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 May 25, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
Title: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 25, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
Answers on a small postcard please....
24
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 25, 2016, 08:17:57 PM
The blood in the moderator is an example of corroborating evidence because it corroborates Sheila was murdered and yet framed. This supports her account that Jeremy said he was going to kill everyone and frame sheila.
Her account that Jeremy told her he was considering using a bike and going to do a test run on a bike was corroborated by him taking June's bike shortly before the murders. Apparently he did do a test run with it.
Saying it is possible that after the murders she conspired with the family and they told her about Jeremy using the windows to enter and the kitchen window being able to be locked from the outside and she then made up the lie that Jeremy told her he planned to use the windows means nothing. Something being theoretically possible is not enough to defeat such evidence. You need to prove that they did conspire with her and that she did make it up in order to get people to discount her claims. If she conspired with them then she should have said the kitchen window. She said she didn't know which window it was that Jeremy told her was defective. Either he didn't tell her or she didn't pay careful attention and forgot. This doesn't in any way help support that she was lying if anything this cuts against it.
In a he said she said the most important thing is whether you can come up with evidence that proves the person is lying or making claims that are impossible and thus clearly erroneous. There is nothing that proves Julie was lying or unintentionally wrong.
Evaluating credibility of claims involves looking at the entire ball of wax including whether there would be a reason to lie. She had no motive to make up Jeremy telling her he hired a hitman let alone to name one who would be able to prove the claim false nor did police have any reason to get her to say such a lie. In contrast Jeremy did have reasons to make up such lie. This favors Julie telling the truth about such. While this in cont corroboration in the traditional sense it is validation anyway.
The key question is can anyone prove Jeremy didn't tell Julie the things she claimed he said.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: adam on May 25, 2016, 08:48:52 PM
So far no one has come up with any info in JM's testimony that was corroborated and unknown to others.
That's because there is nothing in JMs testimony
The bible on her chest can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary Sheila's body on the bed can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary The Bicycle can be traced back to RBs diary Using the Kitchen Windows can be traced back to RBs diary Getting Shelia's fingerprints on the rifle and magazine can be traced back to RBs diary The erroneous number of times Neville was shot can be traced back to the newspapers The idea of Jeremy having assistance on the night can be traced back to RBs diary The payment of £2000 can be traced back to RBs diary The idea of Mathew Macdonald being a Hitman can be traced back to himself spreading rumors RBs theory of Jeremy using a wetsuit can be found in Julies in diary.
All this does is corroborate the idea that Julie was a puppet and overwhelmingly so
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Caroline on May 27, 2016, 10:31:59 PM
The bible on her chest can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary and to the police who mentioned it the day after the murders at Jeremy's cottage - or even Julie because Ann sais it could have come from her! Sheila's body on the bed can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary Or to the police the day after the murders and also the newspapers. The Bicycle can be traced back to RBs diary - but it was in Jeremy's back yard also Using the Kitchen Windows can be traced back to RBs diary - and Jeremy could also have used the window and told Julie himself. Getting Shelia's fingerprints on the rifle and magazine can be traced back to RBs diary - 'A' fingerprint was on it, but yo would expect more if she had fired all of those shots! The erroneous number of times Neville was shot can be traced back to the newspapers - Julie could have gotten that from the newspapers, BUT Jeremy probably didn't know how many shits he fired into his father. The idea of Jeremy having assistance on the night can be traced back to RBs diary - ?? The payment of £2000 can be traced back to RBs diary - He was talking about the New Zealand trip which was years before/ You're not trying to suggest that RB would think he still had the 2 grand to pay a hit man? The idea of Mathew Macdonald being a Hitman can be traced back to himself spreading rumors - he didn't spread rumours about bing a hit man at all. The gossip was that he was a mercenary and he did nothing to dispell them. Pretty poor attempt to find a place for MM in your theory! RBs theory of Jeremy using a wetsuit can be found in Julies in diary. She made a list of things to consider - Jones no doubt mentioned it to her -she made no mention of the wet suit in her statements.
All this does is corroborate the idea that Julie was a puppet and overwhelmingly so. Only in your mind and you have to twist things to make them TRY and fit.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 27, 2016, 10:38:35 PM
The bible on her chest can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary Sheila's body on the bed can be traced back to Ann Eaton hand written notes and RBs diary The Bicycle can be traced back to RBs diary Using the Kitchen Windows can be traced back to RBs diary Getting Shelia's fingerprints on the rifle and magazine can be traced back to RBs diary The erroneous number of times Neville was shot can be traced back to the newspapers The idea of Jeremy having assistance on the night can be traced back to RBs diary The payment of £2000 can be traced back to RBs diary The idea of Mathew Macdonald being a Hitman can be traced back to himself spreading rumors RBs theory of Jeremy using a wetsuit can be found in Julies in diary.
All this does is corroborate the idea that Julie was a puppet and overwhelmingly so
None of it suggests she was a puppet, your claims as always are totally devoid of logic. That 2 people had similar ideas in no way indicates they can't have come up with the ideas separately and one must have gotten the idea from the other. If anything it is the opposite of what you claim.
The evidence is that RWB's diary was written after Julie went to police. Because Julie went to police family members were going to be re-interviewed. In order to aid him during his interview Boutflour wrote notes which was later referred to as his diary though this is a misnomer. Someone thinking logically would not be arguing that Julie got her information from a diary written after she spoke to police. I pointed out to you the illogic of such claim in the past but you choose to live in denial and to reiterate such illogical claim anyway.
In the past I explained about how your claims about the Bible is particularly illogical but par for the course you hid from me rather than to respond which you are apt to do so you can repeat the same disproved claims over and over with the pretense they were never dispatched. The press erroneously reported that the Bible was found on Sheila's chest and Ann repeated this falsehood to RWB. As a result RWB thought it was found on her chest and wrote in his notes that on Aug 11 he came up with a notion of how Jeremy committed the murders which featured Jeremy placing the Bible on her chest before she was shot. The family was subsequently told the Bible was not on her chest the press claim was false. If Julie was in heavy contact with the family and was conspiring with them then she would have known the Bible wasn't found on her chest and thus not make up a lie that Jeremy told her the hitman put it on her chest after she was shot. So this actually speaks against her speaking to the family because it means the family didn't tell her the press claim was false. Things illustrate the complete opposite of what you claim. Moreover, she said he told her the bible was placed there after she was shot not before like RWB envisioned early on.
Let's look at another issue- the windows. It is undisputed that in the past Jeremy and other family members used the windows to enter and thus that they were all aware the windows could be used for entry. The family members were also aware that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. The extended family was told of both issues and in turn they told police such in August. Jeremy was aware of such and thus clearly could have been the one who told Julie as she claimed. While the family knew it was the kitchen window that could be locked from the outside Julie was unsure which window it was. She said that Jeremy told her one of the windows was defective but she didn't know which one because either he failed to specify or she didn't pay close enough attention to what he was telling her. If the family was the source then surely she would have identified the kitchen window as the one.
While your illogical argument hold up in your mind they objectively fail when scrutinized.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 28, 2016, 03:41:13 AM
None of it suggests she was a puppet, your claims as always are totally devoid of logic. That 2 people had similar ideas in no way indicates they can't have come up with the ideas separately and one must have gotten the idea from the other. If anything it is the opposite of what you claim.
The evidence is that RWB's diary was written after Julie went to police. Because Julie went to police family members were going to be re-interviewed. In order to aid him during his interview Boutflour wrote notes which was later referred to as his diary though this is a misnomer. Someone thinking logically would not be arguing that Julie got her information from a diary written after she spoke to police. I pointed out to you the illogic of such claim in the past but you choose to live in denial and to reiterate such illogical claim anyway.
In the past I explained about how your claims about the Bible is particularly illogical but par for the course you hid from me rather than to respond which you are apt to do so you can repeat the same disproved claims over and over with the pretense they were never dispatched. The press erroneously reported that the Bible was found on Sheila's chest and Ann repeated this falsehood to RWB. As a result RWB thought it was found on her chest and wrote in his notes that on Aug 11 he came up with a notion of how Jeremy committed the murders which featured Jeremy placing the Bible on her chest before she was shot. The family was subsequently told the Bible was not on her chest the press claim was false. If Julie was in heavy contact with the family and was conspiring with them then she would have known the Bible wasn't found on her chest and thus not make up a lie that Jeremy told her the hitman put it on her chest after she was shot. So this actually speaks against her speaking to the family because it means the family didn't tell her the press claim was false. Things illustrate the complete opposite of what you claim. Moreover, she said he told her the bible was placed there after she was shot not before like RWB envisioned early on.
Let's look at another issue- the windows. It is undisputed that in the past Jeremy and other family members used the windows to enter and thus that they were all aware the windows could be used for entry. The family members were also aware that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. The extended family was told of both issues and in turn they told police such in August. Jeremy was aware of such and thus clearly could have been the one who told Julie as she claimed. While the family knew it was the kitchen window that could be locked from the outside Julie was unsure which window it was. She said that Jeremy told her one of the windows was defective but she didn't know which one because either he failed to specify or she didn't pay close enough attention to what he was telling her. If the family was the source then surely she would have identified the kitchen window as the one.
While your illogical argument hold up in your mind they objectively fail when scrutinized.
Seriously Skip you should know better than this.
Just for the record Robert Boulflour's diary entries are dated BEFORE Julie came forward and Ann Eatons notes are written and dated BEFORE Julie came forward.
If this sort of thing happened in a case you were handling you wouldn't use such a blatantly inauthentic witness and you know it.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 28, 2016, 04:00:38 AM
and to the police who mentioned it the day after the murders at Jeremy's cottage - or even Julie because Ann sais it could have come from her! Ann wrote down in her notes she got it from the police, She admitted this at trial.
Or to the police the day after the murders and also the newspapers.so much for Jeremy's detailed confession
but it was in Jeremy's back yard also Makes no difference, Its not unique information.
and Jeremy could also have used the window and told Julie himself. Still Makes no difference, Its not unique information only the killer would know and what are chances of JM happening to confirm most of RB theories?
'A' fingerprint was on it, but yo would expect more if she had fired all of those shots! Beside the point how did Julie get Jeremy to confess this exact theory along with others RB thought up?
?? Yes ive shown you it before, already forgot?
He was talking about the New Zealand trip which was years before/ You're not trying to suggest that RB would think he still had the 2 grand to pay a hit man? RB feels the figure is significant to murders and does not know all the details behind it, if he did he would not mention it
he didn't spread rumours about bing a hit man at all. The gossip was that he was a mercenary mercenary and hitman are the same thing! Contract killer, soldier of fortune, professional soldier, hired soldier whatever they want to call themselves
and he did nothing to dispell them. Pretty poor attempt to find a place for MM in your theory! A poor attempt to place MM into a theory would be something like saying Jeremy incriminated himself because MM slept with Sue lol
Jones no doubt mentioned it to her -she made no mention of the wet suit in her statements.It proves either police or relatives gave her information
Only in your mind and you have to twist things to make them TRY and fit. your the master of that not me
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 28, 2016, 04:26:50 AM
Just for the record Robert Boulflour's diary entries are dated BEFORE Julie came forward and Ann Eatons notes are written and dated BEFORE Julie came forward.
If this sort of thing happened in a case you were handling you wouldn't use such a blatantly inauthentic witness and you know it.
In September he wrote his diary. He went through dates trying to recall what he thought at those particular times.
I would have no problem using Julie as a witness if I were a prosecutor. Her account of Jeremy telling her such things is credible. What I do not find credible is your claim that you were originally in the guilty camp. Your insistence that Julie conspired with others is something that would logically prevent you from ever being in the guilty camp. You are the disingenuous one.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: adam on May 28, 2016, 08:00:13 AM
Similar to Mike, I believe David is getting over excited because Bamber wrote to him after receiving his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Now we are supposed to believe that during the month Julie was whisked around England and Holland by Bamber, she somehow managed to look at AE's and RB's notes, which would only be partially completed as it was work in progress. Then she remembered everything, ready for the police.
Or that both AE and RB confided in Julie even though she was Bamber's girlfriend.
My 14 points in her WS which only Julie would know, apparently the public already knew about and Julie read it all in the papers. Although no source was given. Why an earth would the police tell the media these (at the time) irrelevant things on the massacre day ? And why would the media publish it the following day ?
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 28, 2016, 08:07:51 AM
In September he wrote his diary. He went through dates trying to recall what he thought at those particular times.
I would have no problem using Julie as a witness if I were a prosecutor. Her account of Jeremy telling her such things is credible. What I do not find credible is your claim that you were originally in the guilty camp. Your insistence that Julie conspired with others is something that would logically prevent you from ever being in the guilty camp. You are the disingenuous one.
I never considered Julie credible even when I beileved Jeremy guilty, that is why I tend to seldom mention her. When I first became interested in the case I belived him guilty primarily due to the fact he was still in prison and had all his appeals rejected.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 28, 2016, 03:00:47 PM
A polite reminder please that we have a zero tolerance to any text, emoticons, gifs or the like which have the potential to cause any conflict on the forum. Please respect each others views when disagreeing.
Ann sais it could have come from her! Ann wrote down in her notes she got it from the police, She admitted this at trial. She also said she could have gotten it from Julie.
so much for Jeremy's detailed confession - I think she did get most of it from Jeremy but Jeremy wasn't supposed to have been there REMEMBER? She must have filled in parts of the story from what she heard from police
Makes no difference, Its not unique information - he didn't give her any unique information apart from the hit man story - why would he? He didn't trust her with the truth, just the PLAN
Still Makes no difference, Its not unique information only the killer would know and what are chances of JM happening to confirm most of RB theories? She didn't conform his theories - he made no mention of a hit man or MM>
'A' fingerprint was on it, but yo would expect more if she had fired all of those shots! See above
?? Yes ive shown you it before, already forgot? He mentioned Sheila helping Jeremy NOT a hitman
RB feels the figure is significant to murders and does not know all the details behind it, if he did he would not mention it - PURE speculation on your part, that piece doesn't even belong to the same jigsaw!
Contract killer, soldier of fortune, professional soldier, hired soldier whatever they want to call themselves. Not a hit man though!
A poor attempt to place MM into a theory would be something like saying Jeremy incriminated himself because MM slept with Sue lol - You can't fit him in at ALL - LOL
It proves either police or relatives gave her information - no it just proves they mentioned a wetsuit!
your the master of that not me. Yeah! We'll see LOL
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 29, 2016, 12:58:34 AM
You are the king of strawmen arguments. A strawman argument is an arguments that no one else made but you attribute to others anyway in order to deflect from the arguments they actually made which you possess zero ability to refute.
Who claimed he gave a detailed confession? Julie most certainly didn't nor did the prosecution or any of those referred to as guilters. Far from confessing to Julie that he killed everyone, Julie said that he told her he hired MM to commit the murders and provided only a handful of details about how MM did it. His lies to her about hiring a hitman are meaningless, Julie's most damning testimony was that he told her he was planning to kill his family and a couple of hours before the murders he called her telling her tonight was the night he was going to kill them and then after the murders phoning Julie before the police to tell her they were dead. You have no ability whatsoever to refute this testimony and thus completely ignore it and try to pretend the evidence she posted was about the aftermath only and try to pretend that she said Jeremy gave her a detailed confession though she made no such claim. In those rare instances where you do dare to acknowledge such testimony you don't post anything that casts doubt on her claims just say say you refuse to believe it. You refusing to believe it doesn't amount to evidence to refute it and thus doesn't provide any basis for a rational objective person to doubt it.
Julie's account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family is indeed unique. Trying to pretend that other people posited this might have happened would amount to pure dishonesty. Nor did they fathom that Jeremy told her before the murders tonight is the night and then called her before police to tell her it was done. This is solely from Julie and no one saw any of it coming. Nor did they anticipate Jeremy had hired a hitman let alone that he told Julie he hired a hitman. The family felt he carried out the murders himself.
Your argument is another variation of a strawman argument anyway. You made the false argument that only if someone has unique information never thought up before can a claim be true. You thus make the false argument that it is impossible for people to share the same thought. This false position doesn't help you one bit in fact it does the opposite it simply undermines your credibility. The notion that we can't believe anything a witness said unless suggesting things no other human contemplated is absurd. But she did say things unique anyway and the most damning things of all were unique.
