The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Nicholas]

This is what he appears to have written to CAL

“Jeremy states that after he was led down to his cell for the night , DCI Taff Jones paid him a visit:

He looked at me and he said: “We’re letting you out.’ I went, ‘Great.’ He said , “That Julie’s full of shit.’ Those were his words: ‘That Julie’s full of shit. And off I went. In my own mind I knew she was angry about things. And I actually thought I would be able to go and see her and say to her: ‘What’s that all about? I’m sorry. I didn’t realise my behaviour would so upset you that you’d be [prepared] to lie.” And I genuinely thought I was going to go and see her, after getting out of the police station. She was put in police protective custody from then on.”
(Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee’s book ~ ‘The Murders at White House Farm’)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=the+sun+anji+greaves+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnNHTkTl&sig=ACfU3U1NpuMY9WW_GJ0UKEtiEAeZmVwONg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwics4rWi4LpAhWEoFwKHYIID8oQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20sun%20anji%20greaves%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false

So DCI Taff Jones allegedly pays Bamber a visit in his cell - they allegedly have the conversation above - then when he’s let out on bail the next day he’s met by Rodney Brown and Anji

“Sitting beside him was Angela Greaves, Virginia’s older sister. A beautician six years Jeremys senior, ‘Anji’ had quickly grown close to Jeremy following his visits with Virginia: ‘The poor chap was on Valium and he was drinking. He had nobody to turn to. His relatives were fighting over everything. It was awful, bloody awful’ Anji later told the Sun that she and Jeremy had become lovers before his arrest and it was their affair, rather than with her sister, that had led to Julie being so inflamed with jealousy that she named him as the murderer.”
“Regardless of what lay behind Julies motivations to go to the police, Anji was there to meet Jeremy upon his release.”

(Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee from her book, ‘The Murders at White House Farm’)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=the+sun+anji+greaves+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnNHTkTl&sig=ACfU3U1NpuMY9WW_GJ0UKEtiEAeZmVwONg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwics4rWi4LpAhWEoFwKHYIID8oQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20sun%20anji%20greaves%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false

How did this meeting come about ? (Rodney picking up Bamber from the court with Anji in the car )

Who set it up?

[Nicholas]

”But Brett today demolishes the idea that Bamber can prove he has an alibi which means he could not have been responsible for the massacre.

He insisted:

“He didn’t ever bring up someone being inside or being seen at the window when the police were there with him to me. It’s just bulls**t”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-best-pal-believed-21459285

“On the steps of Morshead Mansions, Brett Collins told the Evening Standard that Jeremy maintained his innocence ‘and I believe him. There’s no love lost between Jeremy and his immediate relatives. But his friends, including his girlfriend Angela, will be standing by him and we hope that the truth will finally prevail in what is a most confusing series of events.’ He flew back to New Zealand on 3rd November 1985, following proceedings from afar.”
(Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee’s book ~ ‘The Murders at White House Farm’)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=jeremy+bamber+rodney+brown+anji&source=bl&ots=h8PnOFTeYj&sig=ACfU3U25vYTa3CZuagVZ6JIVTldkpqFrCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC6MnRs4TpAhWJXhUIHQ3YDioQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20rodney%20brown%20anji&f=false

Did Bamber ever write to Brett or receive a letter from him from New Zealand and did Brett & Anji keep in contact? 

Does anyone know?

[Common sense]

Lots of good questions Nicholas,

What happened for BC to resurface and turn on his old mate apart from another 2 minutes of fame and a modest cheque from a journalist?

The subject we all want him to shed light on is the attempt to sell Sheila's dignity to the NOTW and his part in it.

Was BC more involved or suspicious than he is prepared to let on?

[APRIL]

Lots of good questions Nicholas,

What happened for BC to resurface and turn on his old mate apart from another 2 minutes of fame and a modest cheque from a journalist?

The subject we all want him to shed light on is the attempt to sell Sheila's dignity to the NOTW and his part in it.

Was BC more involved or suspicious than he is prepared to let on?

He may have been privy to much more knowledge, than Julie, of what were Jeremy's thoughts. He's certainly likely to have known as much.

[Nicholas]

I have the same opinion of the Bamberettes as you call them although I refer to them more unkindly as mind controlled cult members, but it's important to delineate the CT from those that mindlessly repeat their nonsense.

