Jeremy Bamber

[LondonJohn]

Comments in bold type.

On the "hitman" issue (and IIRC the police brought this named "hitman" in for questioning and found that he had an unimpeachable alibi):

I think Mugford was telling the truth on this matter. I believe Bamber did tell her - before and after the fact - that he'd used this hitman. I think that a psychiatrist would be able to analyse this as a particular character trait of a psychopath (which is what I believe Jeremy Bamber was, in the classical sense). I think he used the device of a mythical hitman to "allow" himself to explain all the details of the crime to Mugford - serving the dual purpose to him of a form of catharsis ("I am responsible, but it wasn't actually me who carried out these horrific acts") and the satisfaction of reliving the crime (while being able to pretend that his reminiscences were vicarious rather than first-hand).

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

Do you not mean that is the reason that Ann Eaton said he gave? You might think it is not an important distinction but it can be quite important.

Edit: Not saying that she is lying either, simply that somebody will often try to simply a complex explanation and everybody gets confused. Might have also asked him why he took so long to call and he shrugged. That can be taken as a response of "I don't know" or "It did not see important."

I believe they have changed it but for a while calling 911 on a cell phone would get you in touch with the State Police. With regards to calling 999, one of the possible (among many) was that he was afraid he would get a non local police department.

 

[Samson]

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.

That looks good, and if so becomes a necessary part of the plan.
There will be testimony from Mugford somewhere that just such an answer phone existed.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Nice idea but at no point did he say 'look, if you don't believe me, check my answerphone' to which there would have been an obvious rejoinder anyway. Plus, if you believe, as he seems to have done, that calls were time stamped somewhere, it would be a dead giveaway that you had fiddled with the device.

Now, LJ, please focus on the task I set! That's what you, especially, are here for

 

[Essexman]

On the "hitman" issue (and IIRC the police brought this named "hitman" in for questioning and found that he had an unimpeachable alibi):

I think Mugford was telling the truth on this matter. I believe Bamber did tell her - before and after the fact - that he'd used this hitman. I think that a psychiatrist would be able to analyse this as a particular character trait of a psychopath (which is what I believe Jeremy Bamber was, in the classical sense). I think he used the device of a mythical hitman to "allow" himself to explain all the details of the crime to Mugford - serving the dual purpose to him of a form of catharsis ("I am responsible, but it wasn't actually me who carried out these horrific acts") and the satisfaction of reliving the crime (while being able to pretend that his reminiscences were vicarious rather than first-hand).

Julie Mugford said in a Television interview that at first she Didn't believe him because he always used to say things like that to shock people

 

[anglolawyer]

Julie Mugford said in a Television interview that at first she Didn't believe him because he always used to say things like that to shock people

It's another mystery to be woven into the telephone plot and figured out, why he left her believing the hitman story even after he dropped the idea.

 

[Essexman]

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.

No its not just "suspicion on the fact they might inherit" there are many factor I bring into this.

1) Its not that they might inherit its that they would inherit. The executor of the will was with them when they looked through the house.

2) Not only did they present the silencer to the police they later showed the police scratch marks on the Kitchen mantle piece that they claimed was caused by the silencer being attached to the rife during a fight in the kitchen. In the early crime scene photographs scratch marks on the mantle piece do not appear in the photo yet they appear in crime scene photographs taken weeks later!

3) They didn't like Jeremy because he was adopted and felt they where the rightful beneficiaries of the estate.

4) Robert and David Boultflour owned two parker hale silencers, the exact same model found at WHF

5) Anthony Pargeter Jeremy's other cousin owned a firearms shop and would have good knowledge on ballistics.

6) The Family had both the silencer and the blood in their possession so they had what was necessary to manufacture the evidence by the standards of 1985forensics.


There is more I can point out but I think I have made my point.

Now if Jeremy is Innocent I don't believe his extended family believed he was, I seriously doubt they callously and wittingly framed an innocent man I think its most likely they became convinced he was guilty and manufacturing the evidence was needed to bring justice, The financial motive also played apart but it was more on subconscious level and only increased their tunnel vision on Jeremy.

 

[Essexman]

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


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

 

[anglolawyer]

Essexman - what do you mean about them having the blood in their possession?

 

[anglolawyer]

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


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

Evidently, you aren't reading my posts.

 

[Essexman]

Evidently, you aren't reading my posts.

I am but please elaborate if you have a solution to this I may have misunderstood

 

[Essexman]

Essexman - what do you mean about them having the blood in their possession?