The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said. The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police. This evidence supports her claim that he told her the murders were going to be carried out that night and after the murders called to say it had been carried out. That he called her before calling police is very damning even though you choose to ignore such. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.Why would he wake her up before calling the police? The only reason to do such would be to tell her they were killed. If he had actually received the distress call he claimed then he would have either dialed 999 or rushed over or both he would not have woken Julie up period let alone done so before calling police. To make matters worse instead of dialing 999 after he got a phone book to look up police station numbers. After getting no response at Witham he still didn't dial 999 but instead decided to keep trying different stations till he got an answer. Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered. This proves someone else was at the scene. Evidence that would have been present on her had she been the one who killed the others was absent thus not only was she murdered quite clearly the same person murdered everyone else. The scene was also staged to make it appear Sheila killed everyone including herself.
The physical evidence in this case proves that someone killed everyone and tried to frame Sheila. Julie's testimony helped establish the person who did such was Jeremy. Julie's testimony was not the only evidence that proved it was Jeremy. B Jeremy alerting the police and making up that he received a distress call implicating Sheila this demonstrated Jeremy was the killer. If he had not alerted police and let the victims be found naturally in the morning then Julie would have presented the only evidence that he was the one who did it. The only other evidence of sorts would be that he was the only one with motive/who would profit from the deaths. But he did alert police after making up receiving the distress call and this means Julie's testimony was simply extra. Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: adam on May 29, 2016, 09:11:05 AM
I don't believe David's theories as a supporter will result in any supporters changing stance.
It was extremely hard work to get five hardcore and long term supporters to change stance when I joined. All putting up ferocious and aggresive fights. Bamber's supporters certainly dig in.
If the remaining supporters are not changing stance now when reading Mike's theories, they won't with David's.
However claiming Julie somehow managed to secretly read AE's and RB's notes, or they both confided in Bamber's girlfriend during the month she was travelling around England and Holland, won't get any giilters changing stance.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 29, 2016, 10:49:30 AM
I don't believe David's theories as a supporter will result in any supporters changing stance.
It was extremely hard work to get five hardcore and long term supporters to change stance when I joined. All putting up ferocious and aggresive fights. Bamber's supporters certainly dig in.
If the remaining supporters are not changing stance now when reading Mike's theories, they won't with David's.
However claiming Julie somehow managed to secretly read AE's and RB's notes, or they both confided in Bamber's girlfriend during the month she was travelling around England and Holland, won't get any giilters changing stance.
I don't see any comparisons whatsoever between Mike's mad incoherent ramblings complete with expletives and David's well thought out posts based on the facts of the case.
Apparently a judge once referred to Mike as intelligent. I beg to differ.
If Mike really wanted to help JB he would manage to put his hatred of the police and authorities to one side. He's unable to because he lacks any sort of emotional intelligence.
Mike has been involved with the case for some 27 years and other than uploading docs to the forum he created I can't see how he has helped JB in any shape or form. He's unorganised and lacks any sort of strategy. Frankly he's a huge embarrassment and he just seems to get worse.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 29, 2016, 11:30:36 AM
I thought you were linking to a rule page not simply a post where you wrote the same exact thing lol
I'm currently working on a users manual which incorporates the Human Rights Act. I'm up to chapter 30. I anticipate another 20 chapters. Every member will then be forwarded an electronic copy of the manual to ensure we are all familiar with the 12,534 micro rules which underpin the 3 macro rules. In the event of Britain exiting the EU it may be necessary to make some amendments!
No, in all seriousness the link was simply to show the zero tolerance policy is not something new and has been applied previously. Am I sounding like one of those interfering women you mentioned from your church 8)><(
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 29, 2016, 11:35:02 AM
I was recently reading thru the Dickinson report and noticed that points 305 - 322 are missing. These points would amount to approx 6 pages and cover the time JM contacted EP via her friends, her police interviews, JB's interviews under caution and subsequent arrest. Also the blood/silencer results. Dates would cover 6th Sept to time JB was charged on 29th Sept.
Any ideas anyone?
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: puglove on May 29, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
I don't see any comparisons whatsoever between Mike's mad incoherent ramblings complete with expletives and David's well thought out posts based on the facts of the case.
Apparently a judge once referred to Mike as intelligent. I beg to differ.
If Mike really wanted to help JB he would manage to put his hatred of the police and authorities to one side. He's unable to because he lacks any sort of emotional intelligence.
Mike has been involved with the case for some 27 years and other than uploading docs to the forum he created I can't see how he has helped JB in any shape or form. He's unorganised and lacks any sort of strategy. Frankly he's a huge embarrassment and he just seems to get worse.
Bamber's Christmas, 1988 - mushy sprouts, a sore bumhole and six hours of Mike Tesko. 8)><(
And I'm beginning to wonder if Mike's really GOT an elk. ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on May 29, 2016, 11:55:17 AM
So far no one has come up with any info in JM's testimony that was corroborated and unknown to others.
That's just not true Holly, several others spoke of Bamber's behaviour including Julie Mugford's mother who independently observed him and heard him speak of his family in less than admirable terms on many occasions.
Is there anything you can point to and categorically state that Julie lied?
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: John on May 29, 2016, 01:36:13 PM
I never considered Julie credible even when I beileved Jeremy guilty, that is why I tend to seldom mention her. When I first became interested in the case I belived him guilty primarily due to the fact he was still in prison and had all his appeals rejected.
I will ask you the same question. Can you point to a single entry in her statements or from her evidence given at trial and say categorically that she LIED?
If you can I would love to hear it as they call that PERJURY.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: John on May 29, 2016, 01:46:03 PM
Julie's account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family is indeed unique. Trying to pretend that other people deposited this might have happened would amount to pure dishonesty. Nor did they fathom that Jeremy told her before the murders tonight is the night and then called her before police to tell her it was done. This is solely from Julie and no one saw any of it coming. Nor did they anticipate Jeremy had hired a hitman let alone that he told Julie he hired a hitman. The family felt he carried out the murders himself.
The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said. The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police. This evidence supports her claim that he told her the murders were going to be carried out that night and after the murders called to say it had been carried out. That he called her before calling police is very damning even though you choose to ignore such. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.Why would he wake her up before calling the police? The only reason to do such would be to tell her they were killed. If he had actually received the distress call he claimed then he would have either dialed 999 or rushed over or both he would not have woken Julie up period let alone done so before calling police. To make matters worse instead of dialing 999 after he got a phone book to look up police station numbers. After getting no response at Witham he still didn't dial 999 but instead decided to keep trying different stations till he got an answer. Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered. This proves someone else was at the scene. Evidence that would have been present on her had she been the one who killed the others was absent thus not only was she murdered quite clearly the same person murdered everyone else. The scene was also staged to make it appear Sheila killed everyone including herself.
The physical evidence in this case proves that someone killed everyone and tried to frame Sheila. Julie's testimony helped establish the person who did such was Jeremy. Julie's testimony was not the only evidence that proved it was Jeremy. B Jeremy alerting the police and making up that he received a distress call implicating Sheila this demonstrated Jeremy was the killer. If he had not alerted police and let the victims be found naturally in the morning then Julie would have presented the only evidence that he was the one who did it. The only other evidence of sorts would be that he was the only one with motive/who would profit from the deaths. But he did alert police after making up receiving the distress call and this means Julie's testimony was simply extra. Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.
Clearly, Julie's evidence was credible but most crucially was key to the prosecution. There is no way she could have invented this story and withstood no only the many police interviews but cross examination on the stand. The jury believed her and disbelieved Bamber such was the strength of her testimony and the weakness of Bambers.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 29, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
Clearly, Julie's evidence was credible but most crucially was key to the prosecution. There is no way she could have invented this story and withstood no only the many police interviews but cross examination on the stand. The jury believed her and disbelieved Bamber such was the strength of her testimony and the weakness of Bambers.
Even if she had not come forward to rat Jeremy out the police he still would have been prosecuted and could have been convicted. I would still believe he is guilty based on that evidence. Julie's testimony was extra.
The most significant evidence is the proof that Sheila didn't kill herself. That is the key evidence far and away. When the defense is claiming there was a suicide yet the prosecution is claiming the person was a murder victim the evidence proving whether the person could have committed suicide or not is key. This case had the added complexity of whether evidence supported or failed to support Sheila beating Nevill and shooting the others. The absence of scientific evidence that would exist had she beat Nevill, loaded the weapon and fired it as well as evidence that someone shot her with the moderator attached to the weapon then removed it and put it away in the closet and moved her body after she was shot and finally staged the weapon on her body establishes beyond question that someone else murdered her and everyone else yet attempted to frame her. This is the most significant evidence of all.
With the proof that they were murdered and things staged to look like she did it the question then becomes who would kill them, why and why would such person try to frame Sheila. The only reason to frame Sheila would be because the true killer will be a natural suspect and this is done so police will not suspect and will not investigate the true killer. So this framing attempt alone establishes that the killer knew the victims and would be a logical suspect.
Who had a motive and would be a logical suspect? Jeremy. Who else? No one else would have a motive to kill the adults let alone the adults and even the children. The children were killed while sleeping they can't have been killed as witnesses. They were executed intentionally because the killer set about to execute all of them. Jeremy told co-workers he would never share his inheritance with his nephews. Thus killing his parents for the inheritance provides him with motive to kill not only his parents but his sister and nephews since he wanted it all and didn't want to share.
This is circumstantial evidence to support Jeremy did it. While decent there is evidence superior to this. That evidence is that Jeremy himself told various lies to police in an effort to frame Sheila. This evidence supports that Jeremy was the one who killed them and was trying to frame Sheila. One such lie was that Sheila knew how to use all weapons in the house because he trained her and she fired them all which he later recanted when speaking to investigators. A much more damning lie is the lie that Nevill called him and fingered Sheila as running crazy with the murder rifle. The evidence proves Nevill can't have conveyed such to him because Nevill was attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone and one such injury received in the bedroom prevented him from being able to speak intelligibly to others so even if he had called Jeremy then Jeremy would not have understood who called or why. Moreover, since evidence proves that Sheila didn't kill them or herself but rather was framed then why would Nevill call Jeremy and lie fingering Sheila as attacking them instead of announcing the real attacker? Jeremy's lie that he received a distress call establishes 1) he knew the murders had taken place and 2) that he was the one out to frame Sheila by lying about Nevill implicating her. This effectively proves he is the killer.
Moreover, it was established that even before he phoned police that he phoned Julie. He had no reason to call her period let alone to do so before phoning police. This is totally inconsistent with what someone who received a distress call would do. Calling various police stations instead of calling 999 is also inconsistent. Someone who genuinely received such a call would believe time is of the essence and call 999 and/or rush over as quickly as possible. Furthermore while at the scene he was extremely calm and not pressing the police to take action like someone would do if truly concerned.
This is all more than sufficient to convict Jeremy. Julie's testimony wasn't the key to the case it was extra testimony that just further sunk him by corroborating the other evidence and further setting the background of things for us. While useful it didn't make the case there was still sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
In order to have avoided liability Jeremy needed to not only not tell Julie anything he should not have alerted police to the incident but rather should have made the bodies be found naturally. That still might not have been enough though to avoid liability.
Since he is the only one who would benefit from an execution of everyone even the kids he still could be convicted of murdering them. He needed to set the scene to suggest someone else did it.
Burglary gone wrong fails to account for executing everyone in bed so would not work. He settled upon framing Sheila. To be successful he needed to kill Sheila in a way that it could indeed be suicide and left no evidence she was murdered. He botched it though by not removing the silencer before killing her and not managing to get GSR on her hands etc. Admittedly firing a gun in a dead person's hands to get GSR on them can present other problems like trying to make the bullets go in a location where it doesn't become obvious that you did such but it needs to properly be done for things to be truly effective.
Killing her with the moderator attached and moving her body after she died were big mistakes that gave away she was murdered. That is what proves someone else was there who murdered her and is the true key evidence because objectively establishes someone else was a murderer. If they didn't have this then Julie's testimony would have been critical. Her testimony would have been critical in establishing Sheila was murdered as opposed to committing suicide. The evidence that she didn't beat Neivll or load the gun or shoot anyone else naturally would help corroborate Julie's claims so still be important but Julie would be the main proof she didn't kill herself.
That they had Julie as well as the physical evidence proving Sheila was murdered plus Jeremy setting about to frame Sheila with a fake distress call. This was a defense attorney's nightmare. There are so many prongs the defense needed to attack but could not effectively do so. While defenders say it is a close case the reality is that it is not close at all which is why there is no hope in hell of him ever winning an appeal. Defenders refuse to accept the evidence but have no way to disprove it which is what is required to win an appeal.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 29, 2016, 06:13:00 PM
You are the king of strawmen arguments. A strawman argument is an arguments that no one else made but you attribute to others anyway in order to deflect from the arguments they actually made which you possess zero ability to refute.
While It may seem like that to you because you assume I am going by a static undeviating conspiracy theory, That way you can find many faults in what you believe I am trying to get across, However I am open to many possibilities of how Julie got this information and built on her testimony.
She could have got the information from relatives or she could have got the information from the police either by being deliberately told the information or by police coercion and poor interrogation techniques were by they unwittingly give over information during the interrogation process. I can only speculate, it could be from one of those sources I mentioned or could be a combination of all some more than others. This combined with the information circulating in the media, being put into a corner by police, having charges dropped in exchange for testimony and the fact Jeremy had left her makes all the essential ingredients needed for her to produce the counterfeit testimony she did
The prosecution, her testimony contains many details of the crime over 20 pages infact and how everyone was killed ect. The fact the details of the crime are totally false proves she did not get this information from the alleged killer because the alleged killer would know that they murdered Shelia on the floor and the alleged killer would know they placed the bible by her side. Yet according to Julie the alleged killer told her that he killed her on the bed and put the bible on her chest, Thus she could not have got that information from the alleged killer, however we know who else that information she produced and were she likely got it from.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985, Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
We know this is a complete lie because Ann wrote down and admitted in court she got it from the police
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows: "One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
Not only can it be established her testimony is bogus it also explains her behaviour in court
Mr Rivlin said, but when he had cross-examined Miss Mugford she had cried almost immediately, and let slip "droplets of poison" throughout her evidence. When being re-examined by the prosection, however, her tears had dried up "as if by magic" and she had been able to answer questions,
Why would an honest witness be so blatantly evasive to cross examination? Its because she has something to hide
The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said. The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police.
On the contrary, the evidence proves that Julie changed the times of the call after a discussion with Ann Eaton as written down herself in her notes.
21. The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am. Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence: 23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345: next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985." This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states : " I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with me that it was about 3.15am." At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
In those rare instances where you do dare to acknowledge such testimony you don't post anything that casts doubt on her claims just say say you refuse to believe it.
Sounds like you are getting me mixed up with yourself?
Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered.
Only in your mind is it a fact "Sheila was murdered"
Infrangible Laws of the Scipio Universe 101 Scipio never ever gets anything wrong or thinks anything wrong! So if Scipio thinks Jeremy killed his family therefore sound moderator must be authentic and therefore Julie must be telling the truth Scipio's mentality in a nut shell
Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.
That is no certainty at all. Jeremy was only arrested once Julie had "come forward" and only after that did they "discover" the blood in the sound moderator with the initial tests carried out a month before not warranting any arrest what so ever with the police still confident Shelia was responsible even after the initial submissions to the lab.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 29, 2016, 08:17:02 PM
While It may seem like that to you because you assume I am going by a static undeviating conspiracy theory, That way you can find many faults in what you believe I am trying to get across, However I am open to many possibilities of how Julie got this information and built on her testimony.
She could have got the information from relatives or she could have got the information from the police either by being deliberately told the information or by police coercion and poor interrogation techniques were by they unwittingly give over information during the interrogation process. I can only speculate, it could be from one of those sources I mentioned or could be a combination of all some more than others. This combined with the information circulating in the media,
All you are doing is saying that you decided Julie lied though you have no proof and that she had to have gotten the information she provided from someone other than Jeremy. Just because you believe she got the information she attributed to Jeremy from someone else doesn't make it so. You can believe anything you want but just because you choose to believe something doesn't mean it must be true let alone that you have any proof to support your position. You have zero proof Julie lied you just insist she did because you don't find her credible. That means nothing at all. You have no proof of any kind. since you have no proof you make up bogus arguments in support of what you choose to believe.
