Who killed Bambi ?

[Holly Goodhead]

Bamber & an official Youtube video say Julie & the relatives helped frame  him because -

She was (apparently) jilted - Julie.

Due to some farm land - Relatives.

----------

In Julie's case, she would be the most vindictive ex girlfriend ever.

The relatives were not being vindictive. Doubtful Bamber even knew about the land. They were just planning ahead & felt the best thing to do was frame Jeremy for the murder of his family.

Imo the police approached JM and coerced her testimony making all sorts of threats if she didn't cooperate.

Realistically it had to be JB or SC.  The relatives went for JB over SC with the police taking all their irrelevant claims seriously.   Ie the relatives had nothing to offer of evidential value. Their opinions that SC was not capable of operating the rifle is not evidence of anything.  Had EP been better trained, supervised and managed the relatives would have been told in no uncertain terms case closed: murder/suicide.  Imo EP framed JB but this would not have been possible without significant assistance from FSS where Parliament has already acknowledged significant failings during the 1980's.  Of course this was all done on the basis the police and FSS believed JB responsible.   When I say EP and FSS I am referring to a tiny number of individuals with probably more involved at FSS than EP.  There's no doubt in my mind the so-called forensic science underpinning JB's conviction will eventually be undermined in a very significant way leading to JB's conviction being quashed.

[Caroline]

Imo the police approached JM and coerced her testimony making all sorts of threats if she didn't cooperate. [/b]

Realistically it had to be JB or SC.  The relatives went for JB over SC with the police taking all their irrelevant claims seriously.   Ie the relatives had nothing to offer of evidential value. Their opinions that SC was not capable of operating the rifle is not evidence of anything.  Had EP been better trained, supervised and managed the relatives would have been told in no uncertain terms case closed: murder/suicide.  Imo EP framed JB but this would not have been possible without significant assistance from FSS where Parliament has already acknowledged significant failings during the 1980's.  Of course this was all done on the basis the police and FSS believed JB responsible.   When I say EP and FSS I am referring to a tiny number of individuals with probably more involved at FSS than EP.  There's no doubt in my mind the so-called forensic science underpinning JB's conviction will eventually be undermined in a very significant way leading to JB's conviction being quashed.

Such as what? They didn't know about the robbery until shevtold them, they knew nothing about the cheque book incident until she told them. Someone else called the police on her behalf, were the others also coerced? If so, what with?

[Holly Goodhead]

Such as what? They didn't know about the robbery until shevtold them, they knew nothing about the cheque book incident until she told them. Someone else called the police on her behalf, were the others also coerced? If so, what with?

Such as accessory to murder on the basis JB called JM at circa 3.30 am seeking her opinion as to what action to take based on his claims of a tel call from NB and/or threat of drug related charges. 

We don't know who knew what and when and who approached who as there's no reliable evidence eg recorded telephone conversations with a digital time and date stamp.  DS Jones claiming LR contacted him is not evidence of anything especially when it can be evidenced he was happy to mislead. 

The relatives and James (Jim) Carr claim they suspected JB of OCP burglary pre tragedy.  They may well have voiced their opinions to EP who in turn put it to JM.  If as I suspect they were able to coerce her into prosecution witness in chief they would tell her in no uncertain terms fess all as the defence will dig deep for dirt to use against you in an attempt to discredit ie what dirt does JB have on you...she may well have fessed up about the cheque book fraud, taking cocaine in a hotel room with 3 others, bringing cannabis into UK from Holland.

Yes possibly all were coerced with the threat of drug related charges:  JM, SB, LR, MW, CM, MM, CB and JR.

[Caroline]

Such as accessory to murder on the basis JB called JM at circa 3.30 am seeking her opinion as to what action to take based on his claims of a tel call from NB and/or threat of drug related charges. 

We don't know who knew what and when and who approached who as there's no reliable evidence eg recorded telephone conversations with a digital time and date stamp.  DS Jones claiming LR contacted him is not evidence of anything especially when it can be evidenced he was happy to mislead. 

The relatives and James (Jim) Carr claim they suspected JB of OCP burglary pre tragedy.  They may well have voiced their opinions to EP who in turn put it to JM.  If as I suspect they were able to coerce her into prosecution witness in chief they would tell her in no uncertain terms fess all as the defence will dig deep for dirt to use against you in an attempt to discredit ie what dirt does JB have on you...she may well have fessed up about the cheque book fraud, taking cocaine in a hotel room with 3 others, bringing cannabis into UK from Holland.

Yes possibly all were coerced with the threat of drug related charges:  JM, SB, LR, MW, CM, MM, CB and JR.

There is evidence, there are statements and none of those who Julie told have come forward to contradict the accepted version. There are lots of 'may haves' but there is no evidence to support your suggestions - not even any statements .....

[Holly Goodhead]

There is evidence, there are statements and none of those who Julie told have come forward to contradict the accepted version. There are lots of 'may haves' but there is no evidence to support your suggestions - not even any statements .....

I don't consider statements unwitnessed by independent others as evidence of anything.  There's no evidence JM told anyone anything. 

Why would JM and/or others come forward to retract testimonies obtained by EP?  They were no doubt sold the idea by EP JB was responsible who was subsequently found guilty in a court of law based primarily on the silencer evidence.

