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 29, 2015, 10:56:48 PM
-
Evil killer Jeremy Bamber posts bizarre apology for 'failing to clear his name' to parents he massacred.
(http://i.imgur.com/Bf313qt.jpg?1)
28 September 2015
The vile 54-year-old murdered five members of his family and was jailed 30 years ago.
Jeremy Bamber has marked 30 years behind bars by sharing a bizarre apology addressed to his parents who died by his hand.
Posted in a blog, the 54-year-old said he regrets not being able to clear his name and says he feels he let his parents down.
He massacred five members of his family in 1985 - his adoptive parents, his sister Sheila and her six-year-old twins - gunning his parents down at their farmhouse home.
Bamber said in his blog, posted from behind bars: "It feels so painful at times to know that I've let my mum and dad down so badly.
"Dad especially would be disappointed in me for having failed to prove my innocence and therefore cleared their names too within thirty years.
"I can hear his voice in my mind 'Thirty years Jem, you've had thirty years mate to sort this lot out'.
"I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other 'mate' - it was an in joke between us."
Bamber, now 54, added: "On the 6th August 1985 [the night of the murders] I went home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning and my last words to dad when I left that evening were 'Thanks mate I'll see you in the morning'.
"I said a good night to mum and Sheila and off I went."
But jury at Chelmsford Crown Court later decided that in spite of his denial, it was Jeremy who took a rifle and proceeded to shoot dead his adoptive parents Nevill and June Bamber, his sister Shelia "Bambi" Caffell and her twin six-old sons Nicholas and Benjamin.
Convicting Bamber, Mr Justice Drake described the young farmer as "evil beyond belief".
The slaughter at the family's remote farmhouse in the village of Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex rocked the small community and in spite of Bamber's efforts to have the case re-tried with claims of new evidence, he remains in Long Lartin jail.
In 1994 the then Home Secretary Michael Howard ruled that in Bamber's case, a "whole life" sentence should mean exactly that and that he will die in prison.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/evil-killer-jeremy-bamber-posts-6531547
-
Jeremy Bamber's blog
Sunday, 27 September 2015
I wanted to write about what it’s been like having now spent thirty complete years in jail. A total of 10958 days (Including 8 added leap year days) give or take a few hours (8) on 29th September, equalling 263 thousand hours of wrongful imprisonment.
Looking at it like that makes it seem such a long time. No doubt it’s at least a third of my life. It feels so painful at times to know that I’ve let my mum and dad down so badly. Dad especially would be disappointed in me for having failed to prove my innocence and therefore cleared their names too within thirty years. “Thirty years Jem, you’ve had thirty years mate to sort this lot out”, his voice is still clear in my mind.
I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then.
Going back to dad and I, on our movie going days we would always catch the new James Bond film when that came out. We both loved Paul Newman and Robert Redford films and Clint Eastwood too. So anything that they were in we’d go to the cinema and see together.
Returning to 1980, the fact that we enjoyed the cinema so much meant that we would always try and watch the film review show on the BBC. It was hosted by Barry Norman and we nearly always agreed with his opinions on the latest film releases. If Barry really raved about a particular movie we’d both go to the cinema and watch it together, or when video films could be rented we’d get the film and watch it at home.
The movie review show was called ‘Film ’78’ or ’79 or whatever the year was the show
was on. So in 1980 it was called ‘Film 80’ and dad’s joke, silly as it seems, had us both in hysterics the first time he said it and giggling every week afterwards. Dad said dead pan as if he was being completely serious: “Jem, what are we doing watching this and why is Barry Norman presenting a programme about a bloke called Phil Matey? Don’t know about you but who is this Phil Matey fellow anyway?” I can recall looking at dad and thinking are you really that much of a fool or are you just making a silly joke, a play on words. I didn’t know as dad was poker faced with that quizzical look in his eyes, and he caught me, to which I answered, “It’s Film 80 dad!” and immediately I got it, Phil Matey, and we laughed so much and for so long that no sooner had the giggles subsided than one of us would say ‘Phil Matey’ and start again.
A day or two later we were at Doe’s, the agricultural suppliers, buying various spares and bits for the farm. The guy serving us turned to his colleague and said: “Do us a favour matey, can you get us such and such oil filters from the rack?” Dad turned to me and said “What do you reckon Jem, is his name Phil?” to which we both ended up in hysterics, made even funnier cos the guy who was serving us just stood and looked at us as if we were off our heads, with dad trying to pull it together, getting it under control and then saying “Where’s Phil with the oil filters?”, trying so hard to keep his face straight, failing and giggling again causing me to giggle. And so the cycle went on that is until we got back to the van. From then on we called each other ‘Matey’ which fairly quickly was shortened to ‘Mate’. Right up to the 6th August 1985 and my going home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning. My last words to dad when I left that evening were, “Thanks Mate, I’ll see you in the morning.” I said a “Good night” to mum and Sheila and off I went.
