in saying only taped evidence is now allowed to be used in court?
-
I think its widely accepted that the police will put pressure on a suspect's partner as they believe he/she will normally be able to reveal something incriminating. I think DS Jones was hot on JM's tail and probably told her, as he did JB in his interviews, that SC could not have shot herself twice (not true based on the pathological evidence); JB was going down and she could be implicated because of the circa 3am phone call. If you have a 21 year old, probably somewhat immature and naïve, without any legal representation told by the police we know JB did it; the relatives think he did it; CC thinks he did it and you could find yourself facing a lengthy prison sentence, that potentially is a scary place.
We have no idea what contact went on between EP, the relatives, CC and JM. I think I'm right in saying only taped evidence is now allowed to be used in court?
When the robbery at Osea Road caravan park and the chequebook fraud were revealed to police it would be fair to say that Susan and Julie would be crapping themselves. When it was put to Julie that she could be seen as complicit in the murders I have no doubt whatsoever that she told the police everything in exchange for not being pursued. The only other proviso being that the bank was paid back everything which they stole from it. Bottom line for Julie was that she couldn't afford to tell lies about Jeremy since the consequences for her would have been dire.
-
Sure, why not?
1. How do you know she went to the police without any pressure from them?
2. How do you know she went to the police voluntarily?
3. The DPP agreed with EP that JM should not be prosecuted for any offence. Same for SB. COLP declared that no evidence had been found that prosecution against immunity was granted in exchange for them acting as prosecution witnesses. JM's WS's make it clear she was worried about the potential impact a criminal record would have on her teaching career.
4. I'm less inclined to see JB ending the relationship as a possible reason for her lying but imo she lied her head off. I posted recently about the 4 teenage female prosecution witnesses who lied at Stefan Kiszko's trial for a laugh and because they thought it was funny at the time. They had no real reason to lie and when they admitted to lying years later, when Stefan's conviction was quashed, they went unpunished.
5. Again I'm less inclined to see the NoW deal as a major influencing factor.
How on earth could JM be prosecuted for murder?! It is clear she had no direct involvement in the murders whatsoever. When you say "concealing" I assume you mean perverting the course of justice?
Really ?>)()<
Perhaps best summed up by journalist David Connett from The Independent who attended much of the trial:
"Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling".
1 and 2 - I don't know. It's surmise on my part based on the fact that the police (meaning the senior detective DCI Jones) had accepted the murder-suicide theory and were not investigating.
3 I don't believe COLP and I find their use of language interesting - they 'found no evidence'? What they should have said was 'the DPP denied that any deal was made'.
4 I agree she lied but not by making the whole thing up. She stuck to the truth but left out the parts that incriminated herself. That's why her account includes things that would not be there is she were lying (the hitman) and things she could not know unless there had been detailed discussion of murder with JB (the window catch, cordless phone idea)
5 the NoW is irrelevant.
Perverting the course of justice would not be the appropriate charge. That involves fabricating evidencd, intimidating witnesses etc. I should probably have referred to the offence of 'impeding' rather than 'concealing'. Both are enacted in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Section 4. Google is your friend.
As for involvement in the murder, if she aided, abetted, counselled or procured the crimes she would be liable as a principal. Participating in the telephone charade would amount to aiding and abetting.
-
1 and 2 - I don't know. It's surmise on my part based on the fact that the police (meaning the senior detective DCI Jones) had accepted the murder-suicide theory and were not investigating.
3 I don't believe COLP and I find their use of language interesting - they 'found no evidence'? What they should have said was 'the DPP denied that any deal was made'.
4 I agree she lied but not by making the whole thing up. She stuck to the truth but left out the parts that incriminated herself. That's why her account includes things that would not be there is she were lying (the hitman) and things she could not know unless there had been detailed discussion of murder with JB (the window catch, cordless phone idea)
5 the NoW is irrelevant.
6 Perverting the course of justice would not be the appropriate charge. That involves fabricating evidencd, intimidating witnesses etc. I should probably have referred to the offence of 'impeding' rather than 'concealing'. Both are enacted in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Section 4. Google is your friend.
7 As for involvement in the murder, if she aided, abetted, counselled or procured the crimes she would be liable as a principal. Participating in the telephone charade would amount to aiding and abetting.
1 & 2. The investigation was very much ongoing especially as far as the relatives were concerned!