The CT itself is something of an enigma, are they serious in their beliefs or do they deliberately spread long debunked misinformation because they know it will attract unquestioning new recruits?

Can you imagine them working for years, baking cakes and spouting lies about CAL and then allowing someone intelligent such as Holly to come along and crack the case? ( assuming the case can be cracked )

The MOJ movement is like a cult

16 Red Flags That You Might Be in a Cult
“Literally speaking, a cult is a social group that’s defined by its religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a personality, object, or goal.
That doesn’t sound too scary, right?
Well, that’s kind of the point.
A group of people united by a single cause? Sign me up!
Not so fast.
When you take into account the sociological side of things, cults can be a bit more nefarious. The social group is typically socially deviant in some way — not necessarily a bad thing, but it could lead to dangerous situations.”
“In a healthy social setting, people should be encouraged to question everything. After all, skepticism can be a very healthy trait when it comes to making huge decisions that affect a large group of people!
But in a cult? Not a chance.”
“Anyone who questions the group’s leader or tenets is considered a traitor to the group as a whole, or even a danger to its constituents.
Doubt or questions may even be punished.”
“Humans are social creatures. Therefore, if one person sees their friends and contemporaries participating in some sort of group chant or denunciation service, they’ll naturally want to be part of the crowd and participate as well.
Going against the grain might not only be dangerous; it could be undesirable from a social standpoint as they don’t want to lose their friends.”
Full article here https://twentytwowords.com/signs-youre-in-a-cult/

[Nicholas]

Indeed, what I meant regarding the CT need for control was really a transparent need to be JBs favourite which would give them motive to oust any competition for that position.

This is an interesting paper

‘Cult membership: What factors contribute to joining or leaving?’ by M.Rousselet et al (Nov 2017)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178116319941

[Common sense]

I've noticed the cult behaviour. It seems you only need to trot out the usual lines about the corrupt CJS, ineffective CCRC etc and you are welcomed in with no questions asked. Especially not difficult questions.

I don't really get it. Say I was wrongly convicted of something I didn't do - I would expect ( or at least hope ) that my Mum would stand by me and believe but I would also hope that anyone that could help me would remain objective enough to be able to do so. Surely if I was really innocent, I would only be too happy to answer those difficult questions and indeed, have some sort of answer for them.

Conversely, if I was guilty and attempting innocence fraud, wouldn't it be kinder to persuade me not to waste mine and everybody's time?

Great article, fits the Bamber campaign followers and the wider MOJ "movement" to a tee. 

[Nicholas]

Clearly the use of 'certain documents' is to portray a particular view - if people are willing to follow that view like sheep, frankly - that's their problem. It's unfortunate that a big part of the picture is missing which leads people to speculate but at least there are enough of us that who don't follow Mike's crumb trail and realise it's leading away from the truth.

Bamber and his ‘lawyers’ have recently fed a ‘crumb trail’ to certain journalists

”While Bamber’s lawyers do not dispute that Caffell had two gunshot wounds by the time official police photographs were taken, they believe the failure to inform the jury of these statements prejudiced the case.
“Mark Newby, a solicitor advocate at Quality Solicitors Jordans, which represents Bamber, told the Guardian: “The jury only heard of the two shots, which was relied upon by the crown to support their case, but this wasn’t the whole picture. It represents yet another significant aspect to this case which supports Jeremy Bamber and undermines this conviction.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-say-new-evidence-undermines-conviction

The jury also only heard from JM and didn’t hear the back story or ‘whole picture’ regarding Bamber and his activities around the time which lead JM to finally leave him.

Anji and Virginia Greaves statements are significant, whether they were witnesses at Bamber’s trial or not

I doubt their evidence will support Bamber but it will add yet further weight to JM’s evidence and show Bamber’s attempts of innocence fraud for what it is

[Nicholas]

If it was Virginia why has Anji suggested otherwise ?

