New video on the case:

[John]

So why wait some 5 weeks to interview JB under caution and a further 2 weeks or so to arrest and charge him if the case was clear cut?  The evidence gathered at soc by EP was analysed in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy and the results made available weeks before JB's arrest.  If the case pointed towards a guilty JB based on aspects such as SC's appearance, which were immediately visible at the soc to the likes of Chief Superintendent Albert Harris, why not take JB to the station immediately and interview him under caution and conduct a thorough search of Bourtree Cottage?   

The case was far from clear cut Holly, maybe I didn't explain myself too well.  I agree the first police on the scene were effectively directed by Jeremy Bamber down the four murders and a suicide road.  Had I been one of the first responders I would have accepted what Jeremy was saying too, there was no reason to not believe him and that was how it played out for weeks.  However, there were cracks in his perfect plan, DS Stan Jones was probably the first to see them on the very day after the murders but even he, although suspicious, was not totally convinced.   That came later when Julie Mugford could not live with the knowledge any longer and started to speak, first to one of her flatmates and then to the police.  It was a simple task then to look at all the evidence again and rule out Sheila.

[APRIL]

The case was far from clear cut Holly, maybe I didn't explain myself too well.  I agree the first police on the scene were effectively directed by Jeremy Bamber down the four murders and a suicide road.  Had I been one of the first responders I would have accepted what Jeremy was saying too, there was no reason to not believe him and that was how it played out for weeks.  However, there were cracks in his perfect plan, DS Stan Jones was probably the first to see them on the very day after the murders but even he, although suspicious, was not totally convinced.   That came later when Julie Mugford could not live with the knowledge any longer and started to speak, first to one of her flatmates and then to the police.  It was a simple task then to look at all the evidence again and rule out Sheila.

I concur (almost!!!) totally with what you've said. It's the most natural thing in the world for us to put reliance on the words of someone who has greater knowledge than us and in this case it was Jeremy, bereaved son, brother and uncle to the victims. Who would know better than he about the family? It is fact that it's MUCH harder  to unlearn that which has already been taken on board as being true, than to learn something new, which may help to explain the time it took to do a turn around.

The part of your post that I have problems with is what you have to say about Julie not being able to live with the knowledge. I think that's only part of the truth. I think it likely that Julie was FAR more involved, ie knew far more than was revealed. All ideas have an embryonic stage in which they may only be spoken of in passing but once voiced they take on a life of their own until they often become the main topic of conversation. She may have feared that, at any moment, Jeremy could have implicated her, a point which I feel certain wouldn't have been lost on her friends and family. She may have come to feel that by getting in first she could cherry-pick what she said and I think it possible that the police gave her every assistance.

Could she have prevented what happened? Could she have done more? She has the rest of her life to ponder and her family and her position in society to consider so other than speaking about her previous life with a counsellor or priest, I doubt the world at large will ever be privy to the untold story.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Just wanted to point out where I have referred to Albert Harris above, Chief Superintendent of Chelmsford Division, his name is in fact George Albert Harris.

[Holly Goodhead]

The case was far from clear cut Holly, maybe I didn't explain myself too well.  I agree the first police on the scene were effectively directed by Jeremy Bamber down the four murders and a suicide road.  Had I been one of the first responders I would have accepted what Jeremy was saying too, there was no reason to not believe him and that was how it played out for weeks.  However, there were cracks in his perfect plan, DS Stan Jones was probably the first to see them on the very day after the murders but even he, although suspicious, was not totally convinced.   That came later when Julie Mugford could not live with the knowledge any longer and started to speak, first to one of her flatmates and then to the police.  It was a simple task then to look at all the evidence again and rule out Sheila.