3. Its never a good idea to have colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.
4. How does the hit man show she wasn't lying? I daresay DS Jones and the relatives were more than happy to brief JM on their investigations re the window catch, phones etc 8(0(* DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and lo and behold all his Christmases came at once: JM's testimony and the silencer, both of which he had more than helping hand in. He collected the silencer from the Eatons and JM's pal, Liz Rimmington, telephoned DS Jones on JM's behalf to blow the whistle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s
5. The NoW is probably irrelevant in terms of motivation to lie initially but it might not be irrelevant if it can be shown she signed the deal pre trial with the jury unaware.
6. Perverting the course of justice includes withholding evidence and would be the appropriate charge.
7. Again perverting the course of justice by withholding. Btw I believe her witness statement of 8th August to be complete and truthful so no withholding of evidence but yes I believe she perverted the course of justice by fabricating her later testimony.
-
1 & 2. The investigation was very much ongoing especially as far as the relatives were concerned!
3. Its never a good idea to have colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.
4. How does the hit man show she wasn't lying? I daresay DS Jones and the relatives were more than happy to brief JM on their investigations re the window catch, phones etc 8(0(* DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and lo and behold all his Christmases came at once: JM's testimony and the silencer, both of which he had more than helping hand in. He collected the silencer from the Eatons and JM's pal, Liz Rimmington, telephoned DS Jones on JM's behalf to blow the whistle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s
5. The NoW is probably irrelevant in terms of motivation to lie initially but it might not be irrelevant if it can be shown she signed the deal pre trial with the jury unaware.
6. Perverting the course of justice includes withholding evidence and would be the appropriate charge.
7. Again perverting the course of justice by withholding. Btw I believe her witness statement of 8th August to be complete and truthful so no withholding of evidence but yes I believe she perverted the course of justice by fabricating her later testimony.
So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story? Awesome! What did he use to persuade her? He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud. The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility. I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ. The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'. I suppose that might include plain old lying.
I don't think you are getting the point about her liability. If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view. Yet, she was not cautioned. It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client. Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.
-
So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story? Awesome! What did he use to persuade her? He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud. The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility. I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ. The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'. I suppose that might include plain old lying.
I don't think you are getting the point about her liability. If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view. Yet, she was not cautioned. It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client. Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.
JM makes ref in her post 8th Aug WS's that JB said we shouldn't talk about anything inside in case EP have bugged the property (Goldhanger). IMO this came from EP:
a) I believe EP bugged (under surveillance) JB's cottage possibly the other properties he used too. By JM adding to her WS JB said the property might be bugged and we shouldn't talk about it covers the fact it wasn't talked about not because JB thought the property was bugged but because there was nothing to talk about as he had no involvement.
b) EP can tell JM whatever they want eg we have him on phone admitting to someone he did it.
c) He took a female back to Goldhanger, which he did, and various accounts exist from laying on his bed together to full sex.
d) Possibly discussed JM in unflattering terms with others especially BC and said he would be selling up, getting shot of JM and starting a new life elsewhere.
They tell JM they know JB did it because all the windows and doors were secure and only JB knew of a way to enter and exit covertly. Plus SC could not have shot herself twice.
Just 21 yoa. Put in a safe house and segregated. No friends, family. Not even her mother. No legal representation. They convince JM JB is responsible. Let her know they have full support of rellies and CC. Come down hard on circa 3am call to JM. We know he phoned you to let you know he did it. Do you want to be more reviled than Myra Hindley? Who wants their children taught by the ex girlfriend of a monster? Etc, etc. WS's drafted up. Sign here. May have floated the possibility of the NoW deal to get her side of story over.
Please stop telling me what I don't get.
Withholding evidence comes under disposing/spoliation and is considered perverting the course of justice.
Just because perverting the course of justice is an illegal act doesn't mean to say that everyone who commits it is charged. Even when the authorities know about it and have the evidence. Even when the perps admit to it.
-
So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story? Awesome! What did he use to persuade her? He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud. The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility. I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ. The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'. I suppose that might include plain old lying.
I don't think you are getting the point about her liability. If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view. Yet, she was not cautioned. It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client. Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.