Your argument at its core is that you personally CHOOSE not to believe her because Jeremy didn't convey any details to her about how the murders were carried out that only the killer would have known and the only way you would ever believe her is if Jeremy conveyed details about how he committed the murders that only the killer would know. You completely ignore the significance of what he told her before the murders and the phonecall right after the murders before he called police and make up an absurd requirement that only if a killer tells someone details of how they committed the murders that only the killer would know can we believe the person. By your standard anyone who says someone confessed generally to them about committing a crime must be disbelieved and we must assume they made the claim up. Only if someone confesses a detail that only the criminal would know can we believe the person confessed. This made up standard of yours is ludicrous.
Far from being a rational position it is a position that is contrary to law and contrary to logic. Your standard is not only flawed from a logical standpoint it fails to provide a basis to deal with the most damning evidence Julie provided. Her most damning evidence was regarding what he told her about his desire to kill them and plans he was making to kill them. You don't look at such at all and simply ignore it saying that doesn't matter all that matters is that he didn't tell her things that only the killer would have known.
In any event he did provide her with a few details that only the killer would have known. He told her the killer's glove came off during the struggle with Nevill.
being put into a corner by police, having charges dropped in exchange for testimony and the fact Jeremy had left her makes all the essential ingredients needed for her to produce the counterfeit testimony she did
The evidence suggests that their breakup was mutual but in any event even if true he dumped her that is not evidence she lied. That you choose to believe she would lie in order to hurt him is not proof she did. You have no proof she did.
As for your claims about police dropping charges in exchange for her talking you are both factually wrong and your claims are totally devoid of logic.
She told Liz what happened. Liz ran to the police and the police then asked to question her. So first of all if you want to claim she lied then you need a motive for her to lie to Liz. All police knew is that Liz claimed she told her certain things. They had nothing else against Julie. When she spoke to police Julie could have told them that Liz was wrong or lying or could have told them she lied to Liz. If she had done such the police could not have done anything to her. You want to pretend they knew she was guilty of crimes and made up the story in exchange for them dropping such crimes but they had zilch on her. During the course of telling them everything about Jeremy she confessed to crimes committed for him be it at his insistence or to impress him. But for telling police everything they would not have known about such crimes. So claiming they knew she committed crimes and she she made up the account of Jeremy saying he wanted to kill his family in order to escape liability for such fails miserably. To argue she made up the account of Jeremy to avoid liability for other crimes police didn't even know about until she provided the Jeremy account fails miserably. It is a completely illogical argument. If one looks at it logically the fact she confessed to other crimes during the confession actually supports that she was telling the truth and fully coming clean. She could have scrubbed her own illicit actions from the confession and merely told them about the murders. Instead she decided to tell them about the caravan burglary and drugs as well and even told them about the check fraud though it only implicated Jeremy in the sense of her explaining how his peer pressure affected her not in any legal sense so it only harmed her in a legal sense. That she did such supports her telling the truth not lying.
Someone lying to hurt him would not confess to crimes during the course of such.
They didn't even know about these crimes so didn't offer to drop charges for such crimes in exchange for any dirt she may have had on Jeremy. She told them what Jeremy said and also confessed to the crimes and that was how they learned about them. They didn't tell her that if she agreed to testify to what she told them that they would not prosecute her. She was told they made a decision not to prosecute her. They also told her they wanted her to testify. If she failed to testify they could not prosecute her for those crimes they already made a decision not to prosecute there was no agreement whereby the charges would only be dropped if she testified.
Not only is there a legal distinction but one of great significance for evaluating credibility. When someone is caught doing wrong and then they offer up evidence against someone else to avoid liability that provides a good reason to be skeptical and want to look for some strong corroboration before believing them. That is not the case here she was neither sitting in jail convicted of a crime nor facing a prosecution for a crime and exchange for freedom or a lighter sentence notified them she had information about Jeremy and wanted a deal. You want ot pretend that is the case because you have no valid reason to doubt Julie but desire to not believe her and desperately try to spin to come up with justifications for discounting her.
All your justifications fail in a legal and logical sense and are totally worthless except to you. You are able to delude yourself with such but that's about it.
The prosecution, her testimony contains many details of the crime over 20 pages infact and how everyone was killed ect. The fact the details of the crime are totally false proves she did not get this information from the alleged killer because the alleged killer would know that they murdered Shelia on the floor and the alleged killer would know they placed the bible by her side. Yet according to Julie the alleged killer told her that he killed her on the bed and put the bible on her chest, Thus she could not have got that information from the alleged killer, however we know who else that information she produced and were she likely got it from.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985, Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
We know this is a complete lie because Ann wrote down and admitted in court she got it from the police
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows: "One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
Not only can it be established her testimony is bogus it also explains her behaviour in court
Mr Rivlin said, but when he had cross-examined Miss Mugford she had cried almost immediately, and let slip "droplets of poison" throughout her evidence. When being re-examined by the prosection, how-ever, her tears had dned up "as if by magic" and she had been able to answer questions,
And one that is easily made up
On the contrary, the evidence proves that Julie changed the times of the call after a discussion with Ann Eaton as written down herself in her notes.
21. The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am. Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note. Julie Mugford's Evidence: 23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345: next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985." This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states : " I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with me that it was about 3.15am." At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Sounds like you are getting me mixed up with yourself?
No way could I mix up myself with you. I make competent arguments supported by evidence while you make bogus arguments that are meaningless and constantly engage in projection.
You devote a great deal of time to Sheila's claims about the Bible though her claims about the Bible were not used by the prosecution to convict. Her claims about the Bible were meaningless and bringing them up time and again is a red herring. I already recounted the universe of possibilities with respect to this issue:
1) Jeremy could not remember where he left the Bible and believed reports it was left on her body so told Julie he left it on Sheila's chest
2) Jeremy remembered he did not leave it on Sheila's chest and intentionally provided false information to her just like his false claim about hiring a hitman so that if she ratted him out people would say the evidence didn't match the scene and she made it up
3) Jeremy told her he laid it by her chest and Julie misremembered that he told her on because of the other reports that it had been on her chest.
4) Jeremy talked to her about the Bible but didn't specify where it was left and after the passage of time her conversations with others became confused together and she mistakenly thought Jeremy told her the Bible was left on her chest though he failed to tell her where it had been left
5) She knew he didn't tell her about the Bible but made up that he did and made up that he told her it was on her chest even though the family knew at this point it was at her side.
These are the universe of possibilities. You CHOOSE to believe the 5th possibility is what happened but have no proof. You try to pretend the first 4 possibilities are not possible and the only one possible is number 5. Ignoring the other possibilities just demonstrates your bias nothing more.
I believe one of the first 4 possibilities is the truth. Which of these 4 is the case is not important because the result is the same. There is no evidence to support that she intentionally made up that Jeremy told her the Bible was on Sheila's chest. If she were conspiring with the family and police to lie as you contend then she would have been aware the Bible was at his side. This actually works against your conspiracy claims.
So too does the false hitman story which you keep trying to spin as proof she lied. If she were out to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would have said he confessed to committing the crimes himself not make up a hitman and worse to name someone. To name someone who could prove he was not given 2000 pounds to murder anyone and didn't murder anyone would be a very stupid thing to make up. Jeremy had a motive to lie to Julie and make up the hitman story so when evaluating this issue it supports her story it doesn't harm her credibility. Moreover it harms your conspiracy claims because no way would police suggest she should make up a hitman account.
Only in your mind is it a fact "Sheila was murdered"
Infrangible Laws of the Scipio Universe 101 Scipio never ever gets anything wrong or thinks anything wrong! So if Scipio thinks Jeremy killed his family therefore sound moderator must be authentic and therefore Julie must be telling the truth Scipio's mentality in a nut shell That is no certainty at all. Jeremy was only arrested once Julie had "come forward" and only after that did they "discover" the blood in the sound moderator with the initial tests carried out a month before not warranting any arrest what so ever with the police still confident Shelia was responsible even after the initial submissions to the lab.
Your claim that only in my mind was Sheila murdered is sheer nonsense. There is a substantial amount of evidence proving Sheila was murdered. That you choose to ignore such evidence means nothing that is just in keeping with your nature.
You insist the blood in the moderator was planted but have no proof. Saying blood was not discovered inside until after Sheila came forward is not proof it was planted and worse it is not even true.
The truth is that blood was found inside the moderator on August 13, 1985. Howard found blood on and in the moderator. She noted such finding on her forms, in her statements and furthermore there is proof that on August 14 police were notified that the lab found paint on the moderator and human blood on as well as inside the moderator. Because the moderator was going to be fingerprinted it was not disassembled at that point.
It was sent back to the lab on August 30, 1985 to be disassembled and fully processed, along with a great deal of other evidence to be processed. When Julie came forward it was sitting at the lab but was not yet fully processed by the lab. This was not the only case they were working on and it took them time to process all the evidence that was sent to them on August 30.
That is was sitting at the lab awaiting full processing in no way harms the integrity of the item anymore than it harms the integrity to wait months before DNA testing is done on items. That you and other conspiracy theorists are suspicious is not a legal or logical basis to discount the blood evidence. It can only be discounted if you can show it was planted but you have no way to do that.
Ignoring that blood was found inside immediately when tested by Howard doesn't help you any it just undermines your credibility.
Your claim that only in my mind is it a fact that Sheila was murdered is laughable. It is a proven fact according to the courts not just me. I have gone though the evidence that establishes such many times and you have not undermined any of it except in your wildest fantasies:
1) Blood evidence in the moderator establishes someone shot Sheila with the moderator attached and then put it away in the closet 2) blood evidence on and near Sheila establishes sheila was shot while seated propped against something resulting in the blood flowing down her shoulder, upper arm and side of her breast. If she were not propped against something she would have fallen back and the blood would not have flowed down her body but rather to the side of her neck instead. She was subsequently moved flat which resulted in the blood flow changing down the side of her neck and side of her upper arm. She can't have moved herself she was dead, someone else had to be there still to move her body. After being moved flat the gun was placed across her body. 3) After she was flat blood ran down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor. The Bible was was closed after some blood got on it and reopened to the same exact page creating a mirror image. It was then placed in the pool of blood that formed after she died. She was dead quite clearly someone else did it.
Aside from this evidence proving she was murdered there is evidence proving someone else killed the others. In addition there is evidence that proves Nevill could not have made the distress call that Jeremy claimed he received. This is the evidence that only the killer would have known thus proving he was the killer.
The evidence of his guilt is ironclad. Saying it is in my mind only is simply more evidence of you projecting. Little wonder why you won't post your supposed breakthrough you know we could dash it in 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 29, 2016, 09:53:49 PM
All you are doing is saying that you decided Julie lied though you have no proof and that she had to have gotten the information she provided from someone other than Jeremy. Just because you believe she got the information she attributed to Jeremy from someone else doesn't make it so. You can believe anything you want but just because you choose to believe something doesn't mean it must be true let alone that you have any proof to support your position. You have zero proof Julie lied you just insist she did because you don't find her credible. That means nothing at all. You have no proof of any kind. since you have no proof you make up bogus arguments in support of what you choose to believe.
Your argument at its core is that you personally CHOOSE not to believe her because Jeremy didn't convey any details to her about how the murders were carried out that only the killer would have known and the only way you would ever believe her is if Jeremy conveyed details about how he committed the murders that only the killer would know. You completely ignore the significance of what he told her before the murders and the phonecall right after the murders before he called police and make up an absurd requirement that only if a killer tells someone details of how they committed the murders that only the killer would know can we believe the person. By your standard anyone who says someone confessed generally to them about committing a crime must be disbelieved and we must assume they made the claim up. Only if someone confesses a detail that only the criminal would know can we believe the person confessed. This made up standard of yours is ludicrous.
Far from being a rational position it is a position that is contrary to law and contrary to logic. Your standard is not only flawed from a logical standpoint it fails to provide a basis to deal with the most damning evidence Julie provided. Her most damning evidence was regarding what he told her about his desire to kill them and plans he was making to kill them. You don't look at such at all and simply ignore it saying that doesn't matter all that matters is that he didn't tell her things that only the killer would have known.
In any event he did provide her with a few details that only the killer would have known. He told her the killer's glove came off during the struggle with Nevill.
The evidence suggests that their breakup was mutual but in any event even if true he dumped her that is not evidence she lied. That you choose to believe she would lie in order to hurt him is not proof she did. You have no proof she did.
As for your claims about police dropping charges in exchange for her talking you are both factually wrong and your claims are totally devoid of logic.
She told Liz what happened. Liz ran to the police and the police then asked to question her. So first of all if you want to claim she lied then you need a motive for her to lie to Liz. All police knew is that Liz claimed she told her certain things. They had nothing else against Julie. When she spoke to police Julie could have told them that Liz was wrong or lying or could have told them she lied to Liz. If she had done such the police could not have done anything to her. You want to pretend they knew she was guilty of crimes and made up the story in exchange for them dropping such crimes but they had zilch on her. During the course of telling them everything about Jeremy she confessed to crimes committed for him be it at his insistence or to impress him. But for telling police everything they would not have known about such crimes. So claiming they knew she committed crimes and she she made up the account of Jeremy saying he wanted to kill his family in order to escape liability for such fails miserably. To argue she made up the account of Jeremy to avoid liability for other crimes police didn't even know about until she provided the Jeremy account fails miserably. It is a completely illogical argument. If one looks at it logically the fact she confessed to other crimes during the confession actually supports that she was telling the truth and fully coming clean. She could have scrubbed her own illicit actions from the confession and merely told them about the murders. Instead she decided to tell them about the caravan burglary and drugs as well and even told them about the check fraud though it only implicated Jeremy in the sense of her explaining how his peer pressure affected her not in any legal sense so it only harmed her in a legal sense. That she did such supports her telling the truth not lying.
Someone lying to hurt him would not confess to crimes during the course of such.
They didn't even know about these crimes so didn't offer to drop charges for such crimes in exchange for any dirt she may have had on Jeremy. She told them what Jeremy said and also confessed to the crimes and that was how they learned about them. They didn't tell her that if she agreed to testify to what she told them that they would not prosecute her. She was told they made a decision not to prosecute her. They also told her they wanted her to testify. If she failed to testify they could not prosecute her for those crimes they already made a decision not to prosecute there was no agreement whereby the charges would only be dropped if she testified.
Not only is there a legal distinction but one of great significance for evaluating credibility. When someone is caught doing wrong and then they offer up evidence against someone else to avoid liability that provides a good reason to be skeptical and want to look for some strong corroboration before believing them. That is not the case here she was neither sitting in jail convicted of a crime nor facing a prosecution for a crime and exchange for freedom or a lighter sentence notified them she had information about Jeremy and wanted a deal. You want ot pretend that is the case because you have no valid reason to doubt Julie but desire to not believe her and desperately try to spin to come up with justifications for discounting her.
All your justifications fail in a legal and logical sense and are totally worthless except to you. You are able to delude yourself with such but that's about it.
No way could I mix up myself with you. I make competent arguments supported by evidence while you make bogus arguments that are meaningless and constantly engage in projection.
You devote a great deal of time to Sheila's claims about the Bible though her claims about the Bible were not used by the prosecution to convict. Her claims about the Bible were meaningless and bringing them up time and again is a red herring. I already recounted the universe of possibilities with respect to this issue:
1) Jeremy could not remember where he left the Bible and believed reports it was left on her body so told Julie he left it on Sheila's chest
2) Jeremy remembered he did not leave it on Sheila's chest and intentionally provided false information to her just like his false claim about hiring a hitman so that if she ratted him out people would say the evidence didn't match the scene and she made it up
3) Jeremy told her he laid it by her chest and Julie misremembered that he told her on because of the other reports that it had been on her chest.
4) Jeremy talked to her about the Bible but didn't specify where it was left and after the passage of time her conversations with others became confused together and she mistakenly thought Jeremy told her the Bible was left on her chest though he failed to tell her where it had been left
5) She knew he didn't tell her about the Bible but made up that he did and made up that he told her it was on her chest even though the family knew at this point it was at her side.
These are the universe of possibilities. You CHOOSE to believe the 5th possibility is what happened but have no proof. You try to pretend the first 4 possibilities are not possible and the only one possible is number 5. Ignoring the other possibilities just demonstrates your bias nothing more.
I believe one of the first 4 possibilities is the truth. Which of these 4 is the case is not important because the result is the same. There is no evidence to support that she intentionally made up that Jeremy told her the Bible was on Sheila's chest. If she were conspiring with the family and police to lie as you contend then she would have been aware the Bible was at his side. This actually works against your conspiracy claims.
