catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
What?
Is there a point (or a question) in there somewhere?
Jeremy Bamber
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Is there a point (or a question) in there somewhere?
I've finished reading "The Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee. I am now as certain as I can be that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. One of my main reasons is the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy, which, if it occurred, must have happened before he (Nevill) was shot in the face twice (because he then couldn't speak, and even if he could he would surely have said "I've been shot"). According to that scenario, he went downstairs to make the phone call, then went upstairs and back to his bedroom where he was shot, then came back downstairs to have a fight with Sheila in the kitchen before finally being shot dead. Then Sheila would have had to have gone back upstairs, cleaned herself ("ritual washing"), taken the silencer off the gun and put it in a cupboard (why would you put it away?), before shooting herself twice. If Jeremy had put the silencer in Sheila's hand, or on the floor alongside her, rather than back in the cupboard, he might well have got away with the crime.
I can't understand why Jeremy didn't kill Nevill in bed. Surely he should have dealt with the biggest threat first, then June. His failure to do this is why he is spending his whole life in prison, in my view.
I can't understand why Jeremy didn't kill Nevill in bed. Surely he should have dealt with the biggest threat first, then June. His failure to do this is why he is spending his whole life in prison, in my view.
anglolawyer
Banned
It's a pity we lost Charlie Wilkes from the forum as he is holding up the pro-innocence side pretty well over at Injustice Anywhere. I'm more with you but, as to why he did not terminate Nevill, I think perhaps he simply underestimated the difficulty of executing his plan. June was a light sleeper according to Lee. It is possible she woke at some sound, maybe the dogs, and woke
Nevill so they were both in motion when Bamber entered the room, resulting in a hail of fire (7 for her, 4 for him) that didn't quite work. Nevill took his chance when the rifle was empty to run downstairs and across the kitchen, displacing the table and chairs, Bamber caught up, battered him unconscious with the rifle, reloaded it and put four bullets in his skull.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
This seems likely to me; the rifle held (at maximum) ten rounds in the magazine and Bamber didn't have the opportunity to reload when his initial shots didn't kill Nevill.
Wrt the silencer they tend to try and discredit it, pushing weird conspiracy theories regarding it's discovery, claiming the blood was planted et cetera.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
It is not like we have never seen "creative" evidence from a court case before. From some of what I have read, the serology test was not very definitive anyway.
Which is fair enough, as it was missed by the 3 or 4 policemen who had looked in that cupboard, and only found weeks later by a relative who had a vested interest in Jeremy ending up in prison.
That is't fair enough, though. That's CT nuts.
At the same time making sure that some of June's DNA was included, and that before DNA testing had ever been used in a criminal case.
12 months on now, and Charlie is no longer in doubt.
Jeremy Bamber looks the miscarriage of the millenium, but anglo is holding out. Nostalgia-NZ and Samson see a replay in the Bain case, gluttonous family peripherals steal the loot, and lead happy lives, though David Boutflour tragically lost a son in a farm accident. He looks a hapless fool, but Robert Boutflor definitely scraped the silencer under the mantle piece after retrieving it from the cupboard. No whippersnapper Bamber was going to become Lord of his manor.
The depravity of Boutflour, Anne Eaton and Julie Mugford sets a world record that won't be broken.
Not just him. I don't think there is much doubt about his guilt.
Any evidence for this? Scraping anything on the underside of a piece of wood will produce detritus on the surface of the something, and a scrape-mark on the piece of wood. It wouldn't produce blood deep in the inside of the silencer.
Do you think that the silencer was the only thing that brought about his conviction?
Oh, and how did June's DNA get in there?
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun and put it away in a cupboard before shooting herself?
Last edited:
Good to see you here Mike. Over on IA it's pretty lively with blue and red forum members blazing away.
N-NZ and I see obvious parallels with Bain, who is clearly innocent from a scientific perspective. There is little point reprising that one, which has been disgracefully resolved with a kind of Alford style finding.
But interestingly Bain opponents cite Bamber as an ideal precedent, so if we can prove Bamber innocent, another leg gets chopped off the milking stool.
Carol Anne Lee seems like a Truman Capote without proof of her case to me. But I will definitely read her book.
I am convinced Sheila did it for the following reasons.
1. A reconstruction by Holly Goodhead clearly shows that Neville was shot four times as he ascended the stairs. This is after he made the phone calls, one to the police, then one to Jeremy. The shots turned him back, by which time the magazine cartridge was empty, because she had also shot momma 5 times without killing her. Seriously disabled, Neville was then beaten with the rifle by Sheila, no overpowering required.
2. She reloads, finishes off Neville, then heads back upstairs and finds Momma has crawled across the room. She puts two shots in her brain, no difficulty aiming now.
3. She shoots the kids, 8 times after reloading, leaving two shots in the gun.
4. This is the real tragedy for Jeremy, Sheila props herself on her right arm, but fails to perceive the direction needed, and shoots herself in the neck. One bullet remains and she gets it right. Without that second bullet she may have survived. All the photographs confirm suicide, and the silencer was never involved.
There is paint on the silencer from under the mantle piece, and there is only one explanation that fits the evidence. Robert Boutflour scraped it on. The evenness of the scratch under the mantle piece is completely inconsistent with a disorganised struggle.
Still, as I say anglo/Clive is battling on bravely, but he may well be continuing as devil's advocate. Taking on Charlie tends to be a fool's errand, he has way too much ammo for the average punter.
Last edited:
I'll have a good think about the rest of your post. However, in the meantime, perhaps you could explain how 2 different lots of victim's blood ended up on the inside of the silencer if it wasn't on the gun during the shootings? Why would anyone bother faking this in the days before DNA was even heard of?
