Jeremy Bamber

[anglolawyer]

Comments in bold.

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?

She was useful. She got temazapam when he was planning to drug them and burn the house down. She kept lookout when he burgled the Osea Road office, She was a criminal in her own right. I think this quality may have been the only, or main, thing that attracted him to her. After the murders, once the fuss died down and it became apparent his ruse had worked, he realised not only that he didn't need her but that there were much more attractve alternatives available. He calculated that she wouldn't dare go to the police because she would imperil herself and that if the worst came to the worst, no one would believe her.

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

There was a Mexican stand off. At any moment the police might bust the case wide open. If she didn't rat him out first, he might implicate her. By going first she was taking a huge risk, you're right, but she figured the only way he could get her in trouble would be by confessing himself. I'm not surprised it took her several weeks to make this call.

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.

But then the police would not have had her evidence. How were they to convict without it?

 

[MikeG]

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?"

Funerals for a single person last about an hour. For a family of five, goodness knows how long that would be, and the moments of high emotion are many. I would hardly take two snapshots of just a moment in those funerals as some sort of indication of how people are feeling, what they are thinking, or whether they are faking it or not.

 

[GlennB]

Of time-stamped answerphone recordings from those days -

We had a cassette answerphone back then but I don't recall time-stamps, just a flashing light to indicate that messages had been recorded. Wouldn't it require a voice synthesiser to insert a timestamp statement based on the time set on the recorder? "First message, received at one fifty-two pm" or somesuch?

Or I could be way wide of the mark. It's early here

 

[anglolawyer]

Of time-stamped answerphone recordings from those days -

We had a cassette answerphone back then but I don't recall time-stamps, just a flashing light to indicate that messages had been recorded. Wouldn't it require a voice synthesiser to insert a timestamp statement based on the time set on the recorder? "First message, received at one fifty-two pm" or somesuch?

Or I could be way wide of the mark. It's early here

It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.

 

[Desert Fox]

Funerals for a single person last about an hour. For a family of five, goodness knows how long that would be, and the moments of high emotion are many. I would hardly take two snapshots of just a moment in those funerals as some sort of indication of how people are feeling, what they are thinking, or whether they are faking it or not.

I would add that after a while, no matter how much you love the victims you will simply get bored and hope for it to be over. I don't think we should take anything from the pictures.

If I had a girlfriend who murdered her family, I don't think I would want to help her hand but some people are strange. As such, I don't think that we can even make that assumption.

 

[Samson]

It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.

But Essexman's transcript has the cops saying no records are available from BT. How is this blended into the discussion?

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.

Doesn't that seem just a little far fetched?

 

[anglolawyer]

But Essexman's transcript has the cops saying no records are available from BT. How is this blended into the discussion?

It's what Bamber believed that matters. He seems to have thought the times of calls could be verified.

Doesn't that seem just a little far fetched?

Why?

 

[Desert Fox]

AL:
You seem to be coming up with the huge complex plot with all of these variable including
1. Lying to Mugford about hiring an assassin yet all the while planning to murder them himself.
2. Somehow making Shelia's murder look like a suicide.
3. Using the phones to try to create an alibi.

At the same time, you argue that he was stupid enough not to dispose of the moderator. Soak the frigging thing in bleach and bury it in the forest somewhere. Stupid enough also to dump his girlfriend a month or so after the murders. Take her on a vacation to Spain and have her disappear. Just claim she ran off with some Antonio. If he is willing to murder his whole family, he would certainly be willing to do the same with his girlfriend.

 

[anglolawyer]

AL:
You seem to be coming up with the huge complex plot with all of these variable including
1. Lying to Mugford about hiring an assassin yet all the while planning to murder them himself.
2. Somehow making Shelia's murder look like a suicide.
3. Using the phones to try to create an alibi.

At the same time, you argue that he was stupid enough not to dispose of the moderator. Soak the frigging thing in bleach and bury it in the forest somewhere. Stupid enough also to dump his girlfriend a month or so after the murders. Take her on a vacation to Spain and have her disappear. Just claim she ran off with some Antonio. If he is willing to murder his whole family, he would certainly be willing to do the same with his girlfriend.

1 he probably did toy with the idea of using a hit man. What I haven't figured out is why he didn't tell Julie he had ditched that plan. OTOH you can't imagine the police fed her that story and it would be odd if she just made it up out of nothing. She named a real person who was arrested at the same time as Bamber but proved to have an alibi. Why would she do that?

2 that's the case on which he was convicted - I didn't make it up

3 yes, this is the key to the whole thing

I remain unsure about the moderator. It could be a plant by desperate, venal relatives who thought he was getting away with murder due to police indifference and incompetence. It's also possible he didn't realise blood had blown back inside it.

Murrdering Julie would have been a good idea if he could do it without drawing suspicion. However, life is not so simple. The fragmentation of their relationship was gradual and he had a series of fall back positions to put his faith in against the possibility she would rat on him. Taking her on holiday and coming back without her in circumstances in which she was never seen or heard from again would have had the police and press swarming all over him. Too obvious even for the dozy cops.

 

[Samson]

`

1 he probably did toy with the idea of using a hit man. What I haven't figured out is why he didn't tell Julie he had ditched that plan. OTOH you can't imagine the police fed her that story and it would be odd if she just made it up out of nothing. She named a real person who was arrested at the same time as Bamber but proved to have an alibi. Why would she do that?