So too does the false hitman story which you keep trying to spin as proof she lied. If she were out to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would have said he confessed to committing the crimes himself not make up a hitman and worse to name someone. To name someone who could prove he was not given 2000 pounds to murder anyone and didn't murder anyone would be a very stupid thing to make up. Jeremy had a motive to lie to Julie and make up the hitman story so when evaluating this issue it supports her story it doesn't harm her credibility. Moreover it harms your conspiracy claims because no way would police suggest she should make up a hitman account.
Your claim that only in my mind was Sheila murdered is sheer nonsense. There is a substantial amount of evidence proving Sheila was murdered. That you choose to ignore such evidence means nothing that is just in keeping with your nature.
You insist the blood in the moderator was planted but have no proof. Saying blood was not discovered inside until after Sheila came forward is not proof it was planted and worse it is not even true.
The truth is that blood was found inside the moderator on August 13, 1985. Howard found blood on and in the moderator. She noted such finding on her forms, in her statements and furthermore there is proof that on August 14 police were notified that the lab found paint on the moderator and human blood on as well as inside the moderator. Because the moderator was going to be fingerprinted it was not disassembled at that point.
It was sent back to the lab on August 30, 1985 to be disassembled and fully processed, along with a great deal of other evidence to be processed. When Julie came forward it was sitting at the lab but was not yet fully processed by the lab. This was not the only case they were working on and it took them time to process all the evidence that was sent to them on August 30.
That is was sitting at the lab awaiting full processing in no way harms the integrity of the item anymore than it harms the integrity to wait months before DNA testing is done on items. That you and other conspiracy theorists are suspicious is not a legal or logical basis to discount the blood evidence. It can only be discounted if you can show it was planted but you have no way to do that.
Ignoring that blood was found inside immediately when tested by Howard doesn't help you any it just undermines your credibility.
Your claim that only in my mind is it a fact that Sheila was murdered is laughable. It is a proven fact according to the courts not just me. I have gone though the evidence that establishes such many times and you have not undermined any of it except in your wildest fantasies:
1) Blood evidence in the moderator establishes someone shot Sheila with the moderator attached and then put it away in the closet 2) blood evidence on and near Sheila establishes sheila was shot while seated propped against something resulting in the blood flowing down her shoulder, upper arm and side of her breast. If she were not propped against something she would have fallen back and the blood would not have flowed down her body but rather to the side of her neck instead. She was subsequently moved flat which resulted in the blood flow changing down the side of her neck and side of her upper arm. She can't have moved herself she was dead, someone else had to be there still to move her body. After being moved flat the gun was placed across her body. 3) After she was flat blood ran down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor. The Bible was was closed after some blood got on it and reopened to the same exact page creating a mirror image. It was then placed in the pool of blood that formed after she died. She was dead quite clearly someone else did it.
Aside from this evidence proving she was murdered there is evidence proving someone else killed the others. In addition there is evidence that proves Nevill could not have made the distress call that Jeremy claimed he received. This is the evidence that only the killer would have known thus proving he was the killer.
The evidence of his guilt is ironclad. Saying it is in my mind only is simply more evidence of you projecting. Little wonder why you won't post your supposed breakthrough you know we could dash it in 5 minutes.
Scipio I've highlighted the following in your post above 7th para down:
"She [JM] told Liz what happened" And "All police knew is that Liz claimed she [JM] told her certain things".
I can't find anywhere in JM's WS's where she refers to telling Liz anything about JB's involvement? Unlike SB where JM states where, when and what she told her in relations to JB's involvement.
JM produced a detailed WS in chronological order but absolutely nothing in her WS re telling Liz &%+((£ As I said in an earlier post CAL's book refers to Liz being told but this is in Liz's WS's and trial testimony only.
&%+((£
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 29, 2016, 10:28:32 PM
That's just not true Holly, several others spoke of Bamber's behaviour including Julie Mugford's mother who independently observed him and heard him speak of his family in less than admirable terms on many occasions.
Is there anything you can point to and categorically state that Julie lied?
I think it's a case of either seeing JM as a reliable prosecution witness or not. Personally I don't see her as reliable. I have found a number of inconsistencies in her WS's. A couple of examples are as follows:
1. It was JM's 21st birthday on 26th Aug '85. Her mother arranged a family dinner at a restaurant near Colchester. JB and BC attended.
JM's WS's provide brief details of most days in chronological order. However in her 8th/9th Sept WS she states "On the Bank Holiday Monday, 26th August nothing of interest happened":
Then in her WS of 23rd Sept she states "I have been asked about my movements on 26th August 1985, I can say that I did not go to the Whitehouse on that day. I believe that during the early part of the morning Jeremy went to the Whitehouse alone, returning around lunchtime. He made no comment about who he saw or what he done there. As far as I am aware he did not go back to the Whitehouse that day as we left between 2pm and 2.30pm and went to London.
2. Also in the bottom of the two WS's above she states "I can say that when Jeremy telephoned me at 10pm on the 6th August, Sue Battersby was in the flat and would have heard me speaking on the phone."
The property she shared with Sue Battersby was in fact a house not a flat. From SB's WS:
"The premises are a semi-detached three bedroom house".
All you are doing is saying that you decided Julie lied though you have no proof and that she had to have gotten the information she provided from someone other than Jeremy.
I do have proof. I have shown you again and again yet it don't sink in. So what more can I do? You simply saying I have no proof does not actually establish that I do not have any.
Your claim that only in my mind was Sheila murdered is sheer nonsense. There is a substantial amount of evidence proving Sheila was murdered. That you choose to ignore such evidence means nothing that is just in keeping with your nature.
You insist the blood in the moderator was planted but have no proof. Saying blood was not discovered inside until after Sheila came forward is not proof it was planted and worse it is not even true.
The "evidence" you use to conclude Shelia was murdered is "evidence" compiled by those who wanted a conviction for their own financial benefit. On top of that you ignore the photographic evidence on Sheila's neck showing the sound moderator was not attached when the bullets struck.
The evidence of his guilt is ironclad. Saying it is in my mind only is simply more evidence of you projecting. Little wonder why you won't post your supposed breakthrough you know we could dash it in 5 minutes.
If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes I would have no problem posting it in the first place. If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes NGB would not have publicly stated that its enough to secure JB another day in the court of appeal. If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes JBs lawyer would not have given me the time of day.
As AH told me don't go public with it because once the Crown know what it Is they will have more time to try and find excuses for it. After all the government has been withholding evidence from JBs defence since day one so why give them anything they don't yet need to know? what goes around comes around. Serious new findings need to be handled seriously and carefully and not just randomly posted on a public forum.
I have in last month made two other potential discoveries but wont go any further unless Jeremy is prepared to give me access to better quality photographs.
When the findings do eventually go public. It wont result in you dashing the evidence in 5 minutes but will instead probably result in you reflecting on your thousands of forum posts wondering how you got it all so terribly wrong.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 12:15:44 AM
Scipio I've highlighted the following in your post above 7th para down:
"She [JM] told Liz what happened" And "All police knew is that Liz claimed she [JM] told her certain things".
I can't find anywhere in JM's WS's where she refers to telling Liz anything about JB's involvement? Unlike SB where JM states where, when and what she told her in relations to JB's involvement.
JM produced a detailed WS in chronological order but absolutely nothing in her WS re telling Liz &%+((£ As I said in an earlier post CAL's book refers to Liz being told but this is in Liz's WS's and trial testimony only.
&%+((£
The conspiracy theorists would claim police and Julie tried to conceal the fact she only told them the truth after Liz blabbed to police and in response they questioned her again. Such would argue police didn't want to look stupid and they wanted Julie to look like she came clean solely because of her conscience.
I'm of the view this is not harmful so there is no reason to hide it though there was no reason to bother talking about it in the statement either because it was not important for the intentions of the statements. Obviously what Liz was told and did was important to Liz so she made sure to tell it but it wasn't really significant to the case in terms of evidence. Many investigative issues that lead to crucial evidence are only referenced on a few documents because they are important for investigative purposes not evidence.
That she told Liz such is hearsay. If one is trying to argue she made it up after speaking to police it helps prove that is not the case and that she said it prior. That is not proof that Jeremy told it to her of course she could have lied to Liz but one would have to come up with why she would bother lying to Liz and to establish the entire tale was a lie.
Making up a more complex lie of a hitman when Jeremy had no alibi is silly and naming the hitman so he would be able to prove the tale to be false even more silly. It is much more credible that Jeremy made up the hitman story. It is more credible Jeremy woke Julie up before phoning police to tell her they were dead than simply to say he received a distress call from Nevill and was worried. But none of this was in a vacuum. All the other evidence and issues are also important in evaluating the testimony.
Consider the following fact patterns:
A) Physical and medical evidence inconclusive as to whether man committed suicide by drowning himself or was drowned by someone else. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. Witness claims that before the body was found defendant told her he murdered his friend.
B) Physical and medical evidence inconclusive as to whether man committed suicide by drowning himself or was drowned by someone else. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. After body was found witness claims defendant told her he murdered his friend.
C) Same facts as A except man was known to be suicidal.
D) Same facts as B except man was known to be suicidal.
E) Physical and medical evidence establishes man was strangled then dumped in water to make it look like he drowned. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. Witness claims that prior to the body being found defendant told her he murdered his friend.
F) Same as E except man was known to be suicidal.
With respect to A-D. The witness testimony is what helps establish whether murder occurred or there was a suicide. With respect to E and F other evidence establishes it was a murder the testimony helps establish who the murderer was.
If someone is not known to be suicidal and other extraneous evidence can offer support to a witness account. The evidence proving the person was murdered for sure certainly adds some support. Here is a fact pattern where it does the opposite:
G) Evidence establishes victim was suicidal and left a note saying he was jumping off a bridge. Victim is found dead in water near bridge. Autopsy indicates victim drowned, eyes and neck have no signs of strangulation. After body is found defendant told witness he strangled the victim then wrote the suicide note and threw the dead body in the water.
In this instance the evidence indicates there was no murder and either the defendant lied to the witness or the witness made it up. Either way it can't be a basis to establish guild beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence proves that the victim drowned and wasn't strangled. If evidence is inconclusive that is one thing because then it can go either way so other evidence matters. But if evidence is conclusive about murder or conclusive that a murder didn't happen then that's the end of it.
In this case we have Jeremy aware that they were killed, he called police to report such. Prior to that he did in fact call Julie. Her claim of him calling to tell her they were dead is much more credible than his claim he did it to say he was worried. That he called her before police lends support to her other claims. It also severely hurts him because evidence establishes Nevill could not have made such a distress call. Reporting a fake distress call to provide an excuse for having knowledge they were killed when he should not have know such is quite bad. This supports her claim he is guilty and if he is guilty it is more believable he told her what she claimed.
This is not a case like A-D where the testimony establishes a murder occurred as opposed to a suicide. This is a case like E and F where extraneous evidence proves Sheila was murdered. In E and F the only evidence we have of who the murdered was came from the witness. But here we have the defendant directly notifying police he knew about the murder not merely notifying a friend. Jeremy didn't just screw up 1 thing he botched many different aspects.
I don't care how much evidence there is or what the crime is there will always be people who suggest evidence was planted, witnesses lied etc but just making such allegations are not enough. When people admit they lied, admit they planted evidence or there is irrefutable proof the evidence had to have been planted that is when someone will be exonerated. The more evidence that needs to have been planted and more complex the claims the less believable they become.
The pinnacle of this is the Steven Avery case. There are people saying that police murdered Halbach purely in order to frame Avery. Yet others say police knew who really killed her but decided to take advantage and let the killer go in favor of framing Avery. They argue police planted Halbach's vehicle on his property, planted his blood and other DNA of his inside her car, planted her burned remains on his property, planted a bullet with her DNA on his property, planted the remnants of her destroyed PDA and cell phone on his property, her key in his bedroom and other less significant evidence was also planted. The defense had no proof any let alone all of this evidence was planted. In fact, the FBI tested the blood source they claimed was used for the planting. They claimed the cops broke into the court clerk's office and stole blood from a sample that had been taken years earlier. The blood sample had EDTA but the blood stains in the car did not nor was any blood missing from the vial anyway. The jury rejected the unsupported framing claims. Supporters demand a new trial saying the jury got it wrong though they have no evidence greater than that put before the jury.
This case features a similar situation where there is no evidence that proves the jury got it wrong but supporters will claim such anyway and use social medial to try to put pressure on the authorities. In the Steven Avery case one such supporter who used social media to drum up support is his current attorney. She has mocked people who criticized her tactics as a waste of time saying public opinion is not going to sway appeal courts. She seems to think that public opinion can help her. That suggests she has zilch in a legal sense to raise because if you have valid legal argument you use that as opposed to constantly trying to drum up public opinion. That smacks of desperation or alternatively just a search for publicity.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 12:37:08 AM
I do have proof. I have shown you again and again yet it don't sink in. So what more can I do? You simply saying I have no proof does not actually establish that I do not have any.
You have proof in your mind only. All you have proven is that the family considered some of the issues that that Julie addressed but not all. That doesn't prove that Jeremy didn't tell Julie the things she claims no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise. The most important issues that no one other than Julie raised you ignore.
Your claim you have proof doesn't bear out when one analyzes your supposed proof.
The "evidence" you use to conclude Shelia was murdered is "evidence" compiled by those who wanted a conviction for their own financial benefit. On top of that you ignore the photographic evidence on Sheila's neck showing the sound moderator was not attached when the bullets struck.
The police would benefit financially how hilarious. The family didn't know squat about drawback let alone how to mimic it and didn't have a source of sheila's blood either or even have a way to know Sheila's blood type. You have no evidence to establish anyone planted blood in the moderator especially not the family. The only people with the know-how to plant such evidence would be the lab. The lab had no reason to do such and there is zilch to suggest they did. Far from ignoring anything I actually look at the issue rationally and objectively. You don't believe it was planted because you have any evidence but rather just because you want to.
Your claim that photos of her neck prove the moderator was not attached because there would have been a muzzle burn on her neck is patently false. Muzzle burns only happen during a hard contact shot and even then don't always occur. Her 1st wound was near-contact and the fatal shot was a soft contact shot. Making up that she would have to have a muzzle burn is another strawman and making up that the neck wound demonstrates a contact wound from the rifle barrel is equally false. These false claims were already rejected by the CCRC.
If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes I would have no problem posting it in the first place. If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes NGB would not have publicly stated that its enough to secure JB another day in the court of appeal. If my breakthrough could be dashed in 5 minutes JBs lawyer would not have given me the time of day.
As AH told me don't go public with it because once the Crown know what it Is they will have more time to try and find excuses for it. After all the government has been withholding evidence from JBs defence since day one so why give them anything they don't yet need to know? what goes around comes around. Serious new findings need to be handled seriously and carefully and not just randomly posted on a public forum.
I have in last month made two other potential discoveries but wont go any further unless Jeremy is prepared to give me access to better quality photographs.
When the findings do eventually go public. It wont result in you dashing the evidence in 5 minutes but will instead probably result in you reflecting on your thousands of forum posts wondering how you got it all so terribly wrong.
NGB has written many ludicrous things including saying he find it possible that police shot Sheila and moved her body from the kitchen. That he finds your claims credible means nothing at all. The way you test a claim is with an objective person or better yet a skeptic because if they can't dent it then you have something.
You are scared to let anyone not in the bag for Jeremy to test it and indeed that is your excuse for not posting it. You don't want to give the government the opportunity to try to test it and disprove it. The notion the government will run out to test any claim they see on here or blue is absurd. They will not get experts to test claims until they are raised through the proper legal procedure. In any event, if you claims are true they can withstand scrutiny and you would have nothing to fear. Saying you don't want them to have time to disprove your claims smacks of trying to sandbag them with a BS claim that you know will not hold up to scrutiny.
You make many BS arguments including the bogus claim that if the moderator were attached then Sheila's neck would have a muzzle burn. Given yo u believe such nonsense there is no doubt in my mind that these things you have come up with are also nonsense that can easily be dispatched which is why you are not going to reveal them.
You made the contradictory claim you posted about your breakthrough because the site was too quiet and you wanted to spark debate yet there was nothing that could be debated because you refused to reveal what your supposed breakthrough was. While you find yourself a bastion of logic it doesn't appear so to me. I see you guided by your own biases not logic.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 30, 2016, 02:47:47 AM
NGB has written many ludicrous things including saying he find it possible that police shot Sheila and moved her body from the kitchen. That he finds your claims credible means nothing at all. The way you test a claim is with an objective person or better yet a skeptic because if they can't dent it then you have something.