I accept there are lots of 'may haves' in my version of events but this is so for all other versions too.  In the absence of concrete audit trials its all up for grabs! 

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't know what the exact rules were in Sept '85 re police interviews.  But there's clear evidence DS Jones at the very least misled JB during his police interviews. 

He told JB SC sustained 2 gsw's and either one was fatal.  This interview was conducted while JB's solicitor was present.

In a later docu/dram DS Jones acknowledges the first shot would not have been fatal.

The pathologist has always maintained the first gsw was non-fatal and he could not say one way or the other from the pathological evidence whether SC was murdered or took her own life. 

I will have to post confirmation of the above separately as I have an issue with minimising to the taskbar which I will have to find a fix for. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Here in JB's police interviews DS Jones tell JB SC had 2 shots fired into her and he understands both were fatal:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304

[Holly Goodhead]

Here in a much later docu/drama at 6 mins in DS Jones tells the prog that SC had 2 gsw's and he understands the first one was non-fatal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU

He goes on to say he thinks the first one would have knocked SC out.  It wasn't for DS Jones to make such assumptions this is the reason we have pathologists and pathological evidence and there's no pathological evidence the first shot knocked SC out.  The pathologist said it was possible SC could have walked around after the first shot although he thought it unlikely.

 

[Angelo222]

Here in JB's police interviews DS Jones tell JB SC had 2 shots fired into her and he understands both were fatal:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304

The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.

As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too.  They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.

[APRIL]

The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.

As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too.  They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.

Is it not usual procedure to overlook the lesser crime committed by one person in order to establish the greater crime committed by another?

[adam]

The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.

As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too.  They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.

Not sure she could have been prosecuted for the caravan break in. Being a lookout while Bamber stole some cash.

The relatives were dead and according to BW knew about the caravan break in. But chose not to prosecute. Bamber denied he did this for criminal reasons, saying he did it to highlight security issues. Although he was eventually prosecuted.

As a first offence from months earlier, which she told the police about, there would be no prison sentance 

Certainly not enough for the police to get her to compile a false WS & testimony.

[Caroline]

I don't consider statements unwitnessed by independent others as evidence of anything.  There's no evidence JM told anyone anything. 

Why would JM and/or others come forward to retract testimonies obtained by EP?  They were no doubt sold the idea by EP JB was responsible who was subsequently found guilty in a court of law based primarily on the silencer evidence.

I accept there are lots of 'may haves' in my version of events but this is so for all other versions too.  In the absence of concrete audit trials its all up for grabs!

Statements would have been available at trial, we may not have seen such statements but why should we? If I were Liz Rimmington and it was public the public domain that Julie told me about Bamber committing murder and that it was I, not she who had reported such to the police - and it wasn't true ......... I would make sure that the FACTS were reported. As she has not come forward then I think we can take it as read, that she did make a statement and the official account is likely to be true.

IMO, the only reason Julie told of her other misdemeanors was because Jones asked her if there was anything in her past that might discredit her as a witness; something Bamber might know and which the prosecution might use to undermine her evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Statements would have been available at trial, we may not have seen such statements but why should we? If I were Liz Rimmington and it was public the public domain that Julie told me about Bamber committing murder and that it was I, not she who had reported such to the police - and it wasn't true ......... I would make sure that the FACTS were reported. As she has not come forward then I think we can take it as read, that she did make a statement and the official account is likely to be true.

IMO, the only reason Julie told of her other misdemeanors was because Jones asked her if there was anything in her past that might discredit her as a witness; something Bamber might know and which the prosecution might use to undermine her evidence.

But wherever the statements may have been used the fact remains that there was no independent way to verify their authenticity ie no independent witness to verify the taking of the statement or tape recording of such etc.

The fact you or I may have taken a different course of action does not necessarily mean to say others would do the same especially if the police had some leverage over the indvidual(s).

Yes I agree JM's past had to come out as the police would know anything and everything that could be used by the defence to discredit JM might well be used in an attempt to undermine her credibility.   According to various individuals JB was already prime suspect for OCP pre tragedy.  Potentially this gave the police a head start when questioning JM.   Thee's also much evidence the police were aware JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage which no doubt led them to ask JM about her involvement, if any. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.

As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too.  They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.

The first shot would have killed SC had the second not supervened but in the interim both pathologists at trial, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight, said in no uncertain terms the first shot was not immediately fatal and that physiologically it was possible for SC to move around, inflict the second shot and there was a time interval of anything from a few seconds to a few minutes between the 2 shots. 

If the police have leverage over potential prosecution witnesses do you think this makes them less reliable, more reliable or makes no difference?

[Caroline]

But wherever the statements may have been used the fact remains that there was no independent way to verify their authenticity ie no independent witness to verify the taking of the statement or tape recording of such etc.

The fact you or I may have taken a different course of action does not necessarily mean to say others would do the same especially if the police had some leverage over the indvidual(s).

Yes I agree JM's past had to come out as the police would know anything and everything that could be used by the defence to discredit JM might well be used in an attempt to undermine her credibility.   According to various individuals JB was already prime suspect for OCP pre tragedy.  Potentially this gave the police a head start when questioning JM.   Thee's also much evidence the police were aware JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage which no doubt led them to ask JM about her involvement, if any.

Have you hear Liz Rimmington deny making such  a statement?