The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Nicholas]

I understand the reason the Campaign closed for a while is Jeremy told me that a former supporter had attacked the premises.  The team at that time were working in a business and supporting Jeremy at the same time.  He told me that they had to move premises as a result of the attack.

I typed out the last CCRC submissions which I believe are in the public domain.  The CCRC turned down the application and then Jeremy went to Judicial Review.

It was mostly the money and the worrying part of it, he asked me to pay it into Simon McKay's private bank account!!  Surely this is illegal and they should have a client account within the business.  I wrote to Simon stating that I thought this was illegal and strangely enough never had a reply.

Daisy I'm sorry i keep bombarding you with numerous posts, I should probably ask the questions i have in the one post, as opposed to half a dozen. Hope I'm not putting you off from posting, as I've said before, I think you have much to offer the forum.

You've taught us all much about your experiences and I think your knowledge could be helpful to many people.

[ActualMat]

I understand the reason the Campaign closed for a while is Jeremy told me that a former supporter had attacked the premises.  The team at that time were working in a business and supporting Jeremy at the same time.  He told me that they had to move premises as a result of the attack.

I typed out the last CCRC submissions which I believe are in the public domain.  The CCRC turned down the application and then Jeremy went to Judicial Review.

It was mostly the money and the worrying part of it, he asked me to pay it into Simon McKay's private bank account!!  Surely this is illegal and they should have a client account within the business.  I wrote to Simon stating that I thought this was illegal and strangely enough never had a reply.

Do you mean the submissions that Simon put together and that NGB from the other forum was involved in, you tpyed them out?

[Nicholas]

Trudi Benjamin and her team have well and truly over stepped the mark, once again 

Found this from Jenny http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0  - I'd refer to it as an attempt of a smear campaign against Julie M 

Then this elsewhere:

"22. This concerned me, not only because of the tactics Simon McKay had used in the Jeremy Bamber case, but also because there was reference made to two IVAs (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) which I took to mean that he had twice got into significant debt.
23. Mr Bennett also telephoned the Solicitors Regulation Authority and discovered that he had been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009. Their findings are at Document No. 3. The main findings were:
a) Failing to keep clients’ money  separate from practice money or his own money
b) Failing to apply clients’ monies to those clients’ matters
c) Failing to have proper accounting records
d) There were several other serious complaints about McKay Law
e) They even added a ‘mark-up’ to bank charges, and then described these as ‘disbursements’, a practice the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said was ’obnoxious’ https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11106-les-balkwell-update-high-court-hearing-2-july-was-media-release-12noon-thursday-19-march-2015-high-court-hearing-room-e111-queens-bench-division-monday-23-march-11-30am

[Caroline]

Found this from Jenny http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0  - I'd refer to it as an attempt of a smear campaign against Julie M 

Then this elsewhere:

"22. This concerned me, not only because of the tactics Simon McKay had used in the Jeremy Bamber case, but also because there was reference made to two IVAs (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) which I took to mean that he had twice got into significant debt.
23. Mr Bennett also telephoned the Solicitors Regulation Authority and discovered that he had been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009. Their findings are at Document No. 3. The main findings were:
a) Failing to keep clients’ money  separate from practice money or his own money
b) Failing to apply clients’ monies to those clients’ matters
c) Failing to have proper accounting records
d) There were several other serious complaints about McKay Law
e) They even added a ‘mark-up’ to bank charges, and then described these as ‘disbursements’, a practice the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said was ’obnoxious’ https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11106-les-balkwell-update-high-court-hearing-2-july-was-media-release-12noon-thursday-19-march-2015-high-court-hearing-room-e111-queens-bench-division-monday-23-march-11-30am

 

[Nicholas]

I know right Caroline 

Daisy was clearly ousted because she was uncovering the truth

It was mostly the money and the worrying part of it, he asked me to pay it into Simon McKay's private bank account!!  Surely this is illegal and they should have a client account within the business.  I wrote to Simon stating that I thought this was illegal and strangely enough never had a reply.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2167.0.html

[Caroline]

Does anyone have a copy of this letter and could they post it on up thanks 

I might have a copy - I'll look.

[Nicholas]

I might have a copy - I'll look.

Thanks Caroline 

[APRIL]

Found this from Jenny http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0  - I'd refer to it as an attempt of a smear campaign against Julie M 

Then this elsewhere:

"22. This concerned me, not only because of the tactics Simon McKay had used in the Jeremy Bamber case, but also because there was reference made to two IVAs (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) which I took to mean that he had twice got into significant debt.
23. Mr Bennett also telephoned the Solicitors Regulation Authority and discovered that he had been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009. Their findings are at Document No. 3. The main findings were:
a) Failing to keep clients’ money  separate from practice money or his own money
b) Failing to apply clients’ monies to those clients’ matters
c) Failing to have proper accounting records
d) There were several other serious complaints about McKay Law
e) They even added a ‘mark-up’ to bank charges, and then described these as ‘disbursements’, a practice the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said was ’obnoxious’ https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11106-les-balkwell-update-high-court-hearing-2-july-was-media-release-12noon-thursday-19-march-2015-high-court-hearing-room-e111-queens-bench-division-monday-23-march-11-30am

Leopards, it seems, don't change their spots.