You are scared to let anyone not in the bag for Jeremy to test it and indeed that is your excuse for not posting it. You don't want to give the government the opportunity to try to test it and disprove it. The notion the government will run out to test any claim they see on here or blue is absurd. They will not get experts to test claims until they are raised through the proper legal procedure. In any event, if you claims are true they can withstand scrutiny and you would have nothing to fear. Saying you don't want them to have time to disprove your claims smacks of trying to sandbag them with a BS claim that you know will not hold up to scrutiny.
You make many BS arguments including the bogus claim that if the moderator were attached then Sheila's neck would have a muzzle burn. Given yo u believe such nonsense there is no doubt in my mind that these things you have come up with are also nonsense that can easily be dispatched which is why you are not going to reveal them.
You made the contradictory claim you posted about your breakthrough because the site was too quiet and you wanted to spark debate yet there was nothing that could be debated because you refused to reveal what your supposed breakthrough was. While you find yourself a bastion of logic it doesn't appear so to me. I see you guided by your own biases not logic.
It gives me some satisfaction that you think I am bluffing, either because you grossly underestimate me or because contemplating the alternative is too hard for you to swallow.
Its almost like a poker game, Your at the end of the table all self-satisfied and complacent convinced I am bluffing with a Low Pair when in actual fact I have a Royal Flush. Don't get me wrong I have been tempted to show you in order to wipe the smug grin off your face but instead I will pro long the status quo with you sitting there not knowing what's coming.
Instead of digging deeper to decipher disentangle the case you fell for the police whitewash reports and sugar coated public appeal judgments and shame on you for doing so.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 03:05:48 AM
It gives me some satisfaction that you think I am bluffing, either because you grossly underestimate me or because contemplating the alternative is too hard for you to swallow.
Its almost like a poker game, Your at the end of the table all self-satisfied and complacent convinced I am bluffing with a Low Pair when in actual fact I have a Royal Flush. Don't get me wrong I have been tempted to show you in order to wipe the smug grin off your face but instead I will pro long the status quo with you sitting there not knowing what's coming.
Instead of digging deeper to decipher disentangle the case you fell for the police whitewash reports and sugar coated public appeal judgments and shame on you for doing so.
You misjudge me. I don't think you are bluffing. I know that you don't know how to play poker and honestly but erroneously think you have a royal flush when you actually have no hand at all.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 08:13:23 AM
I think it's a case of either seeing JM as a reliable prosecution witness or not. Personally I don't see her as reliable. I have found a number of inconsistencies in her WS's. A couple of examples are as follows:
1. It was JM's 21st birthday on 26th Aug '85. Her mother arranged a family dinner at a restaurant near Colchester. JB and BC attended.
JM's WS's provide brief details of most days in chronological order. However in her 8th/9th Sept WS she states "On the Bank Holiday Monday, 26th August nothing of interest happened":
Then in her WS of 23rd Sept she states "I have been asked about my movements on 26th August 1985, I can say that I did not go to the Whitehouse on that day. I believe that during the early part of the morning Jeremy went to the Whitehouse alone, returning around lunchtime. He made no comment about who he saw or what he done there. As far as I am aware he did not go back to the Whitehouse that day as we left between 2pm and 2.30pm and went to London.
2. Also in the bottom of the two WS's above she states "I can say that when Jeremy telephoned me at 10pm on the 6th August, Sue Battersby was in the flat and would have heard me speaking on the phone."
The property she shared with Sue Battersby was in fact a house not a flat. From SB's WS:
"The premises are a semi-detached three bedroom house".
Come on girls get your stories right. You're not talking about some girly gossip here. You're talking 5 murders. Either it was discussed on one occasion or a number of occasions.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 09:05:20 AM
The conspiracy theorists would claim police and Julie tried to conceal the fact she only told them the truth after Liz blabbed to police and in response they questioned her again. Such would argue police didn't want to look stupid and they wanted Julie to look like she came clean solely because of her conscience.
I'm of the view this is not harmful so there is no reason to hide it though there was no reason to bother talking about it in the statement either because it was not important for the intentions of the statements. Obviously what Liz was told and did was important to Liz so she made sure to tell it but it wasn't really significant to the case in terms of evidence. Many investigative issues that lead to crucial evidence are only referenced on a few documents because they are important for investigative purposes not evidence.
That she told Liz such is hearsay. If one is trying to argue she made it up after speaking to police it helps prove that is not the case and that she said it prior. That is not proof that Jeremy told it to her of course she could have lied to Liz but one would have to come up with why she would bother lying to Liz and to establish the entire tale was a lie.
We don't have access to LR's WS or trial testimony but as I previously said according to CAL's book JM told LR about JB's involvement on 1st Sept. CAL has quoted LR's WS and trial testimony as her source.
JM includes a lot of irrelevant info in her WS eg on 25th Aug JB, BC and JM picked up LR and they all went to Notting Hill carnival. When they returned they stopped at LR's for coffee.
JM tells in detail when, where and what she told SB about JB's involvement. According to JM's WS this was 27th Aug.
Why would she leave out when, where and what she told Liz on 1st Sept?
Why wouldn't EP say we need you to include when, where and what you told Liz?
If EP were being objective they would want to take the young women's accounts via their WS's and compare and contrast them for inconsistencies which obviously helps to determine whether or not they are being truthful. I ask myself why they didn't do this and/or attempt a taped confession from JB about his involvement? The answer I believe is that their WS's were coerced. EP didn't attempt a taped confession as there was no confession in any shape or form as JB had no involvement whatsoever in the murders.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 30, 2016, 05:51:37 PM
I've been looking through JM's statements and what stood out to me was that JM appeared to know a lot about JB's drug dealings, in fact helping to sell Cannabis for him. JM 10th September 1985 statement. This wasn't know by the relations only NB. who put a stop to it at the farm. I think there could have been a lot more to these drug dealings than his relations knew at the time. JB's friends knew about the drugs as they probably bought some. This wasn't used in the trial, as the police were only interested in proving JB did the murders......BUT! did Taffy Jones see the bigger picture in wanting to catch a murderer and at the same time bust a drug ring!
Did Mathew McDonald pressure JB for drugs money before the murders...did others pressure JB for drugs money before the murders? This in turn could also be the reason for the murders at WHF...Did JB need a large amount of money to pay someone? Could this be the reason for JB telling JM that MM had committed the murders for a sum of £2,000? hence framing him. ( MM was only an acquaintance of JB's so why implement him in the murders) JB earned the equivalent today of around £6,000 in one year dealing in drugs! (£ 800.00/£900.00 a year in 1984) a lot of money! Trips to Amsterdam and Scotland were for drug related purposes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=283.0 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=57.0
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 07:09:58 PM
We don't have access to LR's WS or trial testimony but as I previously said according to CAL's book JM told LR about JB's involvement on 1st Sept. CAL has quoted LR's WS and trial testimony as her source.
JM includes a lot of irrelevant info in her WS eg on 25th Aug JB, BC and JM picked up LR and they all went to Notting Hill carnival. When they returned they stopped at LR's for coffee.
JM tells in detail when, where and what she told SB about JB's involvement. According to JM's WS this was 27th Aug.
Why would she leave out when, where and what she told Liz on 1st Sept?
Why wouldn't EP say we need you to include when, where and what you told Liz?
If EP were being objective they would want to take the young women's accounts via their WS's and compare and contrast them for inconsistencies which obviously helps to determine whether or not they are being truthful. I ask myself why they didn't do this and/or attempt a taped confession from JB about his involvement? The answer I believe is that their WS's were coerced. EP didn't attempt a taped confession as there was no confession in any shape or form as JB had no involvement whatsoever in the murders.
While you consider her interactions with Jeremy to be trivial she didn't nor did police. They wound up interviewing Collins as a result of what she told them. Moreover, this helped piece together her relationship with Jeremy and when they broke up etc.
They got Liz to give her own statement as to what she was told. You still don't get it that police don't have to get statements period let alone to have people included every little detail. Police record things they consider important in their notes and when considered extremely important to a case they will make sure such things are included in a statement. Those statements are for the benefit of prosecutors and senior staff. They were not int he room interviewing the suspects and want to be spoon fed with the most important points. Sometimes they give people a lot of leeway like they did with Julie and Ann to include whatever they wanted but would ask specific issues be addresses and if they failed to broach something very important then they would ask the person to address such issue.
A statement doesn't reflect everything the person told police. They spoke at length before she gave her statement. They didn't believe her at first. Only after they believed her did they decide to get a statement from her.
The police witness statement is obtained for a similar reason that lawyers obtain affidavits. We don't obtain affidavits that are wide ranging. We will want affidavits to address specific issues of significance. So instead of me having to represent to someone that witness A told me or someone else ... I will have a document signed by the witness himself/herself saying such issue. Would you rather have to search for and read through all the notes taken by a subordinate investigating a matter or just see nice neat statements with the evidence of import that were discovered? Sometimes police have to give witnesses leeway and a lot of worthless crap ends up inside but that is the nature of the beast and sometimes things that seem insignificant initially are later are found to be significant. Some statements included things said in previous statements but they wanted them in an independent ones to highlight the point to those at the top lest they missed it in the prior statements. Also they might get a statement to get clarification of an ambiguous point/issue. Statements are supposed to be pointed not all inclusive. While affidavits are for the benefit of those at the top it also can be to cover your butt. People can forget things or can lie. You want the person to sign the document admit to what they wrote so that it is documented and they won't be able to say no I didn't tell you that or I don't remember such. Such things can be used for aiding memories not just preventing them from lying. If you allow ambiguity though you allow them wiggle room.
A transcript in contrast represents the entirety of a conversation. They tape recorded Jeremy's interrogation as well as that of MacDonald. Because it became standard practice for defendants to lie saying the police made up them confessing or accusing police of coercing them it was good policy to tape all interviews so that they would have the ability to disprove such claims. Not all departments always did so though. In part because of such concerns in 1984 the following law was passed:
Tape-recording of interviews
(1)It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—
(a)to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons suspected of the commission of criminal offences which are held by police officers at police stations ; and
(b)to make an order requiring the tape-recording of interviews of persons suspected of the commission of criminal offences, or of such descriptions of criminal offences as may be specified in the order, which are so held, in accordance with the code as it has effect for the time being.
(2)An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
---
As a result the Secretary of State's Office promulgated rules that any questioning of those after cautioning a suspect for select crimes must be taped. One of those select crimes was murder. They were cautioned for murder as such the interrogations were taped as required by regulation. They didn't confess to any crimes though. Jeremy's lawyer was even present during some of his questioning.
Lying to a criminal about certain things is permissible. In the US it is permissible to lie about just about anything. Let's suppose a suspect tells a criminal his DNA was found in a rape kit. If the suspect didn't have sex with the victim then he suspect would say that is impossible and must be a mistake because he never met the victim or knew the victim but never had sex or never had sex on that day. If a man in such a situation changes his story and says he had consensual sex with the victim but didn't kill her then it is because he knows it is possible his DNA was found. In the Kercher murder case (Knox case is a misnomer) Guede initially stated he was not there period. When evidence surfaced proving he was there and had sex with her he claimed it was consensual sex and he left before she was murdered. When he was notified his prints were in her blood then he claimed she was killed while he was in a toilet far from the room and he only came out to check on her after the killer left and thus he got her blood on him. The police turned out to be telling the truth about such evidence but what if they had lied? If innocent he would have known they were lying or at the very least mistaken and would not change his story and make up innocent excuses for his DNA to be found there and prints being found in her blood. If he was never there he would maintain such.
He was guilty and still would not confess. He just kept changing his story trying to come up with excuses. Innocent people who know their prints can't be there in blood or know their DNA can't be there unless some error occurred are not going to say oh well you got me and confess. If a response to false police claims about having evidence is, "oh well you got me" and a confession it is because they did it and believe they could have left such evidence behind for police to find. Police lying doesn't often result in immediate outright confessions rather it usually results in the suspect coming up with new stories and this eventually leading to new information and eventually the suspect digging their hole so deep that eventually they are stuck and can either confess or give up talking altogether because they realize they are trapped and can't make up any additional lies to help matters.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 07:13:32 PM
I've been looking through JM's statements and what stood out to me was that JM appeared to know a lot about JB's drug dealings, in fact helping to sell Cannabis for him. JM 10th September 1985 statement. This wasn't know by the relations only NB. who put a stop to it at the farm. I think there could have been a lot more to these drug dealings than his relations knew at the time. JB's friends knew about the drugs as they probably bought some. This wasn't used in the trial, as the police were only interested in proving JB did the murders......BUT! did Taffy Jones see the bigger picture in wanting to catch a murderer and at the same time bust a drug ring!
Did Mathew McDonald pressure JB for drugs money before the murders...did others pressure JB for drugs money before the murders? This in turn could also be the reason for the murders at WHF...Did JB need a large amount of money to pay someone? Could this be the reason for JB telling JM that MM had committed the murders for a sum of £2,000? hence framing him. ( MM was only an acquaintance of JB's so why implement him in the murders) JB earned the equivalent today of around £6,000 in one year dealing in drugs! (£ 800.00/£900.00 a year in 1984) a lot of money! Trips to Amsterdam and Scotland were for drug related purposes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=283.0 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=57.0
It seems a lot of JB's friends/acquaintances used cannabis: JM, Suzette Ford, MM. I would be surprised if some of the others that formed JB/JM's circle didn't also indulge.
I'm not too sure the police would be that bothered by small scale production and distribution?
Why would JB owe money? Wouldn't it be the other way round if he was the supplier? MM supplied JB with hemp seeds. JB produced the cannabis and he and others distributed it. I'm not sure where you get the figure of 6k from? I've calculated £850 in 1995 using UK inflation data = £1,985 today. Clearly this sort of money (or even the figure of 6K you've quoted) from drug crime pales into insignificance compared with 5 murders.
JM said there was a market on campus. SB and JR house shared with JM and also attended the same uni. Were they also dealing?
JM and JB were both users. JM admitted to experimenting with cannabis in her WS. I think JB might have dabbled with the harder stuff too. Anyway both worked at Sloppy Joes owned by Malcolm Waters and managed by Liz Rimmington. At one time JB house shared with Malcolm Waters, Michael Deckers and Liz Rimmington. Liz Rimmington was at some stage in a relationship with Malcolm Waters. Liz Rimmington and JM were good friends. Malcolm Waters and Michael Deckers also owned the Frog and Bean wine bar where they all hang out: MM, Suzette Ford, Christine Bacon (girlfriend of MM's, friend of Suzette Ford's), JM, JB, LR. Sloppy Joes had a cocktail bar so potentially this venue and the Frog and Bean provided a market for cannabis?
I agree when you read JM's WS's cannabis featured a lot in various ways. Have you read MM's WS's?
My view is that EP were listening in on the properties and simply used the drugs angle to get those that testified against JB to comply. If you read SB's WS's she says she didn't like JB/JM bringing drugs into the house as JR and the other guy sharing the house, Dougie Dale I think, were also attached to the army and would potentially get kicked out if anything came to light.
EP might have threatened to close down Sloppy Joes/Frog and Bean if EP had evidence of dealing on the premises.
RB does say in his WS/diary something like had JB sold his soul to the devil and something about an expensive drug habit.
We only have JM's word that JB implicated MM.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 07:18:58 PM
I've been looking through JM's statements and what stood out to me was that JM appeared to know a lot about JB's drug dealings, in fact helping to sell Cannabis for him. JM 10th September 1985 statement. This wasn't know by the relations only NB. who put a stop to it at the farm. I think there could have been a lot more to these drug dealings than his relations knew at the time. JB's friends knew about the drugs as they probably bought some. This wasn't used in the trial, as the police were only interested in proving JB did the murders......BUT! did Taffy Jones see the bigger picture in wanting to catch a murderer and at the same time bust a drug ring!