They had found a pair of Shelia's blood stained underwear, and there was blood still present at the scene.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am but please elaborate if you have a solution to this I may have misunderstood

You said:

The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

and I said he could orchestrate the call with an answer phone.

This is my current theory:

1 Bamber calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and hangs up a few seconds after the answer phone kicks in
2 then he calls Julie's flat, also from WHF
3 by prior arrangement, he hangs up before she picks up
4 she pretends to take the call
5 she goes into Sue Battersby's room to turn SB into an unwitting witness to the time of the call
6 SB recalls later the time was 3.12 but that as her clock was kept 10 minutes fast, it was really 3.02

Now Bamber has a time-stamped call from WHF to Bourtree and an evidenced incoming call at Julie's place at 3.02. There is a flaw in the idea that BT will not have any record of the 3.02 call. I haven't figured that out yet.

 

[Essexman]

You said:

The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

and I said he could orchestrate the call with an answer phone.

This is my current theory:

1 Bamber calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and hangs up a few seconds after the answer phone kicks in
2 then he calls Julie's flat, also from WHF
3 by prior arrangement, he hangs up before she picks up
4 she pretends to take the call
5 she goes into Sue Battersby's room to turn SB into an unwitting witness to the time of the call
6 SB recalls later the time was 3.12 but that as her clock was kept 10 minutes fast, it was really 3.02

Now Bamber has a time-stamped call from WHF to Bourtree and an evidenced incoming call at Julie's place at 3.02. There is a flaw in the idea that BT will not have any record of the 3.02 call. I haven't figured that out yet.

This requires Julie to be in on the plot thou. I don't think she was

 

[anglolawyer]

This requires Julie to be in on the plot thou. I don't think she was

Oh, I do.

Anyway, I'm told elsewhere that my plan doesn't work because it was a flatmate who answered the call. I'm stumped by that.

 

[Metullus]

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


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

Well, to be accurate, Bamber says that he believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his father's call. Just as I might attempt to establish a nonexistent alibi by claiming I was 100 miles away from the scene and I have as a witness a 40ish gentleman in a tweed coat walking a dog. Talk with him, he will remember me. Surely the police have a way of tracking him down?

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, to be accurate, Bamber says that he believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his father's call. Just as I might attempt to establish a nonexistent alibi by claiming I was 100 miles away from the scene and I have as a witness a 40ish gentleman in a tweed coat walking a dog. Talk with him, he will remember me. Surely the police have a way of tracking him down?

The police will often use unreliable witness statements to impeach a defendant then.

Example from a talk from a lawyer.
"No Officer, I was on the Eastern Shore all day."
"We have a witness that says they saw you in Virginia Beach that day."
They will present that in court even when the witness is mistaken about the day.

Look at the Russ Faria Case where he has receipts proving he is elsewhere and the police / prosecution still create a fantasy of how the defendant murdered his wife.

 

[Essexman]

Oh, I do.

Anyway, I'm told elsewhere that my plan doesn't work because it was a flatmate who answered the call. I'm stumped by that.

If you believe Mugford to be involved there are several issues with that theory.

1. Jeremy does not need her and most importantly why on Earth would he leave her for another woman if he knows she knows?

2. If she was involved why would she go to the police? that would be the last thing she would do.

3. She had many interviews with the police and was given immunity from prosecution by the CPS for her felons of drugs supply and check fraud in exchange for testimony against Bamber at trail. If she was involved I think police may have realised and broken her to confess and instead she would be given a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony like Karla Homolka did with Paul Bernardo.

 

[MikeG]

..........
3. She had many interviews with the police and was given immunity from prosecution by the CPS for her felons of drugs supply and check fraud in exchange for testimony against Bamber at trail. If she was involved I think police may have realised and broken her to confess and instead she would be given a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony like Karla Homolka did with Paul Bernardo.

One suspects that you may not actually be from Essex.......

 

[Essexman]

Another interesting observation is the funeral photographs of Mugford and Bamber. No doubt Jeremy is either innocent and in sad or her is guilty and playing an act.

However Julie Mugford if she was involved would also act sad or be genuinely sad however it is evident that Julie has something on her mind and its too difficult for her to focus on the funeral her mind is preoccupied with something she cannot ignore thus she cannot grieve or focus on the rituals at the funeral.

It seems to me Julie is contemplating if Jeremy done it or not and the fact she may be holding hands with a mass killer acting as a grieving son is making her stone faced she cannot believe what may be happening.

The look on her face to me in these photos is "did he do this?"