The police are trained to keep an open mind, not to be led by witnesses and let the evidence do the talking.  Those present at the scene of crime would have seen it all over the years and ranged from PC's to Chief Superintendent with hundreds of years combined experience.  DI Cook alone had 19 years experience as a fingerprint expert.  Are you honestly expecting me to believe the likes of DS Jones over D/C Supt Harris and Dr Craig, medical doctor?  Imo DS Jones does not present at all well in the video/OP Adam set up.  At the age of 45 he was only a DS and never progressed beyond the rank of DI.  DS Jones appears to have been the officer that formed close contact with the prosecution witnesses: spending time at Oak Farm drinking whisky with PE when he collected the silencer; spending hours with JM producing hundreds of WS's and providing a safe-house; chasing after BW when she went awol shortly before trial.  Why?

- Genuinely believed JB guilty and thought he could see what others didn't?

- Was bought off by the relatives?

- Wanted to impress his superiors and was looking for promotion?

As far as I am concerned JM was a completely unreliable prosecution witness and was pressurised by DS Jones into providing the testimony she did.  What sort of woman, or man for than matter, puts 6 year old children to bed, reads them a bedtime story, and 5 days later identifies their bodies at a morgue knowing her boyfriend was responsible for their deaths (if you believe her testimony) but keeps quiet for a further month?  In the intervening period she happily shares his life and bed!

The evidence you refer to didn't rule out SC.  If it did the CCRC would not have referred the case to the CoA in 2001.

[Myster]

This constant belittling of Stan Jones does you no favours, Holly.  Just because the man had a slight speech impediment and spoke in a staccato fashion, doesn't mean he hadn't got a sharp, perceptive brain capable of seeing through Jeremy Bamber's charade. Why on earth would he risk his job disagreeing with his superiors purely to gain promotion... a totally absurd suggestion. He even admitted going through hell and risked being ostracized because those with fixed minds refused to believe they might be wrong...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s

[Myster]

If it wasn't impaired by his heavy drinking whilst on duty.  Oh and not forgetting breaking the law by drink driving.

By comparison Chief Supt George Albert Harris page 3:

http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/thelaw/n_8306lw.pdf

Surely Stan didn't go around all the time in an alcoholic stupor!!?

I think George Harris must have been on the bottle too, because I've just drawn a blank with your link!

[Holly Goodhead]

DS Jones' WS where he seems to imply that he broke the news to JB.  If such a conversation took place it appears DS Jones delivered the news in an off-hand manner with JB accusing DS Jones of being a hard b........:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1056.0;attach=2204

Ch Supt Harris' WS where he seems to imply that he broke the news to JB along with Dr Craig somewhat more sensitively:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=157.0;attach=104

 &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

This constant belittling of Stan Jones does you no favours, Holly.  Just because the man had a slight speech impediment and spoke in a staccato fashion, doesn't mean he hadn't got a sharp, perceptive brain capable of seeing through Jeremy Bamber's charade. Why on earth would he risk his job disagreeing with his superiors purely to gain promotion... a totally absurd suggestion. He even admitted going through hell and risked being ostracized because those with fixed minds refused to believe they might be wrong...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s

He also says he prayed something would turn up to prove him right despite seconds before saying he knew JB was guilty.  Interesting how DS Jones turned up the evidence that sealed JB's fate: silencer and JM's testimony.  Obviously his prayers were answered   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s
 

[Myster]

He also says he prayed something would turn up to prove him right despite seconds before saying he knew JB was guilty.  Interesting how DS Jones turned up the evidence that sealed JB's fate: silencer and JM's testimony.  Obviously his prayers were answered   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s

I daresay we "might" find out in two weeks time if there was any shenanigans internal subterfuge at police headquarters.

Noticed that DCC Ronald Stone's QPM award was also featured in the police newspaper - he took centre stage at the press conference after trial and had to defend their reputation regarding the sloppy investigation, but refused to criticize any of the officers involved.

I believe Stan Jones did ask for a shared bottle on one or two occasions, at Bourtree Cottage and Oak Farm. It appears that his method of operation was a softly-softly approach, trying to wheedle information out of people with a little lubrication. Who knows how much they drank?  Might only have been just a glass or two.

As to the "hard b........" reference... he said that there was a reason for it?  Toughen up, lad!