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline 

[Nicholas]

Found this from Jenny http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0  - I'd refer to it as an attempt of a smear campaign against Julie M 

Then this elsewhere:

"22. This concerned me, not only because of the tactics Simon McKay had used in the Jeremy Bamber case, but also because there was reference made to two IVAs (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) which I took to mean that he had twice got into significant debt.
23. Mr Bennett also telephoned the Solicitors Regulation Authority and discovered that he had been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009. Their findings are at Document No. 3. The main findings were:
a) Failing to keep clients’ money  separate from practice money or his own money
b) Failing to apply clients’ monies to those clients’ matters
c) Failing to have proper accounting records
d) There were several other serious complaints about McKay Law
e) They even added a ‘mark-up’ to bank charges, and then described these as ‘disbursements’, a practice the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said was ’obnoxious’ https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11106-les-balkwell-update-high-court-hearing-2-july-was-media-release-12noon-thursday-19-march-2015-high-court-hearing-room-e111-queens-bench-division-monday-23-march-11-30am

Attention: Simon McKay esq., McKay Law
 
Re: Jeremy Bamber case
 
Dear Mr. McKay,
 
I was very idsappointed to learn you have recently made comments in the Canadian press regarding Julie Smerchanski nee Mugford in connection with the Jeremy Bamber case.
 
You seemed to assume that there would be an appeal court hearing at which you would want to call her to give evidence. You must have know these comments were premature even if you did expect the CCRC to refer Bamber's case to the Court of Appeak.
 
The following comments attributed to you I found most disturbing:
 
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her and that extradition treaties would force her to testify".
 
Besides assuming a court case that was never likely to happen, you directly imply Julie would have to be forced to attend requiring a subpoena and extradition. Julie voluntarily attended the last 2002 Bamber appeal and you have absolutely no right to imply that Julie would have to be forced to attend your hoped for appeal.
 
In my opinion your sole purpose for making these comments was to damage Julie's reputation in her home town and you should be thoroughly ashamed of your behaviour. I trust now you have failed miserably at the CCRC you will leave Julie alone.
 
How would you like it if for instance I contacted certain people about your personal history and let them know you are working pro bono for Jeremy Bamber when you have two current IVA's in your name. I am sure your creditors who agreed to the IVA's would wonder why you are working for a proven child killer for nothing when you should be trying to pay back your debts.
 
There might also be a lot of interest in the fact you didn't disclose your current insolvency agreements when trying to obtain funding in the USA for your failed get rich quick scheme. Just as there might be a lot of interest in the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) judgement against you; mishandling of clients funds wasn't it?
 
I think you have been led by the nose to the Canadian press by one Miss Jackie Preece and I strongly advise you not to be associated with this woman in any way, shape or form. Miss Preece not only stalks anyone who dare suggest that her idol Bamber is guilty, she spends hours researching their children and using private Facebook photos of their family's to try and hurt her victims. She uses the private information gained and photos in her  nasty emails which she freely distributes.
 
She has also done the same with Anne Eaton and her daughter who was about 7 years old at the time of the murders. Miss Jackie Preece also researched the suicide death of the partner of a member of Bamber's Official Campaign Team and used this information on Twitter to again hurt her victim. I understand Bamber himself is aware of at least this last instance and is rightly furious with Miss Preece's behaviour.
 
If you doubt anything I have said please feel free to check with Neil who I understand worked closely with you on the resent failed CCRC submission. Neil knows chapter and verse about all Miss Preece's vile stalking activities.
 
I have no problem with you representing Bamber although I do question your motives. I do have a problem with your harassing of Julie for no other possible purpose than to cause her distress. That was way below the belt Mr. McKay!
 
I would suggest you have nothing more to do with Miss Preece and play by the rules of decency in future.
 
Yours truly,
 
 
Jennifer Terry
 
CC: 
Jeremy Bamber at Full Sutton Prison by mail
Mark Williams-Thomas by email http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0

[Nicholas]

Attention: Simon McKay esq., McKay Law
 
Re: Jeremy Bamber case
 
Dear Mr. McKay,
 
I was very idsappointed to learn you have recently made comments in the Canadian press regarding Julie Smerchanski nee Mugford in connection with the Jeremy Bamber case.
 
You seemed to assume that there would be an appeal court hearing at which you would want to call her to give evidence. You must have know these comments were premature even if you did expect the CCRC to refer Bamber's case to the Court of Appeak.
 
The following comments attributed to you I found most disturbing:
 
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her and that extradition treaties would force her to testify".
 
Besides assuming a court case that was never likely to happen, you directly imply Julie would have to be forced to attend requiring a subpoena and extradition. Julie voluntarily attended the last 2002 Bamber appeal and you have absolutely no right to imply that Julie would have to be forced to attend your hoped for appeal.
 
