Jeremy Bamber

[Essexman]

There are so many mistakes that the conviction should be squashed. I don't see a conspiracy but just so many screw ups and then covering things up after the fact. Cops and prosecutors the world around seem to love to cover their hind parts.

The other thing that is horrid is that they can change the rules against the defendant as they go along. One should not be able to upgrade the sentence after the fact.

If the sound moderator is authentic then Jeremy is guilty, Problem is this was "discovered" by his cousins several days afterwards and they stood to inherit the family fortune if Jeremy was convicted. Its suspiciously too convenient whatever way you look at it.

Even some people who believe Jeremy is guilty think the cousins planted residual blood from the crime scene into the sound moderator. its very possible.

 

[Samson]

I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.

 

[Essexman]

I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.

25 years old he is suddenly a millionaire (in todays money) who in his position would not spend allot?

 

[Samson]

25 years old he is suddenly a millionaire (in todays money) who in his position would not spend allot?

To me it falls into the category of inappropriate behaviour that causes suspicion. It is seen a lot amongst the wrongly accused, Amanda Knox, Mark Lundy, David Bain, Lindy Chamberlain, Arthur Thomas. Possibly Angelika Graswald. It is plain dumb for a (guilty) Bamber.

 

[anglolawyer]

I can just post the relevant part in text. This is an interview taken between 9th-12th September 1985. Jeremys words are in Blue, Essex police are in Red. This is very significant for the telephone debate.


R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.

Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB.

0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.

R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42



Jeremy seems to have assumed Telecom could prove such a call happened therefore if he was responsible he would have orchestrated the phone call somehow. Its things like this that make me believe he is innocent he does not seem capable of such a well thought out criminal execution only to leave a blood stained sound moderator in his cupboard then go and tell his girlfiend he done it. A guilty Jeremy would be criminal mastermind and at the same time a complete idiot. It don't make sense.

I agree this is important. What he believed about the telephone system is as important as what that system was. I am baffled.

ETA no I'm not. He had an answerphone! Simple. I don't know he had one. I predict he did. He can't be guilty otherwise.

 

[anglolawyer]

He had a phone with an automatic call back function so it was funky to at least that extent. The thing is, if he said in interview that the police should be able to verify from telephone records that the call was made it means it must have been picked up at Bourtree Cottage. If there was no answerphone then there was no way of pulling off the crime so as to leave a trace of this call. He believed a trace had been left. Therefore:

(I) no answerphone = not guilty
(II) answerphone = guilty or not guilty, and
(III) if guilty, he had an answerphone

Now there is a second problem. If Bamber called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. how did he place a call from Bourtree to Julie a minute or two later? That seems impossible but, if he believed, right or not, the call times could be retrieved then he had to solve it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Figure this out

Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.

 

[Samson]

Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.

Ahem, this plan is delightfully complicated. It sure is lucky Sheila posed dutifully for the suicide with all those bodies around so the show could sensibly go on for the 3am segment.

But seriously, this stuff must have been covered in 30 years, because it is fundamental. I (we) must be missing something obvious.

 

[anglolawyer]

Ahem, this plan is delightfully complicated. It sure is lucky Sheila posed dutifully for the suicide with all those bodies around so the show could sensibly go on for the 3am segment.

But seriously, this stuff must have been covered in 30 years, because it is fundamental. I (we) must be missing something obvious.

Not that complicated IMO, just logical. We know from Julie, assuming she can be believed on this, that Bamber discussed a telephone-alibi with her. The hitman was to use the preset buttons on the cordless phone to ring Bamber's number before leaving via the secret window. For whatever reason, he ditched the hitman idea but kept the telephone alibi thing.

It's possible that, like Scott Peterson's claim to have been playing golf, he just assumed the police would not check up on his claim that he called Mugford. That was actually a pretty good call because they didn't.

 

[Samson]

Not that complicated IMO, just logical. We know from Julie, assuming she can be believed on this, that Bamber discussed a telephone-alibi with her. The hitman was to use the preset buttons on the cordless phone to ring Bamber's number before leaving via the secret window. For whatever reason, he ditched the hitman idea but kept the telephone alibi thing.

It's possible that, like Scott Peterson's claim to have been playing golf, he just assumed the police would not check up on his claim that he called Mugford. That was actually a pretty good call because they didn't.

Slightly off topic, but Anne Eaton said she was suspicious because he was the only survivor, how come. Well fragrant Anne, he didn't live there.

To go from hitman to if you want a job done properly you must do it yourself, he may well have been thinking he need not only be the survivor, but have a family suspect, Sheila. Hitman is not currently working for Richard Glossip, they saw right through it and will kill him wednesday. (He is innocent). But in fairness, the random home invasion theory is discredited, it is not favoured. Bamber may have amended plans accordingly.

 

[Aepervius]

If the sound moderator is authentic then Jeremy is guilty, Problem is this was "discovered" by his cousins several days afterwards and they stood to inherit the family fortune if Jeremy was convicted. Its suspiciously too convenient whatever way you look at it.