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
Obviously this is not a point to be taken to the Appeal Court, it would mean nothing to them, but to dad and I our 'in' joke was important to both of us on so many levels. In order for me to clear all of our names, I’ve had to try to understand everything, including my own actions and motivations.
I do feel a bit of a “Larry let-down” for not being able to resolve this case until now. It’s in part due to the fact that corrupt former Essex Police officers who constructed a false case against me are now mostly deceased. There are a few who are still enjoying their retirement, who we appear to have evidence upon, that reveals them to be corrupt former Essex Police Officers in many ways. For instance, the CPS failed to take into account a report, dated 06.09.85 that was written by Detective Chief Superintendent Kenneally which stated:
“The evidence indicates that Sheila was responsible”
Clearly, Essex Police have not disclosed to the Defence or the CPS this extensive review and the supporting evidence, which resulted in the finding that Sheila carried out the shootings. The continued concealment of this report suggests that the corruption within Essex Police in the 1980’s remains endemic at the very highest level of their organisation today. If this was not so then the current Chief Constable would have disclosed DSI Kenneally’s report to us, and all the supporting evidence that showed that Sheila was responsible, as well as all the other material listed upon our petition for disclosure.
There is a huge amount of corruption involved in the case. Just one example of the many hundreds we have, is how witness evidence was manipulated to change the whole meaning of what was told to the Police and the Enquiries. In 1991, my cousin David Boutflour wrote a hand written statement for the C.O.L.P. Enquiry. He stated:
“Thought made some states in August but appear mistaken”[1]
The typed version of the same statement said:
“Thought I may have made further statements but I may be mistaken”[2]
This evidence was manipulated to disguise the fact that David Boutflour made witness testimony before September, which has never been disclosed. There are a number of police documents making reference to many other witness statements, from a multitude of people, which apparently don’t exist.
Anyway “Matey” the truth is certainly now known by the CPS and the Defence and it will be in the Courts and the Public Arena very soon. I hope you and mum’s name will soon be cleared along with mine.
Are the senior Officers within Essex Police honest and true? That depends if they comply with the disclosure requests contained on our latest petition. Only time will tell. Thank you to everyone who has supported the petition for disclosure of all case documents including Human Rights Campaigner, Peter Tatchell. If you haven’t done so already please sign, as it will make all the difference in my continued fight for justice.
Jeremy
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/29th-september-30-years-of-wrongful.html
-
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
What a bizarre way to describe this central part of the story. Why wasn't Sheila going crazy with a gun the reason for calling the police? The whole piece is decidedly odd IMO. I notice also ties himself to the 3:36 timing.
-
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
What a bizarre way to describe this central part of the story. Why wasn't Sheila going crazy with a gun the reason for calling the police? The whole piece is decidedly odd IMO. I notice also ties himself to the 3:36 timing.
Bizarre indeed! And totally transparent.
-
What did he need "more information" for!!? The (invented) call was clear as a bell - "Please come over, your sister has gone crazy and has the gun!" In other words, "Get your a*s over here asap!!!" No fiddling about with phone books needed. They've both dealt with Sheila's erratic behaviour on their own before apparently, and once at WHF what was to stop him waking the Foakes up to ask them to summon the police if he couldn't get in and things turned nasty, or even more creatively, sneaking in through the Shower room window as he admitted doing many times before?
And why should he want to clear his parents' names, when they were victims not perpetrators? Absolutely crackers!
-
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
What a bizarre way to describe this central part of the story. Why wasn't Sheila going crazy with a gun the reason for calling the police? The whole piece is decidedly odd IMO. I notice also ties himself to the 3:36 timing.
Hmm. He took the call SO seriously that he waited 30 mins to get through to a specific police station rather than call 999......................it also means he must have been bending Julie's "friendly ear" when, if he'd taken it as seriously as he maintains, he'd have been trying to get help.
Perhaps it should be noted that anyone making such a call -circa 3am- as Neville is alleged to have made IS going to sound scared/panicked/desperate. This urgency will be passed on to the listener. They will pick up on the callers fear and convey that fear when they call for assistance. Because the call only occurred in Jeremy's "script" he wasn't able to pick up on the feelings which would have been involved. It was only as an afterthought that he threw in to the police -as more of a reprimand for keeping him waiting than something he was desperate for them to know- that his father had sounded "panicked."
-
Evil killer Jeremy Bamber posts bizarre apology for 'failing to clear his name' to parents he massacred.
(http://i.imgur.com/Bf313qt.jpg?1)
28 September 2015
The vile 54-year-old murdered five members of his family and was jailed 30 years ago.
Jeremy Bamber has marked 30 years behind bars by sharing a bizarre apology addressed to his parents who died by his hand.
Posted in a blog, the 54-year-old said he regrets not being able to clear his name and says he feels he let his parents down.
He massacred five members of his family in 1985 - his adoptive parents, his sister Sheila and her six-year-old twins - gunning his parents down at their farmhouse home.
Bamber said in his blog, posted from behind bars: "It feels so painful at times to know that I've let my mum and dad down so badly.