In my opinion your sole purpose for making these comments was to damage Julie's reputation in her home town and you should be thoroughly ashamed of your behaviour. I trust now you have failed miserably at the CCRC you will leave Julie alone.
 
How would you like it if for instance I contacted certain people about your personal history and let them know you are working pro bono for Jeremy Bamber when you have two current IVA's in your name. I am sure your creditors who agreed to the IVA's would wonder why you are working for a proven child killer for nothing when you should be trying to pay back your debts.
 
There might also be a lot of interest in the fact you didn't disclose your current insolvency agreements when trying to obtain funding in the USA for your failed get rich quick scheme. Just as there might be a lot of interest in the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) judgement against you; mishandling of clients funds wasn't it?
 
I think you have been led by the nose to the Canadian press by one Miss Jackie Preece and I strongly advise you not to be associated with this woman in any way, shape or form. Miss Preece not only stalks anyone who dare suggest that her idol Bamber is guilty, she spends hours researching their children and using private Facebook photos of their family's to try and hurt her victims. She uses the private information gained and photos in her  nasty emails which she freely distributes.
 
She has also done the same with Anne Eaton and her daughter who was about 7 years old at the time of the murders. Miss Jackie Preece also researched the suicide death of the partner of a member of Bamber's Official Campaign Team and used this information on Twitter to again hurt her victim. I understand Bamber himself is aware of at least this last instance and is rightly furious with Miss Preece's behaviour.
 
If you doubt anything I have said please feel free to check with Neil who I understand worked closely with you on the resent failed CCRC submission. Neil knows chapter and verse about all Miss Preece's vile stalking activities.
 
I have no problem with you representing Bamber although I do question your motives. I do have a problem with your harassing of Julie for no other possible purpose than to cause her distress. That was way below the belt Mr. McKay!
 
I would suggest you have nothing more to do with Miss Preece and play by the rules of decency in future.
 
Yours truly,
 
 
Jennifer Terry
 
CC: 
Jeremy Bamber at Full Sutton Prison by mail
Mark Williams-Thomas by email http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=343.0

I had no idea about any of this until Daisy posted about Simon McKay

[Nicholas]

Thank you Caroline. So it seems Bamber wrote this to JM whilst on remand?

I need to re read it to pick out the salient points, however it's clear the whole thing is a manipulative tactic on his behalf.

He dumped her for someone else which is referred to as "discarding" then attempted to "idealise" Julie again.

All red flags and synonymous of psychopathic behaviour.

And of course Julie went to the police 4 days after Bamber was violent towards her. I note he fails to apologise for this in his letter nor does he apologise from going off with another women.

[Nicholas]

Bamber states in his letter to Julie (which thankfully she didn't receive)

"Maybe I am the only one who can understand your action as love & hate are rather closely related. No matter what I cannot find it in my heart to hate you. There are far too many fond memories of our time together.

Now who said that?

[Nicholas]

Trudi Benjamin and her team have well and truly over stepped the mark, once again 

Most of Jeremy Bambers cult followers/supporters appear to have one thing in common - Smear Campaigns


"When healthy people feel upset about something, they may get angry. But toxic people don’t just get mad – they seethe – and wage a devious smear campaign.  One of the clearest indicators you’ve got a mentally unstable person on your hands is smear campaigning. Smear campaigners carefully and strategically use lies, exaggerations, suspicions and false accusations to try destroying your credibility. They hide behind a cloak of upstanding heroism and feigned innocence in an attempt to make as many people as possible think their efforts are based not on their vindictiveness, but on upstanding concern.
As a smeared person, what you are most likely “guilty” of is saying no to someone who is, in some way, failing to respect your boundaries, refusing to follow the same rules as everyone else, or someone who is spreading toxicity and manipulating. Someone entitled. Someone sneaky and vindictive. Someone who is hurting you or taking too much.
While standing up for yourself is the right thing to do, toxic people simply don’t believe you have any right to refuse their mistreatment, and they will set out to “punish” you for having any opinions that differ from theirs.
Virtually all smear campaigners can be counted on to have traits of “Cluster B” personality disorders. Narcissists and sociopaths are among the most virulent smear campaigners, and histrionic and borderline people may also opt to smear those who upset them. Not surprisingly, these four disorders are classified as the “dramatic and erratic” high-conflict personalities. https://www.facebook.com/notes/my-emotional-vampire/the-smear-campaign-view-it-as-a-badge-of-honor/327120180710384/

[Nicholas]

Bamber states in his letter to Julie (which thankfully she didn't receive)

"Maybe I am the only one who can understand your action as love & hate are rather closely related. No matter what I cannot find it in my heart to hate you. There are far too many fond memories of our time together.

Now who said that?

17th July 2012 Shaun Hall;
‘Hate’ is a strong word which is over used commonly, a little bit like the word ‘Love’ actually. I think ‘Hate’ should be left to describe something or someone that deeply and emotionally you dislike. I don’t expect you to see the difference though, it’s ok.”https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/