Even some people who believe Jeremy is guilty think the cousins planted residual blood from the crime scene into the sound moderator. its very possible.

The problem I have with such statement is that you are basing SOLELY your suspicion on the fact they might inherit. You are not looking at the item discovered or the forensic of it. You are just looking at who discovered it and what they might gain from it. Remove the inheritance and make the exact same discovery in the exact same circumstance and you would not suspect a thing.

Do you see why I am not taking the "they inherit so that make evidence suspect" theory ? You are not basing your judgement on the evidence, you are solely basing it on WHO found the evidence.

That is not how it should be. Firstly you should discuss the evidence found, and what forensic bits it bring up. If it brings up blood, which can be matched, then any objection on who found it and what they stand to get for it, would have first to overcome all those forensic bit in strength.

In other word just saying "but but they might have gained stuff !" is not enough. You would have to demonstrate that not only would they have the knowledge and the possibilities to make up such object, but also to make up every bit of forensic knowledge gained by the object.

Frankly suspicion of gain on the family part is on the level of baseless CT.

 

[Aepervius]

I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.

No. Because there is an easier explanation which psychologist can tell you : Most people getting large amount of money immediately tend to spend it. Most of us have stuff they can't do because they do not have the money, and having the suddenly large influx, they do not put it in a piggy bank, they spend it on those needs or perceived needs they had for years.

You might be different, if so congrats. But most people are not like that.

Skepticism also means considering the most likely explanation. Not only the one going toward your pet theory.

 

[Aepervius]

To me it falls into the category of inappropriate behaviour

Congrat you just called most human as having inappropriate behavior.

 

[Samson]

The problem I have with such statement is that you are basing SOLELY your suspicion on the fact they might inherit. You are not looking at the item discovered or the forensic of it. You are just looking at who discovered it and what they might gain from it. Remove the inheritance and make the exact same discovery in the exact same circumstance and you would not suspect a thing.

Do you see why I am not taking the "they inherit so that make evidence suspect" theory ? You are not basing your judgement on the evidence, you are solely basing it on WHO found the evidence.

That is not how it should be. Firstly you should discuss the evidence found, and what forensic bits it bring up. If it brings up blood, which can be matched, then any objection on who found it and what they stand to get for it, would have first to overcome all those forensic bit in strength.

In other word just saying "but but they might have gained stuff !" is not enough. You would have to demonstrate that not only would they have the knowledge and the possibilities to make up such object, but also to make up every bit of forensic knowledge gained by the object.

Frankly suspicion of gain on the family part is on the level of baseless CT.

Noble cause corruption or bad and very late forensic evidence without which the case collapses.

My list
Arthur Thomas....................cartridge case.
Lindy Chamberlain..............blood in boot
David Bain...........................lens of glass
Jeremy Bamber...................blood in silencer
Scott Watson.........................two blonde hairs
Mark Lundy..........................wife's brain on shirt (but no blood or neurons)
Raffaele Sollecito...................dna on bra hook

And on and on

 

[anglolawyer]

Slightly off topic, but Anne Eaton said she was suspicious because he was the only survivor, how come. Well fragrant Anne, he didn't live there.

To go from hitman to if you want a job done properly you must do it yourself, he may well have been thinking he need not only be the survivor, but have a family suspect, Sheila. Hitman is not currently working for Richard Glossip, they saw right through it and will kill him wednesday. (He is innocent). But in fairness, the random home invasion theory is discredited, it is not favoured. Bamber may have amended plans accordingly.

This is incorrect. She was suspicious by nature, to begin with, but the many things her suspicions focused on were perfectly legitimate things for the police to have questioned, the most obvious and glaring being Bamber's failure to call 999 immediately. The complacency and incompetence of Essex police in this case were utterly staggering but not unique.

Ian Huntly, the Soham murderer, escaped immediate arrest by telling the WPC he conducted around the girls' school, where he was caretaker, he could not unlock a particular cupboard because he didn't have the key. She swallowed that. The victims' clothes were in the cupboard.

 

[Aepervius]

Noble cause corruption or bad and very late forensic evidence without which the case collapses.

My list
Arthur Thomas....................cartridge case.
Lindy Chamberlain..............blood in boot
David Bain...........................lens of glass
Jeremy Bamber...................blood in silencer
Scott Watson.........................two blonde hairs
Mark Lundy..........................wife's brain on shirt (but no blood or neurons)
Raffaele Sollecito...................dna on bra hook

And on and on

You would have to demonstrate that the evidence is flawed. Stating "but but in other case of history there was corruption somewhere in the world!" does not help you a little bit (otherwise every and ANY evidence could then be discredited by just pretending somebody somewhere faking some evidence. Which is a stupid contention sorry).