"Dad especially would be disappointed in me for having failed to prove my innocence and therefore cleared their names too within thirty years.
"I can hear his voice in my mind 'Thirty years Jem, you've had thirty years mate to sort this lot out'.
"I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other 'mate' - it was an in joke between us."
Bamber, now 54, added: "On the 6th August 1985 [the night of the murders] I went home leaving dad to collect the last trailer of rape seed from the combine at 10:00pm and leave it for me to tip and process in the morning and my last words to dad when I left that evening were 'Thanks mate I'll see you in the morning'.
"I said a good night to mum and Sheila and off I went."
But jury at Chelmsford Crown Court later decided that in spite of his denial, it was Jeremy who took a rifle and proceeded to shoot dead his adoptive parents Nevill and June Bamber, his sister Shelia "Bambi" Caffell and her twin six-old sons Nicholas and Benjamin.
Convicting Bamber, Mr Justice Drake described the young farmer as "evil beyond belief".
The slaughter at the family's remote farmhouse in the village of Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex rocked the small community and in spite of Bamber's efforts to have the case re-tried with claims of new evidence, he remains in Long Lartin jail.
In 1994 the then Home Secretary Michael Howard ruled that in Bamber's case, a "whole life" sentence should mean exactly that and that he will die in prison.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/evil-killer-jeremy-bamber-posts-6531547
If the journalist, John Shammas, is unable to get a victims name right what does it say about the quality of his reporting? How can Daniel be mistaken for Benjamin? Perhaps he had Trudi on his mind as in Trudi Benjamin?
-
In a way, looking back now, I can see why dad’s call to me prompted my phone call to the police at 03:36am. The reason why I took his telephone call so seriously. I have always felt that it was because I’d tried to ring him back to find out more information and my getting the engaged signal each time I did so. Not being able to call dad back to speak to him may have been part of it, but subconsciously I’d have known it was serious due to him not using the term “Matey” during our short conversation.
What a bizarre way to describe this central part of the story. Why wasn't Sheila going crazy with a gun the reason for calling the police? The whole piece is decidedly odd IMO. I notice also ties himself to the 3:36 timing.
Where does "with" come from?
All initial WS's seem be along the lines of 'Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun':
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
-
What did he need "more information" for!!? The (invented) call was clear as a bell - "Please come over, your sister has gone crazy and has the gun!" In other words, "Get your a*s over here asap!!!" No fiddling about with phone books needed. They've both dealt with Sheila's erratic behaviour on their own before apparently, and once at WHF what was to stop him waking the Foakes up to ask them to summon the police if he couldn't get in and things turned nasty, or even more creatively, sneaking in through the Shower room window as he admitted doing many times before?
And why should he want to clear his parents' names, when they were victims not perpetrators? Absolutely crackers!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
-
Where does "with" come from?
All initial WS's seem be along the lines of 'Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun':
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
I was not quoting verbatim. The sense is completely the same. She has a gun, she has gone crazy. She has gone crazy with the gun goes without saying. What are you trying to achieve? Are you implying that the message was not extremely urgent just because Neville did not use the word 'with' and that it was OK for Bamber to relax and forget about it given that, thanks goodness, at least Sheila was not going crazy with the gun for wouldn't that be truly awful and worth taking seriously?
Consider:
1 it was 3.00 a.m.
2 his sister was a paranoid schizophrenic
3 his parents and young nephews were in the house
4 she was unquestionably in possession of 'the gun'
5 the line went dead
6 he could not get through when trying to call back
But, not urgent because, thank goodness, Nevill did not use the word 'with'. So that's alright then.
-
I was not quoting verbatim. The sense is completely the same. She has a gun, she has gone crazy. She has gone crazy with the gun goes without saying. What are you trying to achieve? Are you implying that the message was not extremely urgent just because Neville did not use the word 'with' and that it was OK for Bamber to relax and forget about it given that, thanks goodness, at least Sheila was not going crazy with the gun for wouldn't that be truly awful and worth taking seriously?
Consider:
1 it was 3.00 a.m.
2 his sister was a paranoid schizophrenic
3 his parents and young nephews were in the house
4 she was unquestionably in possession of 'the gun'
5 the line went dead
6 he could not get through when trying to call back
But, not urgent because, thank goodness, Nevill did not use the word 'with'. So that's alright then.
It's important to listen carefully to the exact words used. All initial WS's state JB said NB said "SC's gone crazy she's got the gun". If you want to insert words, change words and add your own take then so be it. According to NB/JB he didn't say she is threatening suicide or to use the gun on others or even ask JB to "Please come over".
It seems the only other account of SC in an altered state of mind is that of FE's. Unfortunately we don't have his WS in our archives but most will be familiar with it. He states that SC became a different person, ranting and raving, beating her fists against herself and a wall. FE feared for everyone's safety and various people were called to remove firstly Chloe, the daughter of SC's friend, and secondly Daniel and Nicholas. Doctors were called but SC refused to allow them to administer any medication fearing they were going to harm her. NB was called but he said he was unable to attend until the following morning. It seems NB had a relaxed approach to SC's altered state of mind. FE didn't call the police although he feared for everyone's safety and NB did not arrive until the following morning. NB was content to allow SC to remain in that state overnight until he personally drove her to a psychiatric hospital the following morning for weeks of in-patient care.