How do you know what DS Jones knew and when he knew it? If all properties were bugged/under surveillance including JB's, JM's and SC's, EP would be one step ahead eg JB no doubt discussed with BC and others he was going to end the relationship with JM so EP were ready to pounce. JM no doubt discussed with others eg SB that she hoped the cheque fraud, OCP and cannabis would not come to light or some reference might have been made to these events with SB, JB and/or others.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
-
I had not thought about electronic surveillance. Was anything disclosed (as would usually be the case) to the defence? If not, you have to add another layer of activity to your conspiracy theory.
-
I had not thought about electronic surveillance. Was anything disclosed (as would usually be the case) to the defence? If not, you have to add another layer of activity to your conspiracy theory.
What are the other layer(s) of my 'conspiracy theory'?
I don't believe in conspiracies per se but I do believe in miscarriages of justice which often feature withholding information from the defence.
Make of this what you will:
277. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that having been released from custody on 13 September the appellant was continuously under surveillance until 1.30 a.m. on 16 September. It is said that there was no disclosure of this fact but we note from a Kingsley Napley attendance note of 3 September 1986 that the appellant "confirmed that he was under surveillance after his release from custody".
278. Mr Turner complains that failure to disclose the exact details of the surveillance put the defendant as he then was at a disadvantage when drafting his proof of evidence. In particular it would have assisted him to recollect when he left the note in the office. Since the appellant knew he was under surveillance we need not consider whether there should have been disclosure of the fact but we note that the Attorney General's guidelines of December 1981 in force at the relevant time gave a discretion to withhold material where "it contains details which, if they became known might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he was a suspect, or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime".
279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:
"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".
280. Had prosecuting counsel been informed that the appellant was in fact under surveillance and in London at the time a potentially devastating cross-examination followed by the calling of rebuttal evidence would have caused the defence much embarrassment. Mr Turner contends the matter could have been simply explained away as a mistake as to dates, the actual visit occurring on 16 or 17 September as in fact he had instructed his solicitors. We have seen his proof of evidence to that effect.
281. Since prosecuting counsel was not given this information, the appellant avoided this potential crisis and since the appellant knew of the surveillance no possible disadvantage accrued to him by reason of its non-disclosure.
-
That's from the 2002 appeal isn't it? You have a fair point I think. I still don't buy your overall idea but I acknowledge there might be more going for it than I thought. The surveillance the judge was referring to was post-Mugford coming forward. I wonder who could have authorised surveillance over Taff Jones's head before then?
-
That's from the 2002 appeal isn't it? You have a fair point I think. I still don't buy your overall idea but I acknowledge there might be more going for it than I thought. The surveillance the judge was referring to was post-Mugford coming forward. I wonder who could have authorised surveillance over Taff Jones's head before then?
Yes 02 appeal and surveillance referred to post JM. I'm not sure who had overall responsibility for what and when in terms of the investigation. DI Cook is on record as criticising the command structure and saying the investigation was like a ship without a rower (think he meant rudder). If you look at the record logs of JM's interviews most of them were with DS Jones. Plus he picked up the silencer from the Eatons. It's as though the case was his baby. Is this norm to have one officer assigned almost exclusively to a case?
When you say overall idea you mean re EP putting JM and JB under surveillance and seizing the opportunity when the relationship ended? The idea isn't without its problems ie LR blowing the whistle. Unless this was all part of the plan ie DS Jones creating a situation where someone other than JM blew the whistle but that sounds too complicated? I just struggle with 99.9% of women condoning mass murder whether directly or indirectly. I can't see JM hanging out with a guy for a month if she thought he was involved and then going to EP coz he dumped her. I can't see her sharing his life and bed for a month if she had any suspicion? I can't buy into she was besotted, frightened, didn't want to believe it etc. Or worse still she was happy to turn a blind eye as she relished the idea of sharing his inheritance and becoming Mrs Bamber. Then I have to buy into SB being told but fooling around with JB at a party a couple of days later. None of it makes sense to me anyway. Plus there are too many inconsistencies in JM's WS: NB shot 7 times consecutively (4 times upstairs, 4 times downstairs thought to be consecutively), SC found on bed (on floor), a glove falling off/fingerprints (said to account for lack of prints. It appears firearms are difficult to lift prints from).