Did Mathew McDonald pressure JB for drugs money before the murders...did others pressure JB for drugs money before the murders? This in turn could also be the reason for the murders at WHF...Did JB need a large amount of money to pay someone? Could this be the reason for JB telling JM that MM had committed the murders for a sum of £2,000? hence framing him. ( MM was only an acquaintance of JB's so why implement him in the murders) JB earned the equivalent today of around £6,000 in one year dealing in drugs! (£ 800.00/£900.00 a year in 1984) a lot of money! Trips to Amsterdam and Scotland were for drug related purposes. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=283.0 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=57.0
Her statement indicates he was a smallfry distributor. On his own he didn't even have the capacity to sell the limited amount he grew. He mailed it to dealers and even had to enlist her to help get rid of it because hhe didn;t have enough drug dealer customers. He was not the drug dealer on the corner who potentially owed middlemen. Nothing indicates he owed anyone money and needed to kill in order to save himself. The evidence is that he had been planning long term to commit the murders.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 09:33:57 PM
Her statement indicates he was a smallfry distributor. On his own he didn't even have the capacity to sell the limited amount he grew. He mailed it to dealers and even had to enlist her to help get rid of it because hhe didn;t have enough drug dealer customers. He was not the drug dealer on the corner who potentially owed middlemen. Nothing indicates he owed anyone money and needed to kill in order to save himself. The evidence is that he had been planning long term to commit the murders.
Not much opportunity down on the farm! JM distributed on campus. Maybe JM's housemates who testified against JB: James Richard and Susan Battersby also distributed?
Maybe another outlet was Sloppy Joes/Frog and Bean? Owned by Malcolm Waters (and Michael Deckers) and managed by Elizabeth Rimmington both whom testified against JB? Malcolm Waters and Elizabeth Rimmington were at one time in a relationship.
Did it stop at cannabis or was JB producing/selling anything form the licenced poppy (opium/heroin) fields at WHF?
MM supplied JB with the hemp seeds.
The plot thickens ?>)()<
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 10:07:47 PM
Were those that testified against JB: Julie Mugford, Susan Battersby, Elizabeth Rimmington and James Richard let off drug related crimes for testifying against JB?
JM refers to snorting coke in a hotel with some guys she met at a nightclub. She refers to "we" but it's unclear who she is referring to:
She also refers to a friend Stephanie Checkley supplying her with some cannabis. And refers to Charles Marsden declining cannabis because he had a bad chest implying, maybe, he was usually a user. Charles didn't testify against JB but said something about JB told him if WHF burned down at Christmas when the family gathered and everyone died other than himself it would all be his &%+((£
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 30, 2016, 10:10:17 PM
Her statement indicates he was a smallfry distributor. On his own he didn't even have the capacity to sell the limited amount he grew. He mailed it to dealers and even had to enlist her to help get rid of it because hhe didn;t have enough drug dealer customers. He was not the drug dealer on the corner who potentially owed middlemen. Nothing indicates he owed anyone money and needed to kill in order to save himself. The evidence is that he had been planning long term to commit the murders.
Athough JM was involved regarding the drugs.. I do not think she was aware of how involved JB was! You make the point that JB couldn't even sell the limited amount he grew....exactly! Whether a small fry or not JB could possibly have owed money, or even have owed money for his own use of drugs. JB had been speaking of murdering his family for at least a year before the murders... JM statement Actually in the same year that he began growing Cannabis. Could JB also think he was going to crack...excuse the pun....the drug market when he told A.E in a couple of year's they would be rich...or words to that effect. A.E later attributed this to the forthcoming murders. For whatever reason JB certainly had it in for MM.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 30, 2016, 10:56:21 PM
It seems a lot of JB's friends/acquaintances used cannabis: JM, Suzette Ford, MM. I would be surprised if some of the others that formed JB/JM's circle didn't also indulge. I agree!
I'm not too sure the police would be that bothered by small scale production and distribution? I'm sure they wouldn't have bothered, But was it so small scale? MM told JB a deal had fell though in London. Then we've got the Amsterdam and Scotland trips all of which were to do with drug deals.
Why would JB owe money? Wouldn't it be the other way round if he was the supplier? MM supplied JB with hemp seeds. JB produced the cannabis and he and others distributed it. So why the trips to Amsterdam and Scotland? Plus JB was having stuff sent to him through the post. I'm not talking of just cannabis here but the many trips abroad for drugs I'm not sure where you get the figure of 6k from? I've calculated £850 in 1995 using UK inflation data = £1,985 today. I thought I'd put 1984 not 1995...? Around The time of the murders. Clearly this sort of money (or even the figure of 6K you've quoted) from drug crime pales into insignificance compared with 5 murders. Of course.... the amount I meant was what JB would have earned on his Cannabis not what he may have owed for other drugs. if supplied
JM said there was a market on campus. SB and JR house shared with JM and also attended the same uni. Were they also dealing?At this time it was rife I don't think SB was dealing though as she was against JB having any in the house and stopped her. JB hated this and threw a cake into her face at a party.
JM and JB were both users. JM admitted to experimenting with cannabis in her WS. I think JB might have dabbled with the harder stuff too. JM admitted to trying the hard stuff but only a small piece and didn't use it again. (before JB days Anyway both worked at Sloppy Joes owned by Malcolm Waters and managed by Liz Rimmington. At one time JB house shared with Malcolm Waters, Michael Deckers and Liz Rimmington. Liz Rimmington was at some stage in a relationship with Malcolm Waters. Liz Rimmington and JM were good friends. Malcolm Waters and Michael Deckers also owned the Frog and Bean wine bar where they all hang out: MM, Suzette Ford, Christine Bacon (girlfriend of MM's, friend of Suzette Ford's), JM, JB, LR. Sloppy Joes had a cocktail bar so potentially this venue and the Frog and Bean provided a market for cannabis? We've had public houses for 30 years...now that's ageing me! So believe me it's damn hard to keep drugs out of pubs, Although we were always on top of it.... there are some nasty people out there where drugs are concerned! I agree when you read JM's WS's cannabis featured a lot in various ways. Have you read MM's WS's?Yes I have, it's hard to read though. I don't for one minute believe MM only gave Cannabis to his friends and didn't charge for it.
My view is that EP were listening in on the properties and simply used the drugs angle to get those that testified against JB to comply. If you read SB's WS's she says she didn't like JB/JM bringing drugs into the house as JR and the other guy sharing the house, Dougie Dale I think, were also attached to the army and would potentially get kicked out if anything came to light. See my reply above.
EP might have threatened to close down Sloppy Joes/Frog and Bean if EP had evidence of dealing on the premises. Certainly.
RB does say in his WS/diary something like had JB sold his soul to the devil and something about an expensive drug habit. It makes you wonder if A E also knew about JB's drug habit
We only have JM's word that JB implicated MM. But we do know for certain that MM was an acquaintance of JB's by his own W/S
One other point is that if JB was dealing in drugs on someone else's patch he would be in serious trouble...small fry dealer or not!...JB was greedy for money anyway, anyhow.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 30, 2016, 11:17:42 PM
Has anyone seen the film 'Fatal Vision'? apparently it freaked JB because it's a true story of an army man who killed his wife and two children...then rang the police!
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 11:21:21 PM
on 7th Aug Dr Craig asked Chief Sup Harris if WHF was licenced to grow the opium poppy which he observed in a field. Chief Sup said he wasn't.
Was WHF licenced? From my very limited research it seems the UK gov issued the first licences in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_somniferum
Medical cultivation in the UK
"In late 2006, the British government permitted the pharmaceutical company Macfarlan Smith (a Johnson Matthey company, FTSE 100) to cultivate opium poppies in England for medicinal reasons[39] after Macfarlan Smith's primary source, India, decided to increase the price of export opium latex. This move is well received by British farmers,[citation needed] with a major opium poppy field based in Didcot, England. As of 2012, they were growing in Dorset, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire as a spring-sown breakcrop recognised under the single payment scheme farm subsidy.[40] The Office of Fair Trading has alerted the government to their monopoly position on growing in the UK and worldwide production of diamorphine and recommended consideration.[39] The government's response advocated the status quo, being concerned interference might cause the company to stop production.[41]"
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 11:28:47 PM
If, and it's a bloody big if, WHF was not licenced to grow opium poppy it may well be a reason for avoiding the police visiting at all costs.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 30, 2016, 11:54:41 PM
If, and it's a bloody big if, WHF was not licenced to grow opium poppy it may well be a reason for avoiding the police visiting at all costs.
Police going to WHF because of a disturbance in the residence would not be apt to go check the fields to see what was growing. They only checked everywhere because everyone was dead. In any event Jeremy was the one growing drugs there and it was not a large cultivation. At best it shows he didn't have much respect for the law that he would not only use drugs but grow them to sell. That adds very little to the case.
If he were making sizable proceeds selling drugs grown on his parent's property the potential they found out and were going to turn him in or burn the crops and prevent him from ever doing it again would provide a motive for murdering them. But it would only be a motive to kill them not everyone and such a thing would not be planned it would be a crime of necessity that arose. This featured nothing of the sort. He was a small fry and nothing suggests that he killed them because they discovered he was conducing illegal activity.
If Jeremy were a target for selling drugs they would go after him not kill his family and leave him alone. Moreover, I never heard of drug dealers showing up to kill an entire household with no weapon and searching the house for a weapon to use in order to stage a murder suicide scenario.
I think drugs cause overactive imaginations- not only people who use them but people who don't use them who have fanciful notions.
If you want to look at areal drug related crime for growing drugs look to the recent Ohio Rhoden family Massacre. Things like this are rare outside of the third world (in Mexico and the third world this is common). Note how the killers there brought their won weapons and killed everyone without any effort to stage things. When they kill to send a sign they send a sign. The intent is for people to know it is murder.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 30, 2016, 11:58:16 PM
It seems the first crop authorised by UK Gov/Home Office was 2002.
Police going to WHF because of a disturbance in the residence would not be apt to go check the fields to see what was growing. They only checked everywhere because everyone was dead. In any event Jeremy was the one growing drugs there and it was not a large cultivation. At best it shows he didn't have much respect for the law that he would not only use drugs but grow them to sell. That adds very little to the case.
If he were making sizable proceeds selling drugs grown on his parent's property the potential they found out and were going to turn him in or burn the crops and prevent him from ever doing it again would provide a motive for murdering them. But it would only be a motive to kill them not everyone and such a thing would not be planned it would be a crime of necessity that arose. This featured nothing of the sort. He was a small fry and nothing suggests that he killed them because they discovered he was conducing illegal activity.
If Jeremy were a target for selling drugs they would go after him not kill his family and leave him alone. Moreover, I never heard of drug dealers showing up to kill an entire household with no weapon and searching the house for a weapon to use in order to stage a murder suicide scenario.
I think drugs cause overactive imaginations- not only people who use them but people who don't use them who have fanciful notions.
If you want to look at areal drug related crime for growing drugs look to the recent Ohio Rhoden family Massacre. Things like this are rare outside of the third world (in Mexico and the third world this is common). Note how the killers there brought their won weapons and killed everyone without any effort to stage things. When they kill to send a sign they send a sign. The intent is for people to know it is murder.
You might recall Dr Craig walked with JB along some path on morning of 7th and identified the opium poppy growing. I've provided Chief Sup Harris' WS confirming such.
I think I recall NB assigned a few acres for JB to manage but I can't believe NB wasn't overseeing him. If Dr Craig observed in darkness I'm sure NB was aware.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 31, 2016, 01:05:39 AM
You might recall Dr Craig walked with JB along some path on morning of 7th and identified the opium poppy growing. I've provided Chief Sup Harris' WS confirming such.
I think I recall NB assigned a few acres for JB to manage but I can't believe NB wasn't overseeing him. If Dr Craig observed in darkness I'm sure NB was aware.
It said Craig thought there was a small field of opium poppy. That doesn't mean he was right about it being opium poppy he could have been wrong. Police have mistaken poppy weeds for opium. Even if it was though, it was a small field and they lacked the technology to harvest opium from it. Opium cultivation is only profitable when you farm it large scale. The farmer doesn't get that much for it from a drug cartel. That pay is worth more in 3rd world countries and the legal risk less severe so that is why it is mostly grown there.
If Jeremy was making big bucks as a drug dealer he could have told his family to go to Hell and simply made his own way without them. In the meantime he was planning to sell the farm. If he had killed them in order to take over the farm to build some big drug operation he would not have been planning to sell it. I don't see any of the drug claims as being relevant in any way to the murders or even worthy of consideration as a standalone. To me I simply a "yawn".
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on May 31, 2016, 07:48:20 AM
If Jerry was a poppy head, he'd probably have been like Ringo, going round signing "peace and love" to everyone he met... but there's no mention of that in any of the witness statements.
It said Craig thought there was a small field of opium poppy. That doesn't mean he was right about it being opium poppy he could have been wrong. Police have mistaken poppy weeds for opium. Even if it was though, it was a small field and they lacked the technology to harvest opium from it. Opium cultivation is only profitable when you farm it large scale. The farmer doesn't get that much for it from a drug cartel. That pay is worth more in 3rd world countries and the legal risk less severe so that is why it is mostly grown there.
If Jeremy was making big bucks as a drug dealer he could have told his family to go to Hell and simply made his own way without them. In the meantime he was planning to sell the farm. If he had killed them in order to take over the farm to build some big drug operation he would not have been planning to sell it. I don't see any of the drug claims as being relevant in any way to the murders or even worthy of consideration as a standalone. To me I simply a "yawn".
EP didn't identify the opium poppy it was Dr Craig a medical doctor of some 30 years experience. He would surely know an opium poppy when he saw one since it is used for morphine production. He identified it from afar whilst walking with JB. He then alerted Chief Sup Harris to it and the pair investigated by looking at a small area in a field. It doesn't make clear the total area used just that they looked at a small area. The farm/NB were known for their innovation/crop diversity eg evening primrose oil.
Yes it seems extracting the poppy seeds and turning them into Heroin is a complex business and beyond the likes of JB. But there could be other more legitimate markets such as shipping it outside UK to a pharmaceutical company if NB was involved. Or JB might have simply grown the poppies for a drug cartel who had the means to produce heroin but I find this difficult to believe as the field was clearly visible and I don't think NB would condone this.
If NB was aware the farm was growing a crop it was not licenced for it may have been a reason to avoid the police calling..
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 31, 2016, 08:09:43 AM
If Jerry was a poppy head, he'd probably have been like Ringo, going round signing "peace and love" to everyone he met... but there's no mention of that in any of the witness statements.
There's no mention of JB attempting anything beyond cultivating cannabis plants. But if the farm had secured an overseas market eg pharmaceutical company all concerned may have kept quiet. It appears the UK Government issued the first licences in 2002.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 31, 2016, 10:42:37 AM
One other point is that if JB was dealing in drugs on someone else's patch he would be in serious trouble...small fry dealer or not!...JB was greedy for money anyway, anyhow.
Did JB take drug related trips to Scotland? I thought he picked up a hitch-hiker who was based in Scotland and they ended up making an arrangement whereby JB sent packages via the post and the hitch- hiker mailed JB £100.
Apparently BC had a brother in Holland. When JB, JM, and BC visited post murders it seems they went to some cafe where they were given a menu and tried different types. Maybe what they brought back into the UK was for own use or JB hoped to cultivate different types.
Sorry typo. I calculated £850 based on 1985 using UK inflation figs for today and arrived at £1,985. I also said JM experimented with cannabis and I meant to say cocaine. I sound decidedly boring by comparison 8(8-)) I've only ever tried smoking dope a few times many years ago but as I've never smoked conventional cigs it didn't seem to have any effect. Maybe a couple of times it did but I couldn't be sure whether it was the cannabis or alcohol. I've always been happy with a beer and couple of glasses of wine.
SB said she was against JB/JM brining drugs into the house but we only have her word for that or EP's if her WS was coerced. These girls were not goody two shoes. I'm of a similar age and background and it wouldn't have even entered my head to commit cheque fraud. And in JM's case distribute drugs and assist a boyfriend break into the family firm and steal a few hundred quid. I can't think of any girls I hang out with that would do these sorts of things. It wouldn't have even been a case of weighing up the risks it simply wouldn't have even entered my head. SB said she accompanied JM to a bank to obtain some plastic money bags for the cannabis.
Yes I agree if you sent testers into every licensed premises in the land they would probably find traces of drugs on the premises of all. But if LR and Malcolm Waters/Michael Deckers were involved they were the proprietors/managers and holders of the licence for alcohol. This is different from say JB trading a bit of dope on the premises. If EP were aware they were aware or part of then potentially they could shut the places down and their livlihoods and reputations would be in tatters.
There's certainly some evidence EP could potentially have used the drugs angle on many of those that testified against JB.