-
It's important to listen carefully to the exact words used. All initial WS's state JB said NB said "SC's gone crazy she's got the gun". If you want to insert words, change words and add your own take then so be it. According to NB/JB he didn't say she is threatening suicide or to use the gun on others or even ask JB to "Please come over".
It seems the only other account of SC in an altered state of mind is that of FE's. Unfortunately we don't have his WS in our archives but most will be familiar with it. He states that SC became a different person, ranting and raving, beating her fists against herself and a wall. FE feared for everyone's safety and various people were called to remove firstly Chloe, the daughter of SC's friend, and secondly Daniel and Nicholas. Doctors were called but SC refused to allow them to administer any medication fearing they were going to harm her. NB was called but he said he was unable to attend until the following morning. It seems NB had a relaxed approach to SC's altered state of mind. FE didn't call the police although he feared for everyone's safety and NB did not arrive until the following morning. NB was content to allow SC to remain in that state overnight until he personally drove her to a psychiatric hospital the following morning for weeks of in-patient care.
Also I don't recall any record of NB asking FE to remain with SC until he arrived the following morning.
-
It's important to listen carefully to the exact words used. All initial WS's state JB said NB said "SC's gone crazy she's got the gun". If you want to insert words, change words and add your own take then so be it. According to NB/JB he didn't say she is threatening suicide or to use the gun on others or even ask JB to "Please come over".
It seems the only other account of SC in an altered state of mind is that of FE's. Unfortunately we don't have his WS in our archives but most will be familiar with it. He states that SC became a different person, ranting and raving, beating her fists against herself and a wall. FE feared for everyone's safety and various people were called to remove firstly Chloe, the daughter of SC's friend, and secondly Daniel and Nicholas. Doctors were called but SC refused to allow them to administer any medication fearing they were going to harm her. NB was called but he said he was unable to attend until the following morning. It seems NB had a relaxed approach to SC's altered state of mind. FE didn't call the police although he feared for everyone's safety and NB did not arrive until the following morning. NB was content to allow SC to remain in that state overnight until he personally drove her to a psychiatric hospital the following morning for weeks of in-patient care.
And did she have a gun at the time, and was it the middle of the night? Again, I think by equating two totally different situations, you are trying to minimise what Bamber did, or rather what he did not do. I agree words are important but, as I said already, I was not quoting verbatim (which would be pretty difficult to do since nobody knows what Neville said except Bamber and he gave more than one version).
She's gone crazy, she has the gun
She's gone crazy with the gun
I agree these have slightly different meanings. I don;t agree they aren't both extremely serious messages which demanded urgent, immediate action. He told Ann Eaton he didn't think the message was that important. Do you believe he said that? If so, do you believe that's what he really thought?
ETA Who is FE and how do we know what is in his or her statement if it's not online?
-
And did she have a gun at the time, and was it the middle of the night? Again, I think by equating two totally different situations, you are trying to minimise what Bamber did, or rather what he did not do. I agree words are important but, as I said already, I was not quoting verbatim (which would be pretty difficult to do since nobody knows what Neville said except Bamber and he gave more than one version).
She's gone crazy, she has the gun
She's gone crazy with the gun
I agree these have slightly different meanings. I don;t agree they aren't both extremely serious messages which demanded urgent, immediate action. He told Ann Eaton he didn't think the message was that important. Do you believe he said that? If so, do you believe that's what he really thought?
ETA Who is FE and how do we know what is in his or her statement if it's not online?
Why are they "two totally different situations"?
-
Why are they "two totally different situations"?
The answer is in my post. In one of them she had a gun in the middle of the night and had gone crazy. In the other she didn't. Surely you can see a difference there, can't you, or you seriously saying you would be equally calm/perturbed by a not very strong, female schizophrenic having an episode in which they were lethally armed or not armed? The difference is too obvious to be worth spelling out but I will anyway, in one case you have a distressing, embarrassing and/or awkward situation to deal with while in the other, you are in mortal danger. To me, those two things are 'totally different'.
-
It's important to listen carefully to the exact words used. All initial WS's state JB said NB said "SC's gone crazy she's got the gun". If you want to insert words, change words and add your own take then so be it. According to NB/JB he didn't say she is threatening suicide or to use the gun on others or even ask JB to "Please come over".
No-one is inserting those words other than Jeremy Bamber, as recorded in his recent Mirror radio interview (which you're deaf to) and was confirmed in examination and cross examination at trial by PC Michael West...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=315;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=323;image)
-
Myster, please point me in the direction of these transcripts. Talk about gold dust! Well, well, well, well, well, 'Please come over'. So, not that important then.
-
Myster, please point me in the direction of these transcripts. Talk about gold dust! Well, well, well, well, well, 'Please come over'. So, not that important then.