“”Anji later told the Sun that she and Jeremy had become lovers before his arrest and it was their affair, rather than with her sister, that had led to Julie being so inflamed with jealousy that she named him as the murderer.””
(Courtesy of Carol Ann Lee from her book, ‘The Murders at White House Farm’)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA317&lpg=PA317&dq=the+sun+anji+greaves+jeremy+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnNHTkTl&sig=ACfU3U1NpuMY9WW_GJ0UKEtiEAeZmVwONg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwics4rWi4LpAhWEoFwKHYIID8oQ6AEwBHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20sun%20anji%20greaves%20jeremy%20bamber&f=false

“But as Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone reported in the Guardian, the silencer was central to Bamber’s trial and vital in persuading the jury of his guilt.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/bambers-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-non-disclosure/

JM’s evidence was also ‘central’ to Bamber’s trial and ‘vital in persuading the jury of his guilt’

If Anji believed JM was ‘so inflamed with jealousy that she named him as the murderer’ as the Sun reported, it might be worthwhile tracking down both sisters to establish the facts of the matter

[Caroline]

“But as Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone reported in the Guardian, the silencer was central to Bamber’s trial and vital in persuading the jury of his guilt.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/bambers-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-non-disclosure/

JM’s evidence was also ‘central’ to Bamber’s trial and ‘vital in persuading the jury of his guilt’

If Anji believed JM was ‘so inflamed with jealousy that she named him as the murderer’ as the Sun reported, it might be worthwhile tracking down both sisters to establish the facts of the matter

And Julie maintains her stand today.

[Nicholas]

And Julie maintains her stand today.

IF Bamber were to get past the CCRC with the sound moderator evidence, for example - would JM’s evidence at trial matter to the Court of Appeal?

What if the CCRC only referred on the SM evidence?

[Caroline]

IF Bamber were to get past the CCRC with the sound moderator evidence, for example - would JM’s evidence at trial matter to the Court of Appeal?

What if the CCRC only referred on the SM evidence?

I'm no lawyer, but I think IF (and it's a massive IF), he was successful via the CCRC, he was have to face a retrial and Julie (I am sure) would be called.

[Nicholas]

Spot on, Common Sense.

We all know Jeremy Bamber is guilty, as does he. As did the jury. And as did the judge and COA judges.

Bamber’s few supporters try to distort & twist ludicrous points that have no significance — and were dealt with decades ago.

They can spout until they’re blue in the face, but the courts made their mind up 34 years ago and knew far more than any of us do; hence why his sentence was INCREASED to Life without Parole.

All these petty little points they try to make have been batted out of court years ago...the ludicrous suggestions that the police shot Sheila, Crispy shot her, the police set him up, the police moved her body...it’s all BS. They’ll be doing this until JB pops his clogs in his cell...they seem to live and breathe him. I find it revolting how anyone can be drawn to a mass murderer who also shot dead two little boys...

I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.

Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing

I’m afraid I can’t agree there.

I’ve seen nothing at all that gives any room for doubt whatsoever. Nothing.

He, and only he was capable of killing those five members of his family. And believe me, if I did indeed think he could in any way be innocent I’d fight his corner, but he’s as guilty as sin — and there’s absolutely nothing but ludicrous conspiracies to try and make some people doubt his conviction.

He’s lied profusely, throughout, changed his stories...and innocent men don’t change their stories do they...

So why do you think Mark Newby has decided to represent him and advance yet more nonsense? as I see it

So what do the defence know about Bamber’s activities that they’ve not shared ?

Would they have a timeline of his apparent over lapping ‘relationships’ for example and would they know JM was abused by Bamber?

The abuse of JM was never explored during Bamber’s trial - the defence attempted to portray her as a ‘scorned women’ instead

They jury nor prosecution it seems were never in possession of the full facts of this aspect of the case

Mark Newby stated:

”It is disappointing that the CPS has chosen not to engage with that process and accordingly there is no alternative but to pursue that judicial review, particularly in circumstances where it appears that this may demonstrate that a misleading position was placed before the jury in relation to the forensic evidence.’”

https://www.thejusticegap.com/bambers-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-non-disclosure/

[Caroline]

Mark Newby recently stated:

”It is disappointing that the CPS has chosen not to engage with that process and accordingly there is no alternative but to pursue that judicial review, particularly in circumstances where it appears that this may demonstrate that a misleading position was placed before the jury in relation to the forensic evidence.’”

https://www.thejusticegap.com/bambers-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-non-disclosure/

Lots of eye rolling in CPS offices.

[Nicholas]

I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.

I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.

Do you see Mark Newby being struck off - is that what you are saying ?