Who killed Bambi ?

[Holly Goodhead]

Yet in his police statement made at the cottage on the 7th. August '85 only hours after the event, he failed to mention ringing Julie at 10pm to say "The crime will have to be tonight" or more succinctly "It's tonight or never", and that she might hear from him later.   How extraordinary was that ?!!

Off the Richter scale!!!

[Holly Goodhead]

And if the kitchen phone was off the hook as per CS photo, then it would have been impossible to ring Chelmsford police "immediately" afterwards as he claimed!   So in September he changed his story yet again to say that he faffed about for 10 minutes looking up their number.

The expert evidence at trial was that JB's handset would need to be replaced and remain in that position for a period of 1 to 2 minutes.  He may have needed to use the loo!

68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.

[APRIL]

Only JM completed a WS on 8th Aug whereby she phoned the house from JB's cottage in the presence of AE and EP in an attempt to establish the time of JB's call with her housemates.  She was told 3.30am and stated this in her WS of 8th Aug

How do we know the other witnesses/housemates were not coerced by DS Jones either on the basis JB was responsible eg SC could not have shot herself twice as per JB's interview (at odds with pathological evidence) and/or coercion on the basis JM and SB acknowledge illegal drugs were used (JB/JM at a min and stored at the shared house for distribution around uni campus)?  DS Jones turned up unannounced supposedly to check on SB's alarm clock.  How do we know he didn't 'find' any drugs? 

There was no reason for any of the housemates to go to any effort to accurately record the time.  They made WS's as follows:

JM - 8th Aug - Told by housemate(s), believed to be Helen Eaton, via tel call from JB's cottage time was 3.30am.  This all happened in the presence of AE and EP.
SB - 10th Sep - 3.15am but may have been inaccurate as she supposedly kept her alarm clock 10 mins fast.  Then on 19th Dec she made a further WS adamant that the time wasn't 3.15am but 3.12am.  Apparently she was nervous upon making her first WS and this is the reason she messed up and realised she was 3 mins out! 
HE - As above originally told JM 3.30am on 8th Aug but when completed her WS on 11th Sept stated 3am.
Joanne Woad - In her WS of 16th Sept she stated 2am.  Then on 3rd Oct she made a further WS stating she could only recall the '2' on the alarm clock and therefore it could have been anywhere between 2am and 2.59am.
Douglas Dale made a WS on 9th Sept where he stated 3 am.

Totally unreliable imo whereby the above witnesses were coerced into providing times in an attempt to show JB calling JM before his claim of a tel call from NB. 

In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.

(Source: Points 290 - 330 CoA doc)

I guess we can go on puggling, ad infinitum, at aspects of this/other cases when they don't fulfill our own expectations. It's probably a course which delivers little more than a sense of frustration and helplessness. I was watching, or rather NOT watching, a detective programme over Christmas -probably Poirot- when I heard the words "But the evidence is only circumstantial" to which the great man responded "Most murderers are convicted on such". How little, despite our advanced technology, have things changed since the 1920's? At least we no longer hang.

[Caroline]

Only JM completed a WS on 8th Aug whereby she phoned the house from JB's cottage in the presence of AE and EP in an attempt to establish the time of JB's call with her housemates.  She was told 3.30am and stated this in her WS of 8th Aug

How do we know the other witnesses/housemates were not coerced by DS Jones either on the basis JB was responsible eg SC could not have shot herself twice as per JB's interview (at odds with pathological evidence) and/or coercion on the basis JM and SB acknowledge illegal drugs were used (JB/JM at a min and stored at the shared house for distribution around uni campus)?  DS Jones turned up unannounced supposedly to check on SB's alarm clock.  How do we know he didn't 'find' any drugs? 