Sorry I'm a bit late with the reply, al... been multi-tasking elsewhere. If you haven't found them already all the case documents available on the forum are here. It's just a matter of delving deep...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=14.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=14.0)
Police statements, etc... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=22.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=22.0)
-
No-one is inserting those words other than Jeremy Bamber, as recorded in his recent Mirror radio interview (which you're deaf to) and was confirmed in examination and cross examination at trial by PC Michael West...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=315;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=323;image)
I hardly think I am deaf to it when I was the first to post it! I prefer to focus on what was said at the time not what JB thinks he said some 25 years later:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
How reliable was PC West:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
PC West didn't make a WS straight away.
Anyway must dash I'm sending an email to Leo McKinstry 8**8:/:
-
I hardly think I am deaf to it when I was the first to post it! I prefer to focus on what was said at the time not what JB thinks he said some 25 years later:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
How reliable was PC West:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
PC West didn't make a WS straight away.
Anyway must dash I'm sending an email to Leo McKinstry 8**8:/:
PC West did better than make a witness statement straight away. He recorded what Bamber told him at the time. I'm not surprised by this latest hand wave.
-
PC West did better than make a witness statement straight away. He recorded what Bamber told him at the time. I'm not surprised by this latest hand wave.
Yes he did record details at the time and a key aspect was shown at trial to be incorrect.
-
Yes he did record details at the time and a key aspect was shown at trial to be incorrect.
Where it was duly explained and corrected. What are you suggesting, thst the note was doctored later through fear that just writing down 'she's gone crazy, she has the gun' wouldn't sound urgent enough to be convincing? LOL.
-
Where it was duly explained and corrected. What are you suggesting, thst the note was doctored later through fear that just writing down 'she's gone crazy, she has the gun' wouldn't sound urgent enough to be convincing? LOL.
The other day you referred to JM as not being bright despite the fact on paper she is probably in the top 10% in terms of intelligence. Now today you expect me to believe PC West had perfect recall despite getting wrong a key piece of info ie the time @)(++(* Yes it was corrected in court as it was clear it was wrong. There's no way of knowing whether NB/JB said 'Please come over' or not and given that its not in the early WS's or JB's police interviews I choose to believe it wasn't said.
What sort of training did these call handlers receive? On what basis were they selected?
-
There's no way of knowing whether NB/JB said 'Please come over' or not and given that its not in the early WS's or JB's police interviews I choose to believe it wasn't said.
Deaf... as I said. Take those 'Jeremy can do no wrong' earplugs out...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
-
Deaf... as I said. Take those 'Jeremy can do no wrong' earplugs out...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151)
I know what he said I've quoted it previously but I prefer to rely on the initial WS's from various witnesses including JB and also his police interviews.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg202984#msg202984
I don't take any notice of what JB says now. From my limited correspondence with him I don't even find him well informed about his case. Perhaps not surprising given that he only has access to very limited resources and is reliant on others.
Whether JB is guilty or innocent I find it difficult to believe all these years of imprisonment haven't taken their toll.
-
The other day you referred to JM as not being bright despite the fact on paper she is probably in the top 10% in terms of intelligence. Now today you expect me to believe PC West had perfect recall despite getting wrong a key piece of info ie the time @)(++(* Yes it was corrected in court as it was clear it was wrong. There's no way of knowing whether NB/JB said 'Please come over' or not and given that its not in the early WS's or JB's police interviews I choose to believe it wasn't said.
What sort of training did these call handlers receive? On what basis were they selected?
Ah. You have reverted to the smilies in lieu of argument. Always a bad sign. PC West had the brains required to answer the phone anc jot down what was said. That isn't rocket science. I bet you could do it. You exaggerate for effect but it doesn't work. I don't say PC West had 'perfect recall'. People make notes precisely because they don't. His recollection is supported by a note.
Tell you what, if it was it put to him in cross examination that Bamber had not said Nevill said 'please come' I'll concede the point is arguable. If it wasn't, you can be sure Bamber said what PC West said he said.
-
The answer is in my post. In one of them she had a gun in the middle of the night and had gone crazy. In the other she didn't. Surely you can see a difference there, can't you, or you seriously saying you would be equally calm/perturbed by a not very strong, female schizophrenic having an episode in which they were lethally armed or not armed? The difference is too obvious to be worth spelling out but I will anyway, in one case you have a distressing, embarrassing and/or awkward situation to deal with while in the other, you are in mortal danger. To me, those two things are 'totally different'.
I agree they are different but they're not "totally different" as you claimed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had NB thought any of the family were in "mortal danger" I am sure he would have acted differently. Don't forget Dr Ferguson said he didn't think SC was a suicide risk or would harm her father or children. No doubt he told NB this.
-
Ah. You have reverted to the smilies in lieu of argument. Always a bad sign. PC West had the brains required to answer the phone anc jot down what was said. That isn't rocket science. I bet you could do it. You exaggerate for effect but it doesn't work. I don't say PC West had 'perfect recall'. People make notes precisely because they don't. His recollection is supported by a note.