Why did DS Jones ask about their sex life? Was this a genuine question to see if JB was weird/violent (Christian Grey just happened to be adopted!); got off on asking JM about it; attempt to get some bad PR in an era when homosexuality/bisexuality was frowned upon or was DS Jones a closet gay who hated JB for arousing his interest so to speak. Or was he jealous of JB's perceived pulling power?
-
Yes 02 appeal and surveillance referred to post JM. I'm not sure who had overall responsibility for what and when in terms of the investigation. DI Cook is on record as criticising the command structure and saying the investigation was like a ship without a rower (think he meant rudder). If you look at the record logs of JM's interviews most of them were with DS Jones. Plus he picked up the silencer from the Eatons. It's as though the case was his baby. Is this norm to have one officer assigned almost exclusively to a case?
When you say overall idea you mean re EP putting JM and JB under surveillance and seizing the opportunity when the relationship ended? The idea isn't without its problems ie LR blowing the whistle. Unless this was all part of the plan ie DS Jones creating a situation where someone other than JM blew the whistle but that sounds too complicated? I just struggle with 99.9% of women condoning mass murder whether directly or indirectly. I can't see JM hanging out with a guy for a month if she thought he was involved and then going to EP coz he dumped her. I can't see her sharing his life and bed for a month if she had any suspicion? I can't buy into she was besotted, frightened, didn't want to believe it etc. Or worse still she was happy to turn a blind eye as she relished the idea of sharing his inheritance and becoming Mrs Bamber. Then I have to buy into SB being told but fooling around with JB at a party a couple of days later. None of it makes sense to me anyway. Plus there are too many inconsistencies in JM's WS: NB shot 7 times consecutively (4 times upstairs, 4 times downstairs thought to be consecutively), SC found on bed (on floor), a glove falling off/fingerprints (said to account for lack of prints. It appears firearms are difficult to lift prints from).
Why did DS Jones ask about their sex life? Was this a genuine question to see if JB was weird/violent (Christian Grey just happened to be adopted!); got off on asking JM about it; attempt to get some bad PR in an era when homosexuality/bisexuality was frowned upon or was DS Jones a closet gay who hated JB for arousing his interest so to speak. Or was he jealous of JB's perceived pulling power?
Quite a few points there:
1 I don't know about command structures etc and certainly not in 1985. I imagine that some level of seniority above detective sergeant would be required in order for phone tapping and bugging to be authorised but I'm only guessing and anyway, DS Jones might have got authority from a sympathetic senior for all I know.
2 I assume your 'overall idea' is that JM is telling a pack of lies, that Bamber never planned to or spoke about murdering his family. To sustain it, you offered a list of reasons for JM to lie. I commented on those and your response was to suggest that EP may have got to know about Osea Road, cheque fraud etc by bugging. Your conspiracy theory thus became a bit more involved. Just to clarify, I have nothing against CTs and my own position on this case involves one that includes the DPP. As a general rule they are more credible the fewer people are involved and the less complicated they are. Yours got a little more complicated, that's all. It doesn't mean it's not true. I just happen not to believe it.
3 as to her condoning mass murder, I think we have two very great improbabilities, one of which must be true: yours, that she would swear his life away because he dumped her (plus some other goodies as you listed) and mine that she would stand by him knowing his heinous involvement (to which I, in turn, have added some imaginative extra incentives).
4 I have not studied JM's witness statements as closely as I should. I did not know she had a bullet-count in them. Have you seen her purported diary on that? I mistrust diaries as the entries are too easy to fake but it's interesting that she claims to have noted (and thus to have been told by JB) how many times everyone was shot. On the 'SC on the bed' thing, that info was provided to the gathering at Goldhanger on the morning of the 7th by the officer present (who also said everybody was shot once). Ann Eaton noted it and then noted that the information changed in the course of her initial tour of WHF with Taff Jones. So JM may have picked that up from the police officer.
5 I didn't know Jones asked about their sex life but I guess it would be legit to explore their relationship. Didn't some of the coppers think JB was gay and involved some how with Brett? Maybe he was exploring that angle.
-
Quite a few points there:
1 I don't know about command structures etc and certainly not in 1985. I imagine that some level of seniority above detective sergeant would be required in order for phone tapping and bugging to be authorised but I'm only guessing and anyway, DS Jones might have got authority from a sympathetic senior for all I know.
Was there anything to stop DS Jones operating under his own steam if the devices were readily available either internally or externally?