There was no reason for any of the housemates to go to any effort to accurately record the time.  They made WS's as follows:

JM - 8th Aug - Told by housemate(s), believed to be Helen Eaton, via tel call from JB's cottage time was 3.30am.  This all happened in the presence of AE and EP.
SB - 10th Sep - 3.15am but may have been inaccurate as she supposedly kept her alarm clock 10 mins fast.  Then on 19th Dec she made a further WS adamant that the time wasn't 3.15am but 3.12am.  Apparently she was nervous upon making her first WS and this is the reason she messed up and realised she was 3 mins out! 
HE - As above originally told JM 3.30am on 8th Aug but when completed her WS on 11th Sept stated 3am.
Joanne Woad - In her WS of 16th Sept she stated 2am.  Then on 3rd Oct she made a further WS stating she could only recall the '2' on the alarm clock and therefore it could have been anywhere between 2am and 2.59am.
Douglas Dale made a WS on 9th Sept where he stated 3 am.

Totally unreliable imo whereby the above witnesses were coerced into providing times in an attempt to show JB calling JM before his claim of a tel call from NB. 

In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.

(Source: Points 290 - 330 CoA doc)

How could they be coerced? THEY offered the information. There was no reason for them to provide any evidence or statements unless they were factual. The only argument you can provide to the contrary, is that they must have been coerced but there is no evidence of this at all. I thought you were 'all about the evidence'?

[Caroline]

In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.

So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?

[APRIL]

So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?

It occurs to me that if we insist that only forensic evidence/digital information can be used in convicting for murder, there may be far more free but guilty, than innocent and in prison.

[Holly Goodhead]

How could they be coerced? THEY offered the information. There was no reason for them to provide any evidence or statements unless they were factual. The only argument you can provide to the contrary, is that they must have been coerced but there is no evidence of this at all. I thought you were 'all about the evidence'?

How? Undue influence.  Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge.  Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case.  We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.

I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together.  EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required.  It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going.  There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight.  This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group. 

We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I guess we can go on puggling, ad infinitum, at aspects of this/other cases when they don't fulfill our own expectations. It's probably a course which delivers little more than a sense of frustration and helplessness. I was watching, or rather NOT watching, a detective programme over Christmas -probably Poirot- when I heard the words "But the evidence is only circumstantial" to which the great man responded "Most murderers are convicted on such". How little, despite our advanced technology, have things changed since the 1920's? At least we no longer hang.

The jury did not convict on the phone calls.  They convicted on the silencer evidence and to a lesser extent JM's testimony. 

[Holly Goodhead]

So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?

The threshold for finding someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is high and I doubt any convictions rest on such info.  None of the witnesses had any cause at the time to appreciate the seriousness of the situation so there was no reason for them to take a mental note of the time.

[APRIL]

How? Undue influence.  Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge.  Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case.  We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.

I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together.  EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required.  It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going.  There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight.  This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group. 

We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain.

 Is there not a danger here of making much out of comparatively little? If Julie is now to be a big time dealer, I guess it would make Jeremy a big time supplier? Were the house sharers' recreational habits not curtailed because two of their number hoped to get into the military?......................conversely, I have no doubt that police used various tricks of their trade to extract information from those they believed could help with their enquiries, even if those enquiries could only be peripherally linked to the murders.

[Caroline]

How? Undue influence.  Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge.  Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case.  We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.

I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together.  EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required.  It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going.  There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight.  This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group. 

We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain.

Yeah but all they has to say was that they bought it from Bamber and would testify to such. It's not a strong enough bargaining tool and you have no evidence of it anyway. Julie offered up the drugs information as did MM. A number of years ago, someone I know was convicted of dealing (not just using) cannabis, they received a small fine and did some community service. Faced with that or setting a guy up for a life long prison sentence, I very much doubt they would have taken a similar deal.

[Holly Goodhead]

 Is there not a danger here of making much out of comparatively little? If Julie is now to be a big time dealer, I guess it would make Jeremy a big time supplier? Were the house sharers' recreational habits not curtailed because two of their number hoped to get into the military?......................conversely, I have no doubt that police used various tricks of their trade to extract information from those they believed could help with their enquiries, even if those enquiries could only be peripherally linked to the murders.

Big time, little time, either way it is breaking the law with the potential for a fine and/or custodial sentence as follows:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

And in the case of all these middle class people the potential for a criminal record, reputational damage and the ending of careers before they even get started.