Tell you what, if it was it put to him in cross examination that Bamber had not said Nevill said 'please come' I'll concede the point is arguable. If it wasn't, you can be sure Bamber said what PC West said he said.
The emoticon was in place of your LOL @)(++(* See here LOL...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6658.msg276736#msg276736
Sneaky ?>)()<
But that's just it he didn't have the brains to look at the clock and record the time correctly did he? @)(++(*
Why should I believe PC West over JB, Malcolm Bonnett, PC Myalls and AE? Four WS's corroborate and one doesn't.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg203379#msg203379
-
The emoticon was in place of your LOL @)(++(* See here LOL...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6658.msg276736#msg276736
Sneaky ?>)()<
But that's just it he didn't have the brains to look at the clock and record the time correctly did he? @)(++(*
Why should I believe PC West over JB, Malcolm Bonnett, PC Myalls and AE? Four WS's corroborate and one doesn't.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5723.msg203379#msg203379
You didn't understand the point I made at the end there, did you?
-
I agree they are different but they're not "totally different" as you claimed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had NB thought any of the family were in "mortal danger" I am sure he would have acted differently. Don't forget Dr Ferguson said he didn't think SC was a suicide risk or would harm her father or children. No doubt he told NB this.
Your concession is insufficient. Me freaking out because someone pinched my parking space at the supermarket is embarrasing and mildly amusing. My doing so with a gun means total lockdown for a radius of a couple of miles and headlines on the 6 o'clock news. The two situations are totally different. People might die. It's obvious and you know it. To overcome the clear and strong inference that Bamber acted as only a guilty man would you need an 'impossible' as in, 'it's impossible he did it because [insert reason here]'. Without that, your whole position is bankrupt.
-
I am indebted to you, Myster, for linking me to PC West's trial transcript which I am reading now. I see he told another outrageous lie in the witness box when he claimed Bamber said Nevill had sounded 'terrified' on the phone. 'I don't think he is kidding about. I think he is really frightened'.
Fortunately, we have Holly here to put this in context for us. I imagine she will say: first, this is an obvious lie and we can tell that because PC West got the time wrong in his notes. Second, even if Nevill had seemed frightened it could, after all, have been a joke and that would have fully justified Jeremy not only doing nothing about it for half an hour but in doing nothing at all. If Nevill wanted to fool around then let him face the consequences. After all, he had not asked Jeremy to 'come over' - as we established yesterday, that is just another malicious lie manufactured by PC West and written down on his note even before he knew how important it would become later. A clairvoyant conspiracy.
If I come across any more nuggets, I'll post them here.
ETA: here's one, well, two - during his cross examination it emerged PC West had made a statement as early as the 9th of August. He was sent from the witness box to fetch a copy as neither counsel nor the judge had one. It turns it that it records the 'please come over' thing as well as the time of the call as being 3.26, rather than 3.36. {some conspiracy this - the conspirators fabricate a statement and then almost forget to use it)
Btw. counsel for the defence had a duty to confront PC West with all those parts of his client's case which were not in agreement with West's evidence. Thus, for example, it was put to West that Bamber had asked that the police pick him up and take him to WHF. West strongly denied this but the point is that Bamber's counsel was obliged to bring it up as a matter of professional duty. He would not be able to lead evidence from Bamber about this request otherwise. He did not confront West on the 'please come over' phrase that Holly disputes and this, to me, affords strong confirmation that his client did not deny saying it (whatever he and his supporters claim now).
-
I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...
(http://i.imgur.com/7WOS8Oq.jpg?2)
However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).
Make of that what you will!
-
Your concession is insufficient. Me freaking out because someone pinched my parking space at the supermarket is embarrasing and mildly amusing. My doing so with a gun means total lockdown for a radius of a couple of miles and headlines on the 6 o'clock news. The two situations are totally different. People might die. It's obvious and you know it. To overcome the clear and strong inference that Bamber acted as only a guilty man would you need an 'impossible' as in, 'it's impossible he did it because [insert reason here]'. Without that, your whole position is bankrupt.
I've no idea of the point you are attempting to make?
In terms of English law it is not necessary to demonstrate that it is "impossible" JB did it. At trial it is based on not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. "Impossible" doesn't come into it.
Once convicted if evidence comes to light that renders the conviction unsafe then potentially the conviction could be quashed if the CoA deem the conviction unsafe. "Impossible" doesn't come into it.
No jury would acquit or convict on the sort of stuff any of us post re the tel calls as its too subjective.
-
I am indebted to you, Myster, for linking me to PC West's trial transcript which I am reading now. I see he told another outrageous lie in the witness box when he claimed Bamber said Nevill had sounded 'terrified' on the phone. 'I don't think he is kidding about. I think he is really frightened'.