2 I assume your 'overall idea' is that JM is telling a pack of lies, that Bamber never planned to or spoke about murdering his family. To sustain it, you offered a list of reasons for JM to lie. I commented on those and your response was to suggest that EP may have got to know about Osea Road, cheque fraud etc by bugging. Your conspiracy theory thus became a bit more involved. Just to clarify, I have nothing against CTs and my own position on this case involves one that includes the DPP. As a general rule they are more credible the fewer people are involved and the less complicated they are. Yours got a little more complicated, that's all. It doesn't mean it's not true. I just happen not to believe it.
Yes I believe her 8th Aug WS and not those thereafter but why the change? I struggle to believe it was just as a result of JB ending the relationship. She told SB, hinted to Karen Bishop (I can't recall if this was before or after SB) and then told LR and Malcolm Deckers. LR blew the whistle with EP. Was telling the girls some sort of face saving exercise that got out of control? Malcom's first reaction was to ask whether it was as a result of JB ending the relationship. Or did she take the break-up particularly badly due to her parents divorcing when she was young, 10 yoa apparently, and it doesn't seem like she kept in contact with her birth father? My theory doesn't really involve anyone other than DS Jones and JM?
3 as to her condoning mass murder, I think we have two very great improbabilities, one of which must be true: yours, that she would swear his life away because he dumped her (plus some other goodies as you listed) and mine that she would stand by him knowing his heinous involvement (to which I, in turn, have added some imaginative extra incentives).
No, as I've said I struggle to see her swearing his life away because he ended the relationship. Also if she was that way inclined would JB be so stupid and not see that as a real possibility. I also struggle to see her standing by him to the extent of identifying the victims at the morgue and then asking AP at the funerals about the use of a property in Ibiza for a hol with JB and two friends. The only logical explanation seems to be that DS Jones, the rellies and CC were able to convince her JB was in fact guilty and if she didn't cooperate there would be consequences?
4 I have not studied JM's witness statements as closely as I should. I did not know she had a bullet-count in them. Have you seen her purported diary on that? I mistrust diaries as the entries are too easy to fake but it's interesting that she claims to have noted (and thus to have been told by JB) how many times everyone was shot. On the 'SC on the bed' thing, that info was provided to the gathering at Goldhanger on the morning of the 7th by the officer present (who also said everybody was shot once). Ann Eaton noted it and then noted that the information changed in the course of her initial tour of WHF with Taff Jones. So JM may have picked that up from the police officer.
But if JB told her about the murders, as she claims, why is so much factually incorrect? The gunshot wounds in her WS and diary entry are incorrect. I guess you could argue JB was safeguarding over her coughing and feeding her duff info but this would show a level of awareness on his part of that potential risk and a need to keep her sweet and on side. Or not tell in her in the first place.
5 I didn't know Jones asked about their sex life but I guess it would be legit to explore their relationship. Didn't some of the coppers think JB was gay and involved some how with Brett? Maybe he was exploring that angle.
How would any of that affect his ability to murder or not? I don't really see the relevance.
-
Was there anything to stop DS Jones operating under his own steam if the devices were readily available either internally or externally?
Yes I believe her 8th Aug WS and not those thereafter but why the change? I struggle to believe it was just as a result of JB ending the relationship. She told SB, hinted to Karen Bishop (I can't recall if this was before or after SB) and then told LR and Malcolm Deckers. LR blew the whistle with EP. Was telling the girls some sort of face saving exercise that got out of control? Malcom's first reaction was to ask whether it was as a result of JB ending the relationship. Or did she take the break-up particularly badly due to her parents divorcing when she was young, 10 yoa apparently, and it doesn't seem like she kept in contact with her birth father? My theory doesn't really involve anyone other than DS Jones and JM?
No, as I've said I struggle to see her swearing his life away because he ended the relationship. Also if she was that way inclined would JB be so stupid and not see that as a real possibility. I also struggle to see her standing by him to the extent of identifying the victims at the morgue and then asking AP at the funerals about the use of a property in Ibiza for a hol with JB and two friends. The only logical explanation seems to be that DS Jones, the rellies and CC were able to convince her JB was in fact guilty and if she didn't cooperate there would be consequences?
But if JB told her about the murders, as she claims, why is so much factually incorrect? The gunshot wounds in her WS and diary entry are incorrect. I guess you could argue JB was safeguarding over her coughing and feeding her duff info but this would show a level of awareness on his part of that potential risk and a need to keep her sweet and on side. Or not tell in her in the first place.