I'm not sure JB was treading on anyones toes? It seems his market was middle classe types at uni and in wine bars.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 31, 2016, 10:46:40 AM
JM was also very good friends with Karen Bishop (KB) who she met while working at Sloppy Joes. JM was a bridesmaid for KB so pretty good friends. In CAL's book JM tells she hinted to KB about JB's involvement but stopped short of telling her. Why tell SB and LR and not KB? Could the reason for this be that KB had no involvement with drugs and therefore EP would not be able to coerce her into anything?
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 31, 2016, 10:52:50 AM
JM's WS details how JB cultivated the cannabis plants and used various fertilizers. I remember posting on Blue how I thought it was a strange coincidence that SC and Suzette Ford both experienced several miscarriages. I think with SC there was some gyne problem but I do wonder if it was anything to do with the cannabis they both smoked. Although there doesn't seem to be any evidence JB supplied SC.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: david1819 on May 31, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
If Jerry was a poppy head, he'd probably have been like Ringo, going round signing "peace and love" to everyone he met... but there's no mention of that in any of the witness statements.
Opiates don't typically have a "peace and love" effect. However if he was an addict prosecutors could argue the addiction and financial costs of such addiction could be motive for killing everyone for inheritance.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 31, 2016, 02:40:52 PM
It said Craig thought there was a small field of opium poppy. That doesn't mean he was right about it being opium poppy he could have been wrong. Police have mistaken poppy weeds for opium. Even if it was though, it was a small field and they lacked the technology to harvest opium from it. Opium cultivation is only profitable when you farm it large scale. The farmer doesn't get that much for it from a drug cartel. That pay is worth more in 3rd world countries and the legal risk less severe so that is why it is mostly grown there. I agree, these opium poppies would not have made JB lots of money.
If Jeremy was making big bucks as a drug dealer he could have told his family to go to Hell and simply made his own way without them. IF JB was making big bucks! I'm surmising he wasn't, this being the reason he could have been in trouble financially... he owed money. Which ever way you look at it, there was trouble at the farm that made JB kill his family. This had been building up for some time. JB wanted his inheritance sooner rather than later...why? In the meantime he was planning to sell the farm. If he had killed them in order to take over the farm to build some big drug operation he would not have been planning to sell it. JB's interests were NOT in the farm he wanted the money! I don't see any of the drug claims as being relevant in any way to the murders or even worthy of consideration as a standalone. To me I simply a "yawn".
Yes, I understand you don't agree. You are looking solely at the murders, I was looking at a possible cause for them
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 31, 2016, 03:19:13 PM
Yes, I understand you don't agree. You are looking solely at the murders, I was looking at a possible cause for them
I don't see the drug issue as being a potential cause for the murders. Jeremy was engaging in long term planning to kill everyone so he would gain the entire wealth of his family. His timetable featured when His entire family was staying under 1 roof. He needed them under 1 roof because 2 or more homicide events would be more suspicious plus his selected plan was to pretend Sheila killed everyone else then herself. When and where was set around this.
From a legal standpoint the only reason to allow Julie to even tell a jury about the other crimes was so that they could see her complete relationship with Jeremy. The fact he involved her in selling his drugs for him and took her along to burglarize the caravan site demonstrates he trusted her and makes it more likely he would also be willing to tell her about other crimes. It goes to her relationship with him.
If not for that aspect they should not even be allowed before the jury because they would be more prejudicial than probative. The 2 big picture considerations in weighing admissibility in court are 1) is the evidence inherently reliable (for example hearsay is inherently unreliable hence why it is generally not allowed) and 2) is the evidence more probative than prejudicial. Probative means is it relevant. If evidence is relevant but it's relevance is limited and it has a better chance of causing prejudice than to prove something important then it will be not allowed before the trier of fact. Prior bad acts are often kept out on such basis. Moreso prior bad acts are used to establish habit evidence or something else other than to argue the person did this prior bad act so is a bad person who probably committed the crime being tried for as well because he committed past crimes.
Motive is one of the exceptions to hearsay and a purpose for which prior bad acts could be used to establish, so in the legal sense is ok to use. But I see nothing that indicates drugs had anything to do with Jeremy's motive for killing everyone. Drugs played no role in the motive under Julie's account and no one else has any account that involved drugs as a motive for him to kill them. The most simple explanation is often the actual one and in this case that is the desire to get everything Jeremy's family owned. This lack of evidence to tie it to motive reduces the probative value. In court you can't just make an argument that has no support.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on May 31, 2016, 06:34:42 PM
Did JB take drug related trips to Scotland? I thought he picked up a hitch-hiker who was based in Scotland and they ended up making an arrangement whereby JB sent packages via the post and the hitch- hiker mailed JB £100. Of course you are right Holly, it was Amsterdam JB was dealing in drugs according to CAL But, in 1985 Essex Police were informed that whilst in New Zealand JB was dealing in drugs. It also emerged in 1985 that Brett Collins had convictions for drug offences CAL page 75. Barbara Wilson also confirms that JB got into trouble whilst in New Zealand, with the family sending him quite a lot of money. David Boutflour heard that JBwas implicated in an armed robbery and killing...CAL Daily Mail. 'The Two Faces'. but police investigations found no evidence of either. But whatever happened in New Zealand unnerved JB he returned home craving security and willing to work harder.
Apparently BC had a brother in Holland. When JB, JM, and BC visited post murders it seems they went to some cafe where they were given a menu and tried different types. Maybe what they brought back into the UK was for own use or JB hoped to cultivate different types.
Sorry typo. I calculated £850 based on 1985 using UK inflation figs for today and arrived at £1,985. I also said JM experimented with cannabis and I meant to say cocaine. I sound decidedly boring by comparison 8(8-)) I've only ever tried smoking dope a few times many years ago but as I've never smoked conventional cigs it didn't seem to have any effect. Maybe a couple of times it did but I couldn't be sure whether it was the cannabis or alcohol. I've always been happy with a beer and couple of glasses of wine. Never touched any of those kind of drugs...alcohol yes!
SB said she was against JB/JM brining drugs into the house but we only have her word for that or EP's if her WS was coerced. These girls were not goody two shoes. I'm of a similar age and background and it wouldn't have even entered my head to commit cheque fraud. And in JM's case distribute drugs and assist a boyfriend break into the family firm and steal a few hundred quid. I can't think of any girls I hang out with that would do these sorts of things. It wouldn't have even been a case of weighing up the risks it simply wouldn't have even entered my head. SB said she accompanied JM to a bank to obtain some plastic money bags for the cannabis. ( besotted comes to mind) JM was young and I feel wanted to impress JB. Doesn't excuse her though... not as innocent as she would have us believe Yes I agree if you sent testers into every licensed premises in the land they would probably find traces of drugs on the premises of all. But if LR and Malcolm Waters/Michael Deckers were involved they were the proprietors/managers and holders of the licence for alcohol. This is different from say JB trading a bit of dope on the premises. If EP were aware they were aware or part of then potentially they could shut the places down and their livlihoods and reputations would be in tatters. And on that threat EP got information, I bet there were some worried people around Colchester! As I said before DC Taffy Jones had more than one iron in the fire regarding the murders at WHF
There's certainly some evidence EP could potentially have used the drugs angle on many of those that testified against JB. I agree
I'm not sure JB was treading on anyones toes? It seems his market was middle classe types at uni and in wine bars.Hmm! perhaps not in this country
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 02, 2016, 12:15:56 AM
Has anyone seen the film 'Fatal Vision'? apparently it freaked JB because it's a true story of an army man who killed his wife and two children...then rang the police!
Think this might be it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbi3miueHgY
Sweet dreams 8)--))
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 02, 2016, 12:39:39 AM
Reply to Opal:
Was JB dealing in Amsterdam? I thought he just smoked some cannabis in a cafe where he also bought some and smuggled it into UK? Was it for own use?
I've read all sorts about what JB got up to in New Zealand: murder, armed robbery, drug dealing, traveller cheque fraud, theft, conning people out of diamonds in their rings and replacing them with glass. But there's no evidence for any of it. New Zealand isn't some rogue state devoid of law and order. How would Barbara Wilson know what JB got up to in New Zealand? How many parents end up wiring money out to their kids on gap years or the like? Most if my experience is anything to go by.
If BC had drug convictions in New Zealand I don't really see what bearing this has on JB/the case? As I said I've never been into drugs and haven't ever really mixed with people who are. I would imagine if you are into drugs then you're more likely to mix with others that are eg JB and Brett. I don't think it means much. In some countries such as Netherlands it's legal. Is it any worse than me having a beer or a glass of wine? All my friends drink. I don't think I've ever had a teetotal friend!
I think the idea JM and others were led by JB is stretching it a bit. JM admits in her WS she met a couple of guys in a club and went to their hotel room with a friend to snort coke. She also purchased cannabis from a female friend. I assume this was pre JB otherwise JB would be the supplier of choice. Perhaps if you don't do drugs it seems really naughty but each to their own is my view. There's clearly a difference between smoking cannabis and indulging in the harder stuff. Paul McCartney springs to mind as a peaceable smoker of cannabis.
I'm not sure the likes of JB with his small scale cannabis production and those that smoked it in the likes of The Frog and Bean would feature on DCI Jones' radar? But I do think some officers had marked JB's card and used it against some of the prosecution witnesses that testified against JB.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: scipio_usmc on June 02, 2016, 05:14:19 AM
Was JB dealing in Amsterdam? I thought he just smoked some cannabis in a cafe where he also bought some and smuggled it into UK? Was it for own use?
I've read all sorts about what JB got up to in New Zealand: murder, armed robbery, drug dealing, traveller cheque fraud, theft, conning people out of diamonds in their rings and replacing them with glass. But there's no evidence for any of it. New Zealand isn't some rogue state devoid of law and order. How would Barbara Wilson know what JB got up to in New Zealand? How many parents end up wiring money out to their kids on gap years or the like? Most if my experience is anything to go by.
If BC had drug convictions in New Zealand I don't really see what bearing this has on JB/the case? As I said I've never been into drugs and haven't ever really mixed with people who are. I would imagine if you are into drugs then you're more likely to mix with others that are eg JB and Brett. I don't think it means much. In some countries such as Netherlands it's legal. Is it any worse than me having a beer or a glass of wine? All my friends drink. I don't think I've ever had a teetotal friend!
I think the idea JM and others were led by JB is stretching it a bit. JM admits in her WS she met a couple of guys in a club and went to their hotel room with a friend to snort coke. She also purchased cannabis from a female friend. I assume this was pre JB otherwise JB would be the supplier of choice. Perhaps if you don't do drugs it seems really naughty but each to their own is my view. There's clearly a difference between smoking cannabis and indulging in the harder stuff. Paul McCartney springs to mind as a peaceable smoker of cannabis.
I'm not sure the likes of JB with his small scale cannabis production and those that smoked it in the likes of The Frog and Bean would feature on DCI Jones' radar? But I do think some officers had marked JB's card and used it against some of the prosecution witnesses that testified against JB.
Addicts who are desperate for money to get a fix will resort to many bad things. People on drugs also have less self control, legalizing drugs in parts of the US has caused huge jumps in pot based DUIs. Drugs can be very destructive.
With that said the only real relevance here is that Jeremy involved Julie in selling them thus showing he trusted her and she admitted to it thus showing she was coming clean about all. That is the only limited value.
A lot of people have smuggled pot back from Amsterdam but how much could you fit? It can't have been that much and I don't think he could pass for pregnant:
or sneak a bag like this through:
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on June 02, 2016, 05:46:51 PM
Reply to Holly:
Was JB dealing in Amsterdam? JB was dealing by way of buying drugs. I thought he just smoked some cannabis in a cafe where he also bought some and smuggled it into UK? Why bother the expense of going all the way to Amsterdam to buy Cannabis when he could buy enough for his own use in the UK at the time? Was it for own use? Yes & No, JB was mainly interested in making money!
I've read all sorts about what JB got up to in New Zealand: murder, armed robbery, drug dealing, traveller cheque fraud, theft, conning people out of diamonds in their rings and replacing them with glass. But there's no evidence for any of it. Something happened out there for JB to return early. Diving lessons weren’t taken up. Supposed reason for trip, he argued with friend he went to see. £2.0000 for Diving lessons gone, so more money sent out to him, why didn’t he do what most people do whilst staying abroad and get some work? New Zealand isn't some rogue state devoid of law and order. How would Barbara Wilson know what JB got up to in New Zealand? . BW was told JB was in trouble abroad by NB. How many parents end up wiring money out to their kids on gap years or the like? Most if my experience is anything to go by. So why travel home early?
If BC had drug convictions in New Zealand I don't really see what bearing this has on JB/the case? My point was that BC and JB were into drug related activities prior to the murders. A lot has been made of SC’ s state of mind before the murders, even being tested for recreational drugs after her death, yet here’s JB growing and selling the stuff before the murders with no comment! As I said I've never been into drugs and haven't ever really mixed with people who are. I would imagine if you are into drugs then you're more likely to mix with others that are eg JB and Brett. I don't think it means much. In some countries such as Netherlands it's legal. Is it any worse than me having a beer or a glass of wine? All my friends drink. I don't think I've ever had a teetotal friend! JB used drugs for recreational pleasure…of course he did….. he was also making money from them! Greed for money is different to spending the night out enjoying a smoke and drink amongst friends, and JB was Greedy for money hence the murders!
BC came over from New Zealand after first meeting JB there. Within a short space of time both BC and JB went off to Holland….Jeremy being broke at the time having purchased a larger Propagator and two lamps for his Cannabis plants….Not something one would do for their own personal usage, he could pick up his own usage anywhere! Was it this time that JB secured a bank loan supposedly for furniture etc for his home? Both BC and JB returned yet again to Holland after the murders….mid August when JM went with them, yet again the main objective seems to buy drugs.
I think the idea JM and others were led by JB is stretching it a bit. JM admits in her WS she met a couple of guys in a club and went to their hotel room with a friend to snort coke. She also purchased cannabis from a female friend. I assume this was pre JB otherwise JB would be the supplier of choice. Perhaps if you don't do drugs it seems really naughty but each to their own is my view. There's clearly a difference between smoking cannabis and indulging in the harder stuff. Paul McCartney springs to mind as a peaceable smoker of cannabis. I don’t think for a moment JM knew everything JB and BC got up to, but she wasn’t totally innocent either. It doesn’t state JM went to Stringfellows with Stephanie Checkley who she smoked Cannabis with 2 years earlier ( before JB) Isn’t it strange though at this point in her statement she mentions going to Stringfellows in the Summer of 1985 and snorting cocaine, she was of course seeing Jeremy at the time because she states BC arrived shortly afterwards and BC, JB and JM went again to Stringfellows.
I'm not sure the likes of JB with his small scale cannabis production and those that smoked it in the likes of The Frog and Bean would feature on DCI Jones' radar? Yes it did start off as a small scale drug business, but when BC arrived he convinced JB it was easier to go buy the stuff abroad rather than produce it from home to sell, JB hadn’t gone abroad before this to buy drugs, However after meeting BC in New Zealand things changed. In the 1980’s in places like Amsterdam it was easy to obtain drugs. But I do think some officers had marked JB's card and used it against some of the prosecution witnesses that testified against JB. I’m sure the Police knew more about JB’s drug business than we are led to believe. After all they checked out the suspected Robberies etc….so they must of known!
Jeremy sent quite a few parcels to Scotland and made about £700.00.. that’s dealing! JM states…as far as she was concerned none of the money was banked, probably because it was forged bank notes (the hitchhiker he gave a lift to and whom he was sending the Cannabis to was arrested for using forged bank notes) JB collected the first £100.00 for the Cannabis from Maldon post office as no one was at home in Head Street Goldhanger. JB had to say he was collecting it for a NIGEL PAGE. All this points to the fact JB wasn’t just using drugs for his own and friends use, but making money through it. My whole point here is that JB isn’t/wasn’t the innocent party he made out to be. He himself even asked a friend if he was mad. In my mind JB was living his life beyond his means through drugs, which eventually led to him murdering his family for money.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 08, 2016, 07:39:03 PM
Was JB dealing in Amsterdam? JB was dealing by way of buying drugs. I thought he just smoked some cannabis in a cafe where he also bought some and smuggled it into UK? Why bother the expense of going all the way to Amsterdam to buy Cannabis when he could buy enough for his own use in the UK at the time? Was it for own use? Yes & No, JB was mainly interested in making money!