Fortunately, we have Holly here to put this in context for us. I imagine she will say: first, this is an obvious lie and we can tell that because PC West got the time wrong in his notes. Second, even if Nevill had seemed frightened it could, after all, have been a joke and that would have fully justified Jeremy not only doing nothing about it for half an hour but in doing nothing at all. If Nevill wanted to fool around then let him face the consequences. After all, he had not asked Jeremy to 'come over' - as we established yesterday, that is just another malicious lie manufactured by PC West and written down on his note even before he knew how important it would become later. A clairvoyant conspiracy.
If I come across any more nuggets, I'll post them here.
ETA: here's one, well, two - during his cross examination it emerged PC West had made a statement as early as the 9th of August. He was sent from the witness box to fetch a copy as neither counsel nor the judge had one. It turns it that it records the 'please come over' thing as well as the time of the call as being 3.26, rather than 3.36. {some conspiracy this - the conspirators fabricate a statement and then almost forget to use it)
Btw. counsel for the defence had a duty to confront PC West with all those parts of his client's case which were not in agreement with West's evidence. Thus, for example, it was put to West that Bamber had asked that the police pick him up and take him to WHF. West strongly denied this but the point is that Bamber's counsel was obliged to bring it up as a matter of professional duty. He would not be able to lead evidence from Bamber about this request otherwise. He did not confront West on the 'please come over' phrase that Holly disputes and this, to me, affords strong confirmation that his client did not deny saying it (whatever he and his supporters claim now).
PC West uses three different phrases in his trial testimony re the 'Please come over...' Perhaps you would like to tell me which one is correct
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg201425#msg201425
If JB left PC West under the impression the situation was critical then perhaps you can explain why he didn't convey this to MB? MB makes no mention of 'Please come over' in his log or NB sounding terrified or injured.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.msg1786#msg1786
Firearms were not called until shortly after 4am after PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby attended the scene with JB. Why send an unarmed patrol car if the incident was deemed critical?
-
I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...
(http://i.imgur.com/7WOS8Oq.jpg?2)
However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).
Make of that what you will!
Will you ever change your mind?
You say numerous witnesses were present when CC alleges JB said he thought NB sounded injured and yet it is not in any of the other WS's and in fact AE states she did not hear JB say he thought NB sounded injured:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3170.0;attach=3162
It all gets silly as posters simply post from any source bits that support their arguments.
If JB conveyed to EP during the phone calls that NB sounded terrified or injured then why wasn't this recorded on the logs? Why send an unarmed patrol car consisting of a sergeant and two constables.
According to PS Bews it was PC Myall who spotted movement at the window not JB?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI&feature=youtu.be&t=4m
It is all hopelessly unreliable and no matter how many hours we pour over it nothing can ever be advanced here. The only way this case can move in a different direction is through new forensic evidence.
-
Holly, I think you're splitting hairs regarding Nevilles phone call. You can analyse it as much as you like. Whatever transcript you believe to be true, Jeremy's reaction to the call is totally unbelievable. Unless of course, he thought that by delaying the emergency call, it would give Sheila enough time to do the deed and in turn, do him a favour!
-
Holly, I think you're splitting hairs regarding Nevilles phone call. You can analyse it as much as you like. Whatever transcript you believe to be true, Jeremy's reaction to the call is totally unbelievable. Unless of course, he thought that by delaying the emergency call, it would give Sheila enough time to do the deed and in turn, do him a favour!
But that's just it I really, really don't want to analyse the phone calls as they are too subjective.
-
I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...
(http://i.imgur.com/7WOS8Oq.jpg?2)
However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).
Make of that what you will!
Well, it all fits.
No, it's true I attach zero weight to Colin Caffell's opinion of what Sheila's mental illness might cause her to do.
-
I've no idea of the point you are attempting to make?
In terms of English law it is not necessary to demonstrate that it is "impossible" JB did it. At trial it is based on not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. "Impossible" doesn't come into it.
Once convicted if evidence comes to light that renders the conviction unsafe then potentially the conviction could be quashed if the CoA deem the conviction unsafe. "Impossible" doesn't come into it.
No jury would acquit or convict on the sort of stuff any of us post re the tel calls as its too subjective.
You are right. You did not get my point. I'm not making it a third time.
If there is very strong evidence against X, enough to discharge the burden of proof, then X needs to 'trump' that evidence with something. Showing it was impossible for X to have committed the crime is one way of doing so. That's not a statement of law, just basic logic (which the law, being logcal, tends to follow). The facts surrounding Bambers conduct on the 7th are very compelling. An explanation consistent with innocence has not been forthcoming. So something that renders all that circumstantial material redundant is required. Not difficult.
-
But that's just it I really, really don't want to analyse the phone calls as they are too subjective.
That's a good get out. I am encountering this approach elsewhere. It's not reasonable but then there is no obligation to be reasonable on a discussion board. It's a little different in court of course.
-
Well, it all fits.
No, it's true I attach zero weight to Colin Caffell's opinion of what Sheila's mental illness might cause her to do.
I have every sympathy for CC. And as far as I'm concerned he seems a decent all round guy. I know his behaviour towards SC at times was left wanting but that was within the normal range of domestic stuff and nothing to do with anything else. Yet I don't believe its possible for him to be objective about JB. Its so much easier for him to see JB was responsible for murdering his little boys than his ex wife and mother of his children. That's human nature.