How would any of that affect his ability to murder or not? I don't really see the relevance.
On the last point first, general background info must surely always be useful. There were rumours circulating about him stealing watches and jewellery and dealing drugs down under and that maybe involved Brett. Those things, plus Osea Road, show that he was more interested in money than is healthy. If I were a detective investigating this case who did not believe JB's story I would be interested.
I am only repeating myself in saying that his dumping her may partly account for her motivation. She may have felt entitled to some of the proceeds of the enterprise whether in cash or status and she may also have started to fear that if he were caught he might take her down with him. She could not know one way or the other how he would react to being accused of involvement, so she may have felt impelled to be the one who went to the police first. If my theory is correct, then she made a great if also dangerous move, not only in approaching the police but also in feting up to Osea Road, cheque fraud etc.
Anyway, I've said all that and don;t wish to be boring. I'm afraid this case is such a mess and there is so much material that is not available online that, unlike some, it is simply not possible to reach a concluded view either way. It's plausible enough that Sheila did it but not possible to demonstrate one way or the other. My feeling is JM told a version of the truth but that could easily be wrong and I certainly have no way of convincing you otherwise.
-
On the last point first, general background info must surely always be useful. There were rumours circulating about him stealing watches and jewellery and dealing drugs down under and that maybe involved Brett. Those things, plus Osea Road, show that he was more interested in money than is healthy. If I were a detective investigating this case who did not believe JB's story I would be interested.
I am only repeating myself in saying that his dumping her may partly account for her motivation. She may have felt entitled to some of the proceeds of the enterprise whether in cash or status and she may also have started to fear that if he were caught he might take her down with him. She could not know one way or the other how he would react to being accused of involvement, so she may have felt impelled to be the one who went to the police first. If my theory is correct, then she made a great if also dangerous move, not only in approaching the police but also in feting up to Osea Road, cheque fraud etc.
Anyway, I've said all that and don;t wish to be boring. I'm afraid this case is such a mess and there is so much material that is not available online that, unlike some, it is simply not possible to reach a concluded view either way. It's plausible enough that Sheila did it but not possible to demonstrate one way or the other. My feeling is JM told a version of the truth but that could easily be wrong and I certainly have no way of convincing you otherwise.
There's no evidence to support any crime down under. If EP were interested in JB's sex life surely they would liaise with counterparts in the Antipodes and get to the bottom of it down under 8)-)))
Not condoning OCP but I'm inclined to see it as more than just theft for financial gain. It's well documented that JB was aggrieved that AE and himself had equal status and responsibility in the running of OCP. Yet AE's financial compensation was greater than JB's. JB tackled June about this and he was told "When you learn to live properly". If I was JB I would have been 8()(((@# as I see this as very much a control thing. At that time he hadn't committed OCP and unlikely June was aware of his cannabis growing and selling so as far as I can see unless he was breaking the law it was up to him how he chose to live his life. Perhaps June was referring to his sexual relationship with JM which is ridiculous for a man of 23/24 yoa in 1984/5.
There was far too much trying to control SC and JB by June and NB. June telling CC she hoped his relationship with SC was over after her first termination. Then NB telling JB he had to end his relationship with Suzette Ford if he wanted to inherit. If CC and SF were undesirable characters I could perhaps understand their reservations but they weren't. Really unhealthy imo.
There are numerous cases of affluent stars that have stolen small ticket items and it has been linked to psychological reasons:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16469928
http://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-have-been-caught-shoplifting/celebrity-lists?var=2&utm?
Yes we only have a fraction of the available material so its like trying to complete a jigsaw without all the bits!
-
No one wants to mass debate with me over JB 8)><(
-
No one wants to mass debate with me over JB 8)><(
I'm still here but we have beaten this part of the topic to death, haven't we?
-
I'm still here but we have beaten this part of the topic to death, haven't we?
JM 'telling' SB and then the pair partying with JB along with SB fooling around with him spraying dairy cream on his neck was new to me. I must have read it in the WS's but it obviously didn't register until I read CAL's book. Just adds to my belief the pair were unreliable prosecutions witnesses.