[John]

The police are trained to keep an open mind, not to be led by witnesses and let the evidence do the talking.  Those present at the scene of crime would have seen it all over the years and ranged from PC's to Chief Superintendent with hundreds of years combined experience.  DI Cook alone had 19 years experience as a fingerprint expert.  Are you honestly expecting me to believe the likes of DS Jones over D/C Supt Harris and Dr Craig, medical doctor?  Imo DS Jones does not present at all well in the video/OP Adam set up.  At the age of 45 he was only a DS and never progressed beyond the rank of DI.  DS Jones appears to have been the officer that formed close contact with the prosecution witnesses: spending time at Oak Farm drinking whisky with PE when he collected the silencer; spending hours with JM producing hundreds of WS's and providing a safe-house; chasing after BW when she went awol shortly before trial.  Why?

- Genuinely believed JB guilty and thought he could see what others didn't?

- Was bought off by the relatives?

- Wanted to impress his superiors and was looking for promotion?

As far as I am concerned JM was a completely unreliable prosecution witness and was pressurised by DS Jones into providing the testimony she did. 

Holly, can I remind you that Stan Jones was the investigating officer and spent a lot of time with Jeremy and Julie commencing a matter of hours after the murders.  He was extremely well placed to observe anything peculiar whereas the senior officers you refer to were merely managers.

You are totally wrong about Julie, she was a completely reliable witness and that is to her credit regardless of her previous crimes.  She was under tremendous pressure granted but many a lesser person would have cracked put in her position.  Julie is an intelligent woman as evidenced by her career in the Canadian Education Authority where she has risen to great heights.  She knew that the only way out for her was to come clean and effectively spill the beans.  It would have been made very clear to her, COOPERATE OR BE PROSECUTED.

What sort of woman, or man for than matter, puts 6 year old children to bed, reads them a bedtime story, and 5 days later identifies their bodies at a morgue knowing her boyfriend was responsible for their deaths (if you believe her testimony) but keeps quiet for a further month?  In the intervening period she happily shares his life and bed!

I believe Julie had doubts about Jeremy's involvement at the beginning and that is why she volunteered to identify the children.  Over the days and weeks which followed the murders she came to realise that the man she loved was indeed the monster she feared he might be but hoped all along she was wrong.

The evidence you refer to didn't rule out SC.  If it did the CCRC would not have referred the case to the CoA in 2001.

Since when is the CCRC the guardian of the truth?  They aren't and never will be.

[Holly Goodhead]

I daresay we "might" find out in two weeks time if there was any shenanigans internal subterfuge at police headquarters.

Noticed that DCC Ronald Stone's QPM award was also featured in the police newspaper - he took centre stage at the press conference after trial and had to defend their reputation regarding the sloppy investigation, but refused to criticize any of the officers involved.

I believe Stan Jones did ask for a shared bottle on one or two occasions, at Bourtree Cottage and Oak Farm. It appears that his method of operation was a softly-softly approach, trying to wheedle information out of people with a little lubrication. Who knows how much they drank?  Might only have been just a glass or two.

As to the "hard b........" reference... he said that there was a reason for it?  Toughen up, lad!

Was the investigation sloppy?  In a pre DNA era I'm not sure what more could have been done or how the investigation could have been improved on?  I'm not even sure the availability of DNA testing at the time would have made any difference?  SC and JB both had a legitimate right to be at WHF and handle the contents.  Same in the Bain case, both Robin and David had a right to be at Every St and handle the contents.  Contrast these cases with say that of Simon Hall's where he was rightfully found guilty by fibre flocks from his trousers found at soc; a place he had no legitimate right to be at.  I think in cases like Bain's and Bamber's it is notoriously difficult.  And when the rellies turn as they did in both cases it's game over for the surviving relative: David Bain and JB.