2 that's the case on which he was convicted - I didn't make it up

3 yes, this is the key to the whole thing

I remain unsure about the moderator. It could be a plant by desperate, venal relatives who thought he was getting away with murder due to police indifference and incompetence. It's also possible he didn't realise blood had blown back inside it.

Murrdering Julie would have been a good idea if he could do it without drawing suspicion. However, life is not so simple. The fragmentation of their relationship was gradual and he had a series of fall back positions to put his faith in against the possibility she would rat on him. Taking her on holiday and coming back without her in circumstances in which she was never seen or heard from again would have had the police and press swarming all over him. Too obvious even for the dozy cops.

The elephant in room is that suicide staging. It is not so much it is impossible to do it. It is completely impossible to expect to pull it off. And if it is an impossible expectation it is part of no plan.
Mugford is one piece of work to make all this up. These are all the same problems plaguing these cases, the premeditation angle destroys the case.
Premeditation works fine if you plan to end up dead.

 

[Metullus]

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.

My point is that the purported alibi is false and I know it. I also know that the police cannot verify it. When they do not verify it I can spin the story in such a way that I claim to have an alibi and it is not my fault that the police can't support it.

In the Faria case the accused has a well supported alibi that the DA simply hand waved away. Not at all the same thing.

 

[Desert Fox]

My point is that the purported alibi is false and I know it. I also know that the police cannot verify it. When they do not verify it I can spin the story in such a way that I claim to have an alibi and it is not my fault that the police can't support it.

In the Faria case the accused has a well supported alibi that the DA simply hand waved away. Not at all the same thing.

I was told by another poster that they were suppose to have electronic records of phone calls at that time. If so, it would be a simple task to simply call the phone company. It is not the idea of finding a mystery witness. If Bamber thought that, he was not asking for anything unreasonable.

You can also see from anglolawyer's posts that even if they had phone records of the call, they would simply be dismissed as him calling an answering machine to create a false alibi.

It is very similar Russ were the argument is that somebody else had his phone and used his credit card to create an alibi.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is my current version of the plan:

1 he murdered everybody
2 he called his own number from WHF at 3.00 a.m. a pre-agreed time with Julie
3 he hung up once the answer phone kicked in, thus ensuring, as he thought, BT would have a record of the call
4 he called Julie's number a minute or two later, again by prior arrangement
5 he interrupted the call before it was answered so BT would not have a trace of it
6 he went home
7 Julie (this is part of their plan) went into SB's room to discuss the call she had not, in fact, answered
8 SB noted the time on her clock as being 3.12, adjusted to 3.02, which fits perfectly with point 4 above. I bet Julie said something seemingly innocent about the time to cause SB to notice it
9 JB cycles home like crazy, takes a quick shower, discarding his clothes and towels somewhere with a view to permanent disposal later
10 JB calls Witham/Wickham Bishop and then Chelmsford having some time beforehand, when preparing the crime, circled the number(s) in the phone book (this is a prediction based on a combination of (i) faint recollection of reading that he did that and (ii) an appreciation of his scheme)
11 he has a private meeting with Julie when she showed up in the morning in order to agree some aspect of their stories (e.g. whether he called her before the police or after)

 

[catsmate]

Innocent or Guilty Jeremy should have had his conviction quashed many years ago but it would be too shattering for the legal system to admit a conspiracy may have taken place.

What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

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.
So the only reason to doubt the silencer, and thus Bamber's guilt, is a supposed motive of others?

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.

Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?

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 bootDavid 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

Firstly none of this is relevant. Secondly, in the only case I feel competent to comment on (the death of Azaria Chamberlain) the finding of blood was down to incompetence.

 

[Samson]

What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

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.
So the only reason to doubt the silencer, and thus Bamber's guilt, is a supposed motive of others?


Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?


Firstly none of this is relevant. Secondly, in the only case I feel competent to comment on (the death of Azaria Chamberlain) the finding of blood was down to incompetence.

But I am demonstrating a pattern. All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent. Including Jeremy Bamber. The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions.
Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.

 

[Desert Fox]

But I am demonstrating a pattern. All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent. Including Jeremy Bamber. The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions. Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.

I think you are thinking of things as big Conspiracy not little conspiracy. It is more suspicion (cops thinking everybody is guilty) combined with laziness, willingness to bend the system to get the results they want, and an unwillingness to accept that they made mistakes.

 

[Essexman]

What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?

If Jeremy is innocent then a conspiracy has taken place its as simple as that.


How was the blood evidence fabricated? Easy, one could have taken apart the baffle plates in the sound moderator then planted Shelias blood inside.

 

[catsmate]

But I am demonstrating a pattern.

No you're not; there are no connections between the cases, hence no "pattern".

All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent.

Go and demonstrate this.

Including Jeremy Bamber.

Nope.

The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions.

Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.

How about some facts and evidence not silly rhetoric?

How was the blood evidence fabricated? Easy, one could have taken apart the baffle plates in the sound moderator then planted Shelias blood inside.

Where did they get it from? How did they place it so it matched the expectations of the experts?

 

[Samson]

No you're not; there are no connections between the cases, hence no "pattern".


Go and demonstrate this.


Nope.





How about some facts and evidence not silly rhetoric?


Where did they get it from? How did they place it so it matched the expectations of the experts?

If so you win, but citations, and proof including scientific testimony that locates the blood in moderator as replicated by firing a gun at a person or similar. No. I thought not.