I just need to look at a timeline for order of SB, KB (Karen Bishop) and LR. Also why did JM spell it out for SB and LR but apparently only hint at with KB? Bearing in mind JM was a bridesmaid at KB's wedding so a close friend I guess.
-
Any more acronyms, and I'll have to borrow E for Enigma off MT to translate.
SB didn't spray any cream on JB's neck either, she pretended as if she was going to.
-
Any more acronyms, and I'll have to borrow E for Enigma off MT to translate.
and I think that might produce BS!
SB didn't spray any cream on JB's neck either, she pretended as if she was going to.
Either way it's so not the norm if you believe a fellow party goer and intended sprayee is a mass murderer.
JM = Julie Mugford
SB = Susan Battesby
LR = Elizabeth (Liz) Rimmington
KB = Karen Bishop nee Napier
JM, LR and KB met initially through working at Frog and Bean wine bar owned by Michael Deckers (MD) and Malcolm Waters (MW). MD and MW sold the wine bar and bought Sloppy Joes. LR was employed there as manageress. She was also the girlfriend of MW (CAL makes a mistake in her book on page 86 and refers to LR as the girlfriend of MD). JB was employed as a barman. JM and KB were taken on as temporary waitresses during Christmas '83. At this time MD, MW, LR and JB all shared a house in Colchester which MD owned.
KB was a medi student at Cambridge and married fellow medi student Andy Bishop (AB). You might recall the second weekend after the tragedy the Bishops and JB and JM went windsuring to Pevensey. JM was a bridesmaid at the Bishops wedding. Perhaps the Bishops were the two friends JM was referring to when she made enquiries with AP at the funerals about the use of his in-laws pad in Ibiza for herself, JB and two friends.
SB was first to be told about JB's involvement with the tragedy followed by LR. Interestingly this is JM's account of stopping short of telling KB:
"Julie had already told Susan and Liz that Jeremy was behind his family murders; she intimated heavily to Karen that he was guilty, but for some reason stopped just short of saying the actual words, perhaps hoping that one of the three women would take it upon themselves to inform the police". "Later, Julie said she was amazed that Karen hadn't realized she had been trying to tell her that Jeremy was involved".
Hmmm so why not spell it out for KB?
LR also had a brief fling with JB. Did I read that LR had a fling with Matthew McDonald too? I'm not sure about that.
-
and I think that might produce BS!
Either way it's so not the norm if you believe a fellow party goer and intended sprayee is a mass murderer.
JM = Julie Mugford
SB = Susan Battesby
LR = Elizabeth (Liz) Rimmington
KB = Karen Bishop nee Napier
JM, LR and KB met initially through working at Frog and Bean wine bar owned by Michael Deckers (MD) and Malcolm Waters (MW). MD and MW sold the wine bar and bought Sloppy Joes. LR was employed there as manageress. She was also the girlfriend of MW (CAL makes a mistake in her book on page 86 and refers to LR as the girlfriend of MD). JB was employed as a barman. JM and KB were taken on as temporary waitresses during Christmas '83. At this time MD, MW, LR and JB all shared a house in Colchester which MD owned.
KB was a medi student at Cambridge and married fellow medi student Andy Bishop (AB). You might recall the second weekend after the tragedy the Bishops and JB and JM went windsuring to Pevensey. JM was a bridesmaid at the Bishops wedding. Perhaps the Bishops were the two friends JM was referring to when she made enquiries with AP at the funerals about the use of his in-laws pad in Ibiza for herself, JB and two friends.
SB was first to be told about JB's involvement with the tragedy followed by LR. Interestingly this is JM's account of stopping short of telling KB:
"Julie had already told Susan and Liz that Jeremy was behind his family murders; she intimated heavily to Karen that he was guilty, but for some reason stopped just short of saying the actual words, perhaps hoping that one of the three women would take it upon themselves to inform the police". "Later, Julie said she was amazed that Karen hadn't realized she had been trying to tell her that Jeremy was involved".
Hmmm so why not spell it out for KB?
LR also had a brief fling with JB. Did I read that LR had a fling with Matthew McDonald too? I'm not sure about that.
Have Andy and Karen Bishops police witness statements been published?
-
If they have, no doubt Cutie Goodhead will nick them and post them over here... if you're lucky!
-
If they have, no doubt Cutie Goodhead will nick them and post them over here... if you're lucky!
8((()*/