 

[Desert Fox]

Kind of dusting off what I wrote earlier on naother forum about the potential phone calls:

I was looking at Wiki and they have a call sheet from a potential call which is thought by some to be Neville. If there are two police call logs, that does seem pretty weird. If there is only one, it means some pretty sloppy way of wording things. In another case I am looking at, the police appear to have created some of their paperwork after the fact. That might be the case here as well where the police created reports after the fact, forgetting they created the already existing paperwork.

Assuming that there is only one call to the police, I actually can believe that it might take around 26 minutes to call the police. It takes a few minutes really to wake up from a full sleep. In addition, you hope that Neville will call you back and tell you that it has been resolved. You try to call him back a few times. You worry a lot. You also really do not want the police involved. You finally and reluctantly decide that you need to call the police all the while castigating yourself for taking so long to call them. [Yes, I might be talking from personal experience.] Calling a local police number is strange but not enough to be considered suspicious even when tied to time frame. I have some speculation why he might do it but I don't know if they are relevant.

With regard to his call to Julie, this was recorded at least a month afterwards, correct? Anything that removed from the events is very suspicious because it can easily be suggested into somebody's memory or could be a different day. For example, there is another case I am looking at where witnesses said that the victim had a basketball game the day the victim disappeared where she was suppose to score. There is pretty solid evidence that the basketball game did not happen that day and that the people were confused about the day.

Did not Mugford in her first police interview states that Jeremy hired an assassin who killed his family? After the assassin was proved to have an ironclad alibi, her story changed?

 

[Samson]

This is incorrect. She was suspicious by nature, to begin with, but the many things her suspicions focused on were perfectly legitimate things for the police to have questioned, the most obvious and glaring being Bamber's failure to call 999 immediately. The complacency and incompetence of Essex police in this case were utterly staggering but not unique.

Ian Huntly, the Soham murderer, escaped immediate arrest by telling the WPC he conducted around the girls' school, where he was caretaker, he could not unlock a particular cupboard because he didn't have the key. She swallowed that. The victims' clothes were in the cupboard.

I read her statement, and this stuck with me. She said many things, this was one thing, I will return to PDF if necessary. I regard her as being keen on her suspicion, because he told her he was planning to have a greater share of the caravan park some time previously, and that pissed her off.

 

[anglolawyer]

Comments in bold type.

Kind of dusting off what I wrote earlier on naother forum about the potential phone calls:

I was looking at Wiki and they have a call sheet from a potential call which is thought by some to be Neville. If there are two police call logs, that does seem pretty weird. If there is only one, it means some pretty sloppy way of wording things. In another case I am looking at, the police appear to have created some of their paperwork after the fact. That might be the case here as well where the police created reports after the fact, forgetting they created the already existing paperwork.

I am quite sure Nevill did not call Malcolm Bonnet, whose note you are referring to. That idea faces insuperable difficulties not excluding Bonnets own denial, of course.

Assuming that there is only one call to the police, I actually can believe that it might take around 26 minutes to call the police. It takes a few minutes really to wake up from a full sleep. In addition, you hope that Neville will call you back and tell you that it has been resolved. You try to call him back a few times. You worry a lot. You also really do not want the police involved. You finally and reluctantly decide that you need to call the police all the while castigating yourself for taking so long to call them. [Yes, I might be talking from personal experience.] Calling a local police number is strange but not enough to be considered suspicious even when tied to time frame. I have some speculation why he might do it but I don't know if they are relevant.

Your explanation isn't the one he gave Ann Eaton, He told her he didn't think it was that important. Wasting time looking up the number for Chelmsford police when the 999 service was available is inexplicable IMO.

With regard to his call to Julie, this was recorded at least a month afterwards, correct? Anything that removed from the events is very suspicious because it can easily be suggested into somebody's memory or could be a different day. For example, there is another case I am looking at where witnesses said that the victim had a basketball game the day the victim disappeared where she was suppose to score. There is pretty solid evidence that the basketball game did not happen that day and that the people were confused about the day.

True. The evidence of the timing of his call to Julie is sketchy.

Did not Mugford in her first police interview states that Jeremy hired an assassin who killed his family? After the assassin was proved to have an ironclad alibi, her story changed?

No. I don't think this is correct. She said he told her he would use a hitman who he named (and the police arrested) but she gradually came to realise he did it himself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.

Here's a thought:

In those days, answerphones were stand-alone units that were in a serial connection with the telephone. The only way they time-stamped received messages was via their own clock which had to be set manually - there were no network timings communicated to the answerphone device (nor, of course, any internet times). The answerphone time (and date) had to be manually set just as one would set a cheap bedside alarm clock nowadays.

And therefore, a crafty Bamber who had carefully premeditated and planned this murder could easily have manually adjusted the time on his answerphone before he left for White House Farm, such that the call he placed to himself from the farm would receive a time stamp on his answerphone that constructed his alibi. After he got back to his house after the murder, he would have reset his answerphone clock to the correct time. He would have been confident (and correctly so) that there would be no forensic record on his answerphone of the time having been changed twice on that night.