-
That's a good get out. I am encountering this approach elsewhere. It's not reasonable but then there is no obligation to be reasonable on a discussion board. It's a little different in court of course.
I've been actively posting on this forum for nearly 2 years. I've done the phone calls to death. You've been here five minutes. Perhaps the polite thing for you to do is to go through my posts first and then start telling me what I've said or not said.
-
You are right. You did not get my point. I'm not making it a third time.
If there is very strong evidence against X, enough to discharge the burden of proof, then X needs to 'trump' that evidence with something. Showing it was impossible for X to have committed the crime is one way of doing so. That's not a statement of law, just basic logic (which the law, being logcal, tends to follow). The facts surrounding Bambers conduct on the 7th are very compelling. An explanation consistent with innocence has not been forthcoming. So something that renders all that circumstantial material redundant is required. Not difficult.
No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.
The phone calls are not strong evidence. They prove absolutely nothing. They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.
Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations. Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls? No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.
-
No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.
The phone calls are not strong evidence. They prove absolutely nothing. They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.
Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations. Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls? No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.
I've never actually seen the judges summing up and am unsure whether the jury asked for clarification on other issues.
I have to disagree with your take on the phone call. His account of the sequence, nature and then his reaction to that call, just doesnt ring true. If I had been on that jury I would have considered it as a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence.
-
I've been actively posting on this forum for nearly 2 years. I've done the phone calls to death. You've been here five minutes. Perhaps the polite thing for you to do is to go through my posts first and then start telling me what I've said or not said.
What? Where did I claim you said something you didn't say. I realise you are 'senior' to me but you're still on the wrong side of this discussion. When you start ducking out of it because you find some of it 'too subjective' its a clue there's something wrong.
Just to avoid further misunderstanding, can you say what is 'subjective' about the phone calls?
-
No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.
The phone calls are not strong evidence. They prove absolutely nothing. They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.
Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations. Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls? No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.
The fact they asked about the silencer rather suggests they didn't need any help with the telephone calls.
OK, forget my question about subjectivity. You've answered it. I understand it now. The judge (I read today) was scathing in his summing up about Bamber calling Witham. Of course, he was right. Not calling 999 and not doing so at once cannot be explained.
-
The fact they asked about the silencer rather suggests they didn't need any help with the telephone calls.
OK, forget my question about subjectivity. You've answered it. I understand it now. The judge (I read today) was scathing in his summing up about Bamber calling Witham. Of course, he was right. Not calling 999 and not doing so at once cannot be explained.
But he didn't fail "once". He failed TWICE. Perhaps "once" COULD be overlooked if, after looking up the number for Witham and getting no response, he'd called 999, but he THEN spent time looking up the number for Chelmsford.
-
But he didn't fail "once". He failed TWICE. Perhaps "once" COULD be overlooked if, after looking up the number for Witham and getting no response, he'd called 999, but he THEN spent time looking up the number for Chelmsford.
Oh, don't be so subjective, April. You and I might think it reasonable to expect someone to call 999 in these circumstances, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion. Bamber obviously turned it over in his mind and decided it was 'not important'. Later on, he thought about it more and it seemed to him it was important after all, so he called the police. It's really not that far out.
I wonder whether the wholly innocent Bamber ever blames himself for the deaths. I did not notice that coming up in his blog. He doesn't ask whether, had he reacted faster, they might have been saved. I wonder why not.
-
Oh, don't be so subjective, April. You and I might think it reasonable to expect someone to call 999 in these circumstances, but that is just a matter of subjective opinion. Bamber obviously turned it over in his mind and decided it was 'not important'. Later on, he thought about it more and it seemed to him it was important after all, so he called the police. It's really not that far out.
I wonder whether the wholly innocent Bamber ever blames himself for the deaths. I did not notice that coming up in his blog. He doesn't ask whether, had he reacted faster, they might have been saved. I wonder why not.
My profuse apologies for my "subjectivity" Anglolawyer. I believe the closest -in public- he's ever come to blaming himself was in response to a question. He answered with words similar to "I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?" If I my be allowed another moment of "subjectivity," I've said those words in every way possible but I can't make them sound anything but defensive and blaming.
-
My profuse apologies for my "subjectivity" Anglolawyer. I believe the closest -in public- he's ever come to blaming himself was in response to a question. He answered with words similar to "I didn't know what was going to happen, did I?" If I my be allowed another moment of "subjectivity," I've said those words in every way possible but I can't make them sound anything but defensive and blaming.
Yes, well, see you don't do it again.
On one of the other boards where I'm discussing this case I am supposed to accept that 'behavioural' evidence is worthless as as evidence based on memory. Now we have to discard 'subjective' evidence too. How do they ever convict anybody?
Those three all have in common the element of interpretation. But so what? Yes, folks, you have to do your own thinking. We don't do that part for you.