I think JB's relatives had enormous influence in changing the direction of the investigation. It is clear from the WS's/day 1 they thought SC was incapable and JB responsible based on spurious reasons imo.  It is also clear they had very limited contact with the Bambers over the years and knew little about what went on behind closed doors!  Effectively they all turned on JB which was very powerful.  Eg EP signed off the windows and doors as securely closed and locked from inside.  Surely matter closed?  But not so the relatives carried out their own investigation and convinced EP otherwise and so it went on and on.  The whole prosecution case against JB was engineered by the relatives other than JM's testimony although they may have indirectly had a helping hand in this too.  As DB said in the video the family thought JB was guilty and they wanted to let the whole world know.  And basically that it was they did very successfully I might add. I wonder if it will ever come back to haunt them  &%+((£

I wonder if DS Jones made ref at trial to drinking alcohol at Bourtree perhaps realising it could be used against him?  He made no ref to drinking alcohol at Oak Farm.  I doubt, even in 1985, it was considered acceptable police practice to 'loosen' witnesses up with alcohol.  In any event if you read all the WS's you will see JB advised DS Jones he may drift during his WS on 7th Aug as he had been prescribed valium.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, can I remind you that Stan Jones was the investigating officer and spent a lot of time with Jeremy and Julie commencing a matter of hours after the murders.  He was extremely well placed to observe anything peculiar whereas the senior officers you refer to were merely managers.

DS Jones was one of many investigating officers assigned to the WHF case.  Peculiarities don't necessarily equate to guilt.  I made reference to Ch Supt Harris as he was the most senior officer (I think) to observe the victims at soc and the overall soc.   He rose to the rank of Ch Supt as he demonstrated his capabilities over and above his peers.  First spending two years at the Met and then rising through the ranks within Pitsea CID reaching rank of Ch Supt in 1983 at age 50 after 27 years service.  He observed all victims at soc with police surgeon Dr Craig.  The pair were highly trained and experienced individuals.  If the appearance of the victims and soc pointed away from SC I believe the pair would have picked up on this immediately.  Neither noted anything untoward about JB's behaviour unlike DS Jones who questioned the way JB appeared to bend over and vomit when told news of the tragedy. 
 

You are totally wrong about Julie, she was a completely reliable witness and that is to her credit regardless of her previous crimes.  She was under tremendous pressure granted but many a lesser person would have cracked put in her position.  Julie is an intelligent woman as evidenced by her career in the Canadian Education Authority where she has risen to great heights.  She knew that the only way out for her was to come clean and effectively spill the beans.  It would have been made very clear to her, COOPERATE OR BE PROSECUTED.

JM was never charged with OCP, distributing cannabis and cheque book fraud so I'm not really sure whether we can refer to them as crimes as such?  In any event I have never made much of her "crimes", NoW deal or the fact JB dumped her as I think it's all largely irrelevant along with how she has chosen to lead her life post JB's trial.  I think you're right she was pressurised into 'cooperating'.  DS Jones appears to have conducted most of the interviews with JM alone.  I have previously asked about the status of these interviews: assisting police or under caution?  Also would it have been advisable for her to have received some legal advice or had a solicitor present during the interviews?  Pity they were not recorded.

I believe Julie had doubts about Jeremy's involvement at the beginning and that is why she volunteered to identify the children.  Over the days and weeks which followed the murders she came to realise that the man she loved was indeed the monster she feared he might be but hoped all along she was wrong.

There was no need for JM to have any doubts about JB's involvement at the beginning; she is quite clear in her WS of 8th Sept that JB told her on 7th Aug that he arranged for MM to carry out the murders.  Therefore she was fully aware when she identified the victims at the morgue that the man she loved was indeed a monster:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112

Since when is the CCRC the guardian of the truth?  They aren't and never will be.

It isn't.  I was just pointing out if evidence existed showing SC was incapable of carrying out the murders and taking her own life the CCRC would not have referred the case to the CoA.  The case was referred on the silencer alone. 

[John]

DS Jones was one of many investigating officers assigned to the WHF case.  Peculiarities don't necessarily equate to guilt.  I made reference to Ch Supt Harris as he was the most senior officer (I think) to observe the victims at soc and the overall soc.   He rose to the rank of Ch Supt as he demonstrated his capabilities over and above his peers.  First spending two years at the Met and then rising through the ranks within Pitsea CID reaching rank of Ch Supt in 1983 at age 50 after 27 years service.  He observed all victims at soc with police surgeon Dr Craig.  The pair were highly trained and experienced individuals.  If the appearance of the victims and soc pointed away from SC I believe the pair would have picked up on this immediately.  Neither noted anything untoward about JB's behaviour unlike DS Jones who questioned the way JB appeared to bend over and vomit when told news of the tragedy. 