I believe EP used this sort of tactic against these middle class people ie 'drugs were found in your home and this will certainly put an end to your hopes of a career in the military/teaching profession'. 

It appears EP were well aware JB was growing cannabis at his cottage and distributing via the likes of JM and his mail order business.  Why not pursue him over this when he was pursued over OCP and we know EP adopted a heavy handed approach over drugs as evidenced by the way they handled MM over drugs.

The argument EP were interested in the murders not a 'piddly bit of weed' doesn't stand up given JB was charged over OCP.

The argument EP adopted a soft touch with cannabis doesn't stand up given how heavy handed they were with MM and CB.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Yeah but all they has to say was that they bought it from Bamber and would testify to such. It's not a strong enough bargaining tool and you have no evidence of it anyway. Julie offered up the drugs information as did MM. A number of years ago, someone I know was convicted of dealing (not just using) cannabis, they received a small fine and did some community service. Faced with that or setting a guy up for a life long prison sentence, I very much doubt they would have taken a similar deal.

But they didn't just buy from JB.  Those in the shared house had a stash ready for distribution on campus.  SB's WS states she and JM went to a bank branch to obtain plastic money bags to store the stuff ready for sale.

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

The penalty is likely to be more severe if you are found to be supplying or dealing drugs. Sharing drugs is also considered supplying.

We don't know who offered up what and when if indeed anything was offered up.  In the case of MM I believe he had his house searched and this is how his cannabis plants came to light.  MM was interviewed under caution. From what we know it appears JM wasn't interviewed under caution although I suspect in reality she was. 

DS Jones told JB SC could not have shot herself twice which we know was wrong based on the pathological evidence.  I suspect DS Jones sold it hard to the various witnesses SC was not responsible therefore JB must have been.  Coupled with this and the witnesses discharging potential criminal convictions for various offences imo they testified against JB as per police instructions. 

[APRIL]

Big time, little time, either way it is breaking the law with the potential for a fine and/or custodial sentence as follows:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

And in the case of all these middle class people the potential for a criminal record, reputational damage and the ending of careers before they even get started.

I believe EP used this sort of tactic against these middle class people ie 'drugs were found in your home and this will certainly put an end to your hopes of a career in the military/teaching profession'. 

It appears EP were well aware JB was growing cannabis at his cottage and distributing via the likes of JM and his mail order business.  Why not pursue him over this when he was pursued over OCP and we know EP adopted a heavy handed approach over drugs as evidenced by the way they handled MM over drugs.

The argument EP were interested in the murders not a 'piddly bit of weed' doesn't stand up given JB was charged over OCP.

The argument EP adopted a soft touch with cannabis doesn't stand up given how heavy handed they were with MM and CB.   

 I get that there would be no point in threatening the potential career of those who are never likely to have one so are you saying that the wrist slapping/threat tactic is only used on those who fit the middle class criteria? Is no other 'class' let off a first offence with just a warning?

IF EP were previously aware of Jeremy's 'cottage industry' it may just have been that it wasn't considered big enough to concern them, OR was it the MM and CB presented themselves as more likely candidates for their interests?

[Caroline]

But they didn't just buy from JB.  Those in the shared house had a stash ready for distribution on campus.  SB's WS states she and JM went to a bank branch to obtain plastic money bags to store the stuff ready for sale.

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

The penalty is likely to be more severe if you are found to be supplying or dealing drugs. Sharing drugs is also considered supplying.

We don't know who offered up what and when if indeed anything was offered up.  In the case of MM I believe he had his house searched and this is how his cannabis plants came to light.  MM was interviewed under caution. From what we know it appears JM wasn't interviewed under caution although I suspect in reality she was. 

DS Jones told JB SC could not have shot herself twice which we know was wrong based on the pathological evidence.  I suspect DS Jones sold it hard to the various witnesses SC was not responsible therefore JB must have been.  Coupled with this and the witnesses discharging potential criminal convictions for various offences imo they testified against JB as per police instructions.

It's small time Holly and it's just your 'hunch'. However, he sold it to the others, they had nothing to do with the murder and blackmailing them all into sending an innocent man to prison just isn't likely.