I've read all sorts about what JB got up to in New Zealand: murder, armed robbery, drug dealing, traveller cheque fraud, theft, conning people out of diamonds in their rings and replacing them with glass. But there's no evidence for any of it. Something happened out there for JB to return early. Diving lessons weren’t taken up. Supposed reason for trip, he argued with friend he went to see. £2.0000 for Diving lessons gone, so more money sent out to him, why didn’t he do what most people do whilst staying abroad and get some work? New Zealand isn't some rogue state devoid of law and order. How would Barbara Wilson know what JB got up to in New Zealand? . BW was told JB was in trouble abroad by NB. How many parents end up wiring money out to their kids on gap years or the like? Most if my experience is anything to go by. So why travel home early?
If BC had drug convictions in New Zealand I don't really see what bearing this has on JB/the case? My point was that BC and JB were into drug related activities prior to the murders. A lot has been made of SC’ s state of mind before the murders, even being tested for recreational drugs after her death, yet here’s JB growing and selling the stuff before the murders with no comment! As I said I've never been into drugs and haven't ever really mixed with people who are. I would imagine if you are into drugs then you're more likely to mix with others that are eg JB and Brett. I don't think it means much. In some countries such as Netherlands it's legal. Is it any worse than me having a beer or a glass of wine? All my friends drink. I don't think I've ever had a teetotal friend! JB used drugs for recreational pleasure…of course he did….. he was also making money from them! Greed for money is different to spending the night out enjoying a smoke and drink amongst friends, and JB was Greedy for money hence the murders!
BC came over from New Zealand after first meeting JB there. Within a short space of time both BC and JB went off to Holland….Jeremy being broke at the time having purchased a larger Propagator and two lamps for his Cannabis plants….Not something one would do for their own personal usage, he could pick up his own usage anywhere! Was it this time that JB secured a bank loan supposedly for furniture etc for his home? Both BC and JB returned yet again to Holland after the murders….mid August when JM went with them, yet again the main objective seems to buy drugs.
I think the idea JM and others were led by JB is stretching it a bit. JM admits in her WS she met a couple of guys in a club and went to their hotel room with a friend to snort coke. She also purchased cannabis from a female friend. I assume this was pre JB otherwise JB would be the supplier of choice. Perhaps if you don't do drugs it seems really naughty but each to their own is my view. There's clearly a difference between smoking cannabis and indulging in the harder stuff. Paul McCartney springs to mind as a peaceable smoker of cannabis. I don’t think for a moment JM knew everything JB and BC got up to, but she wasn’t totally innocent either. It doesn’t state JM went to Stringfellows with Stephanie Checkley who she smoked Cannabis with 2 years earlier ( before JB) Isn’t it strange though at this point in her statement she mentions going to Stringfellows in the Summer of 1985 and snorting cocaine, she was of course seeing Jeremy at the time because she states BC arrived shortly afterwards and BC, JB and JM went again to Stringfellows.
I'm not sure the likes of JB with his small scale cannabis production and those that smoked it in the likes of The Frog and Bean would feature on DCI Jones' radar? Yes it did start off as a small scale drug business, but when BC arrived he convinced JB it was easier to go buy the stuff abroad rather than produce it from home to sell, JB hadn’t gone abroad before this to buy drugs, However after meeting BC in New Zealand things changed. In the 1980’s in places like Amsterdam it was easy to obtain drugs. But I do think some officers had marked JB's card and used it against some of the prosecution witnesses that testified against JB. I’m sure the Police knew more about JB’s drug business than we are led to believe. After all they checked out the suspected Robberies etc….so they must of known!
Jeremy sent quite a few parcels to Scotland and made about £700.00.. that’s dealing! JM states…as far as she was concerned none of the money was banked, probably because it was forged bank notes (the hitchhiker he gave a lift to and whom he was sending the Cannabis to was arrested for using forged bank notes) JB collected the first £100.00 for the Cannabis from Maldon post office as no one was at home in Head Street Goldhanger. JB had to say he was collecting it for a NIGEL PAGE. All this points to the fact JB wasn’t just using drugs for his own and friends use, but making money through it. My whole point here is that JB isn’t/wasn’t the innocent party he made out to be. He himself even asked a friend if he was mad. In my mind JB was living his life beyond his means through drugs, which eventually led to him murdering his family for money.
Opal I don't know what the definition of "dealing" is. Buying drugs to some degree is legal in Amsterdam. I think he went to a cafe and was presented with a menu offering different types. Similar to the sort of thing I do when I go to Bruges and sample different beers. Why go to Amsterdam? Novelty factor I guess. Why do people go on hen/stag do's to the capital cities of Europe when they could just as easily go out in their locality or even another UK city. Similar to people in the UK going over to France to buy cheese and wine. Was JB interested in making money or was it just a bit of hobby growing something naughty and flogging it to his mates for a fiver? He was never going to get rich growing cannabis in his small cottage/garden. I worked in financial services for a quarter of a century 8)><( and worked alongside people who for years earned huge sums of money. Some spent more than they earned. Some saved more than half they earned. Both types were greedy for more. They certainly had a 'killer instinct' but not literally. Their motivations were wide ranging and when it came to buying a round of drinks some of them were gone quick as a flash. That's what I call greedy. I don't see any evidence of a greedy JB but even if he was it doesn't mean he would kill for money.
JB had two trips to the Antipodes. It all seems 'normal' to me. The sort of thing millions of young people from all over the world do every year. He made some new friends, BC being one of them. Tried out new things eg diving. Found some work on a sugar plantation. The rumours that surround these trips are quite sensational but imo there's no truth to any of it in terms of serious wrongdoing. If there was EP's counterparts down under would have turned something up. It's all unsubstantiated gossip from small minded petty individuals whose lives seemed to start and stop within the boundaries of rural Essex 8(8-)) BW said NB sent JB further funds due to a 'stolen wallet' and she didn't know what happened but he got into trouble. This could mean financial trouble ie run out of funds rather than anything more sinister. BW sounds an interfering, small minded, busy body.
I dont think I've ever commented on SC's use of recreational drugs. She obviously smoked cannabis as traces showed up at autopsy. I think you will find NB and June were also tested its routine. It appears there's some evidence of using cocaine on occasions. I don't really see any of this as being relevant to the case? Cocaine is used widely among the professional classes. I've worked in most areas of financial services including medical underwriting and I can assure you the use of recreational drugs amongst the professional classes is very widespread.
BC had a brother in Amsterdam hence the trips. Yes JB rigged up some gear to grow cannabis but as I said it was far from industrial scale production. Sort of naughty public school boy stuff.
JM was obviously into recreational drugs pre JB and with or without him. What do you think is "strange" about the two visits to Stringfellows? I remember going myself around that time. It was a popular place to visit for young people during that era.
Did BC suggest to JB it was easier to buy abroad than grow at home? It's easier in the sense that you can walk into a cafe, sit down have a smoke and its legal. As I said BC had a brother in Amsterdam to visit.
Yes JB was sending cannabis to a hitchhiker based in Scotland for £100. JB was obviously the trusting type. How did he know he was going to get his £100? Millions of people smoke cannabis the world over I don't see it as a big deal and certainly not a precursor to murder or the fact he was selling small quantities for profit as indicative of rampant greed.
EP went into JB's background with a fine toothcomb. I believe RB also carried out his own enquires. All they turned up was:
- use of cannabis, growing and selling small quantities for profit - breaking into OCP and stealing a few hundred pounds
Those that knew him independently such as the landlord of his local pub, manager at Burnham country club, employers at Little Chef, neighbours, either spoke highly of him or had nothing adverse to say.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on June 08, 2016, 08:04:14 PM
Those that knew him independently such as the landlord of his local pub, manager at Burnham country club, employers at Little Chef, neighbours, either spoke highly of him or had nothing adverse to say.
Try telling that to Michael Fielder!!! %56&
And leave Barbara Wilson alone... she's done nothing to you! 8()(((@#
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 08, 2016, 08:19:58 PM
And leave Barbara Wilson alone... she's done nothing to you! 8()(((@#
Michael Fielder didn't know JB pre murders. He met him once.
BW makes out she's the fount of intimate knowledge about the Bamber family. Family members such as Jackie Wood (AP's sister), Pamela B, Regine Pargeter (AP's wife) and CC make it clear the Bambers were very private people and never discussed family matters with anyone in the extended family. Why then would NB sit gossiping during working hours at WHF to his secretary, BW, about private family matters? He wouldn't. It was/is all in her mind. CAL tells that BW's husband was incapacitated after an accident.
Barbara worked for the Bambers for a fraction of the time Jean Boutell did and yet we never hear from JB.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on June 08, 2016, 09:01:50 PM
Michael Fielder didn't know JB pre murders. He met him once.
BW makes out she's the fount of intimate knowledge about the Bamber family. Family members such as Jackie Wood (AP's sister), Pamela B, Regine Pargeter (AP's wife) and CC make it clear the Bambers were very private people and never discussed family matters with anyone in the extended family. Why then would NB sit gossiping during working hours at WHF to his secretary, BW, about private family matters? He wouldn't. It was/is all in her mind. CAL tells that BW's husband was incapacitated after an accident.
Barbara worked for the Bambers for a fraction of the time Jean Boutell did and yet we never hear from JB.
Fielder had seen enough of Bamber in a few short minutes to realise what a despicable character he was to stoop low enough to sell naked pictures of his deceased sister for a hefty sum!
I reckon Barbara Wilson was closer to the Bambers than you think, and more so a confidante of Nevill than Jean Boutell ever was. BW was the farm secretary for god's sake, Jean B merely the housekeeper.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: John on June 09, 2016, 01:27:40 AM
Fielder had seen enough of Bamber in a few short minutes to realise what a despicable character he was to stoop low enough to sell naked pictures of his deceased sister for a hefty sum!
I reckon Barbara Wilson was closer to the Bambers than you think, and more so a confidante of Nevill than Jean Boutell ever was. BW was the farm secretary for god's sake, Jean B merely the housekeeper.
I tend to agree, Barbara was Nevill's right hand in the business and kept everything ticketyboo. I don't think there would have been a subject he wouldn't have felt comfortable raising with her such was the trust between them. Jeremy could very well have been jealous of that relationship too.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: adam on June 09, 2016, 04:56:36 AM
There is a lot of Julie's WS that wouldn't have been in the newspapers. Thread already created.
The case would have only been in the newspapers the same or following day anyway. I doubt that Julie was reading the newspapers then.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 09, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Fielder had seen enough of Bamber in a few short minutes to realise what a despicable character he was to stoop low enough to sell naked pictures of his deceased sister for a hefty sum!
I reckon Barbara Wilson was closer to the Bambers than you think, and more so a confidante of Nevill than Jean Boutell ever was. BW was the farm secretary for god's sake, Jean B merely the housekeeper.
Fielder admits he never saw the photos so we can only speculate about the nature of them.
BW lived locally. She also worked at Maldon Growers another business the Bambers had interests in. At one time she worked with JM. It's obvious she liked to 'chat' (a natural instinct and pleasurable pastime for most women) evidenced by her contributions to various tv progs etc. I don't for one moment think NB would discuss private family matters with her. Although NB seemed affable to all he interacted with I think he had clear boundaries with employees and discussing private family matters with BW would be a complete no, no. Men like NB, born 1924, boarding school and ex RAF pilot, simply don't go about chatting to all and sundry about private family matters. Especially not a secretary young enough to be his daughter unless there was more to the relationship than employer/employee and there's no evidence for this.
I have read the reason NB decided to send JB to boarding school out the area was due to the fact JB might one day employ locals to work at WHF. I took this to mean NB likes clearly defined boundaries.
None of the family had any idea about SC's mental illness including PB. Why would NB chat freely to BW about private family matters?
Excerpt From Colin Caffell's Book
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on June 09, 2016, 07:20:26 PM
Fielder admits he never saw the photos so we can only speculate about the nature of them.
BW lived locally. She also worked at Maldon Growers another business the Bambers had interests in. At one time she worked with JM. It's obvious she liked to 'chat' (a natural instinct and pleasurable pastime for most women) evidenced by her contributions to various tv progs etc. I don't for one moment think NB would discuss private family matters with her. Although NB seemed affable to all he interacted with I think he had clear boundaries with employees and discussing private family matters with BW would be a complete no, no. Men like NB, born 1924, boarding school and ex RAF pilot, simply don't go about chatting to all and sundry about private family matters. Especially not a secretary young enough to be his daughter unless there was more to the relationship than employer/employee and there's no evidence for this.
I have read the reason NB decided to send JB to boarding school out the area was due to the fact JB might one day employ locals to work at WHF. I took this to mean NB likes clearly defined boundaries.
None of the family had any idea about SC's mental illness including PB. Why would NB chat freely to BW about private family matters?
Excerpt From Colin Caffell's Book
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
We don't need to speculate about either Barbara Wilson or Michael Fielder.
Barbara Wilson knew about the will, the key to the safe which Nevill wanted hidden, the dire financial straits Jeremy got into in Australasia and his burglary of the Osea CP office, as well as Nevill's premonition/prediction that he would die by someone else's hand in a "shooting accident".
Straight from Fielder's mouth at The Nag's Head in Chelmsford...
"They (Bamber and Collins) were sniggering and giggling together like a couple of schoolboys". Bamber said "Oh, they are really good pictures of Bambi - with the biggest vibrator you ever saw."... Bamber was asking a price of £20,000 for about twenty topless and nude colour transparencies. "They show everything, right down to the last detail. They are really good pictures", said Jeremy.
Claire Powell, Murder At White House Farm.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Opal on June 09, 2016, 10:44:22 PM
Yes JB was sending cannabis to a hitchhiker based in Scotland for £100. JB was obviously the trusting type.
Actually Holly it amounted to £800.00 JB received from the hitchhiker in Scotland....before the hitchhiker was arrested. But what was the point at the time of the Police taking up the proof of JB's 'dealing' when they had arrested him for the murders. I bet if he'd got off with it the police would have had him for the other things.
Yes..JB was the trusting type.... look how he thought JM would stand by him, and he thought he had her in the palm of his hand..... how wrong he was! @)(++(* Being 'trusted' wasn't any better.. JB was trusted with knowing money remained in Osea Road Safe.... so stole it.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Myster on June 10, 2016, 07:30:57 AM
Gosh did I really say that?! How rude of me. I must have been tired or on the Pinot Grigio.
BW is unable to offer anything of evidential value. That sounds better 8)-)))
Had a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert visited the soc on the morning of 7th Aug we would not have the likes of the relatives, BW and low ranking police officers filling the void based on their personal views, feelings etc.
Title: Re: Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 10, 2016, 02:52:41 PM
Actually Holly it amounted to £800.00 JB received from the hitchhiker in Scotland....before the hitchhiker was arrested. But what was the point at the time of the Police taking up the proof of JB's 'dealing' when they had arrested him for the murders. I bet if he'd got off with it the police would have had him for the other things.
Yes..JB was the trusting type.... look how he thought JM would stand by him, and he thought he had her in the palm of his hand..... how wrong he was! @)(++(* Being 'trusted' wasn't any better.. JB was trusted with knowing money remained in Osea Road Safe.... so stole it.
I thought the hitchhiker mailed JB £100 at a time in exchange for a parcel of cannabis? JB had no way of knowing he would receive his £100's.
I believe the police were listening in on three properties: Bourtree Cottage, Morsehead Mansions and Catheram Road. If I'm right then they were already ahead of the game and aware of the drug use and dealing. This is how I believe they got many of the prosecution witnesses to 'cooperate'. If they were using this as leverage against the prosecution witnesses then they had to tackle JB about it too, which they did in his police interviews. The police didn't press charges against JB or anyone connected with him over the lesser charges of drug dealing and OCP break-in.
JM was taking her cut before handing the rest over to JB.
I don't believe JB and JM were the only ones involved in this. I believe at the very least others were users such as Susan Battersby, Liz Rimmington and James Richards.
Actually Holly it amounted to £800.00 JB received from the hitchhiker in Scotland....before the hitchhiker was arrested. But what was the point at the time of the Police taking up the proof of JB's 'dealing' when they had arrested him for the murders. I bet if he'd got off with it the police would have had him for the other things.
Yes..JB was the trusting type.... look how he thought JM would stand by him, and he thought he had her in the palm of his hand..... how wrong he was! @)(++(* Being 'trusted' wasn't any better.. JB was trusted with knowing money remained in Osea Road Safe.... so stole it.
yes jb was the trusting type,he was a criminal trusting type ?{)(**