As I have already stated, DS Jones spent most time investigating Jeremy Bamber, he was best place to offer an opinion as to his guilt or otherwise.

JM was never charged with OCP, distributing cannabis and cheque book fraud so I'm not really sure whether we can refer to them as crimes as such?  In any event I have never made much of her "crimes", NoW deal or the fact JB dumped her as I think it's all largely irrelevant along with how she has chosen to lead her life post JB's trial.  I think you're right she was pressurised into 'cooperating'.  DS Jones appears to have conducted most of the interviews with JM alone.  I have previously asked about the status of these interviews: assisting police or under caution?  Also would it have been advisable for her to have received some legal advice or had a solicitor present during the interviews?  Pity they were not recorded.

Certainly they were crimes committed by her, the fact that she was given immunity from prosecution is neither here nor there.

I don't think Julie was pressurised into cooperating but she was most definitely pressurised into telling the truth.  What makes you think the interviews weren't recorded?

There was no need for JM to have any doubts about JB's involvement at the beginning; she is quite clear in her WS of 8th Sept that JB told her on 7th Aug that he arranged for MM to carry out the murders.  Therefore she was fully aware when she identified the victims at the morgue that the man she loved was indeed a monster:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112

It isn't.  I was just pointing out if evidence existed showing SC was incapable of carrying out the murders and taking her own life the CCRC would not have referred the case to the CoA.  The case was referred on the silencer alone.

Being told something and believing it are two different things.  I don't think she believed Jeremy since the whole notion was too dreadful to contemplate, unless of course you believe her involvement extended beyond that previously admitted.

The criminal cases review Commissions can only refer NEW evidence to the COA.

[Holly Goodhead]

As I have already stated, DS Jones spent most time investigating Jeremy Bamber, he was best place to offer an opinion as to his guilt or otherwise.

And as Dr Vanezis said, DS Jones was the only dissenter and whilst he respected his views he could offer nothing of evidential value:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=740

Certainly they were crimes committed by her, the fact that she was given immunity from prosecution is neither here nor there.

But as no charges were brought against her we will never know whether she would have been found guilty or not. 

I don't think Julie was pressurised into cooperating but she was most definitely pressurised into telling the truth.  What makes you think the interviews weren't recorded?

Perhaps I misunderstood your post John where you said it would have been made clear "COOPERATE OR BE PROSECUTED".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6293.msg252212#msg252212

JB's interviews were not taped so I think it unlikely JM's were.  All JB's and JM's interviews were conducted pre-PACE.  As there was no legal requirement to tape and it did not form part of the procedures at that time I think it very unlikely they were taped.

Being told something and believing it are two different things.  I don't think she believed Jeremy since the whole notion was too dreadful to contemplate, unless of course you believe her involvement extended beyond that previously admitted.

Absolutely!

Are you are saying you believe JM's WS's but you don't believe the bit about JM stating JB told her on 7th Aug he arranged for MM to carry out the murders?  Or are you saying you believe JM re MM but you don't think she believed JB?  I guess it's easy for me as I believe her WS of 8th Aug is an accurate and full account and don't believe any of her later WS's.

The criminal cases review Commissions can only refer NEW evidence to the COA.

That's correct.  The point I was endeavouring to make is that the case was referred to the CoA based on the silencer alone.  If other aspects of the prosecutions case were strong, either in their own right or collectively, this would have enabled the CCRC to reject the application.  They were unable to do so as all other aspects of the case are very weak. 

[John]

The CCRC never referred any other issues to the CoA as they were watertight.

Puglove in her last post referred to the claim that it was Sheila who fought with, bludgeoned and shot Nevile in the kitchen and pointed out that had she been able to do so (which I sincerely doubt for a moment) then she would have had marks and blood spatter on her and her clothing from the encounter.

Can you explain this Holly?