It's an important case, and to be taken seriously. I am studying a whole raft of cases mainly to try to get a handle on how to get Mark Lundy out of jail, so details like the blood and dna inside the silencer have an answer, but not by me.
From what I have assimilated Robert Boutflour had motive and opportunity with the silencer. His "lazy" nephew had complete control of his farming future. I transcribed a financial analysis from a youtube post, that may interest you. I will post it in two parts below.
On the 29th September 1985 a 24 year old man Jeremy Bamber was arrested at the Port of Dover and charged with shooting his entire family. His father 61 year old Neville his mother 61 year old June his sister 27 year old Sheila and her 2 twins 6 year olds Nicholas and Daniel.
On the 28th October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years. To mark his 28th year of wrongful imprisonment we want to trace one of the biggest issues in this case, that of money, and the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, as it was considered that money and the inheritance of the family assets was Jeremy's motive to kill everyone.
Julie Mugford, the girlfriend that Jeremy jilted for another woman not long after the tragedies, made up a story about a hit man, when she herself had been charged with theft, and this particular situation was acted by her to take revenge on an innocent man. She claimed in court that Jeremy had told her, that the hitman had told him, that he had shot Neville 7 times as the police reported, but Neville Bamber was actually shot 8 times. Julie Mugford arranged the deal with the News of the World before the trial for a 25 thousand pound payoff paid on his conviction only, and that sum was worth about 80k in todays terms. She did not sign the contract until minutes after the verdict was announced, when she was waiting with photographers and a journalist, and two police officers in a local hotel, and some of her statements and interviews remain under public interest immunity. Furthermore, Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution provided that she gave evidence for the crown at Jeremy's trial. So much for fair justice.
Jeremy's parents, Neville and June Bamber were a wealthy and successful farming couple. June Bamber was the daughter of wealthy landowners, Lesley and Mabel Speakman. June's sister Pamela married a local man named Robert Boutflour, and they had two children, David and Anne, who also went into the farming business themselves. Later, Anne Boutflour married Peter Eaton, and they farmed Peter's share of the land which was jointly owned with his brother. Before Neville Bamber's death, Peter's father died and Peter's brother, John Eaton, had inherited half the land which he intended to sell to the Bambers. Concerned that their livelihood would be in jeopardy, Peter and Anne did not obtain financial help to purchase this land from Anne's parents, but instead made an approach to Anne's uncle, Neville Bamber, who bought the land from John, so that they were able still to farm the acreage until such time as they could afford to purchase it. This meant that when Neville Bamber died in the tragedy, his son Jeremy now owned unknowingly half of the Eaton's farm. Local gossip was retold about the land deal in police records. Apparently Neville Bamber had had a fight with John Eaton in a local pub over some land that Neville purchased, which Neville felt was vastly overpriced. The jury at Jeremy's trial was suspicious of the testimony of Robert Boutflour and relatives, asked the following question. If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy's being able to kill his own parents. The Eatons and the Boutflours were, after all, the ones who found the only evidence which convicted Jeremy, the sound moderator. Mysteriously, this was in the very cupboard already searched by the police 3 days prior to the relatives finding it. The jury were told via a statement from Robert Boutflour that he was wealthy in his own right, but neither the jury, nor the defence knew anything about the secret land deal in which Jeremy now owned half of the Eatons' land. It was only in 1986, after the trial, when Peter Eaton told the truth about this deal to the Dickenson investigation, which was set up to explore the police handling of the case. Robert Boutflour had also disguised financial affairs from the court in a second way. Jeremy's grandmother Mabel Speakman, who had survived her husband Leslie, rearranged her will leaving a large part of her estate to June and Pamela, her daughters. Robert Boutflour told the jury that he and his wife owned the land that they farmed, but failed to mention that at the time of the tragedies, Mabel Speakman owned the land they farmed, not them. Which meant that once Mabel Speakman died, her estate would pass to June and Pamela. But as June was now deceased and Jeremy was her remaining next of kin, he would also unknowingly have owned half the land they farmed. This only became clear during the statements made by Robert Boutflour to the City of London police in 1991 when he discussed the fact that after his wife inherited the farm from Mabel Speakman, she gave her husband Robert his own equal share of the land they were farming, known as Carbonle's farm. Which meant that he was a wealthy land owner in his own right. This means that during the trial Robert Boutflour did not make it clear to the jury that at the time of the tragedy and during the weeks after, he did not own the land he was farming therefore he did have a very strong motive to lie to the jury as they had suspected. Owing to the Eatons' secret land deal, and if Mabel Speakman had died before her will was changed, Jeremy unknowingly, would have inherited the entire Bamber estate including half of the Eatons' farm and half of the Boutflours' farm, which would have put the relatives into a financially vulnerable position.
On the 28th October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years. To mark his 28th year of wrongful imprisonment we want to trace one of the biggest issues in this case, that of money, and the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, as it was considered that money and the inheritance of the family assets was Jeremy's motive to kill everyone.
Julie Mugford, the girlfriend that Jeremy jilted for another woman not long after the tragedies, made up a story about a hit man, when she herself had been charged with theft, and this particular situation was acted by her to take revenge on an innocent man. She claimed in court that Jeremy had told her, that the hitman had told him, that he had shot Neville 7 times as the police reported, but Neville Bamber was actually shot 8 times. Julie Mugford arranged the deal with the News of the World before the trial for a 25 thousand pound payoff paid on his conviction only, and that sum was worth about 80k in todays terms. She did not sign the contract until minutes after the verdict was announced, when she was waiting with photographers and a journalist, and two police officers in a local hotel, and some of her statements and interviews remain under public interest immunity. Furthermore, Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution provided that she gave evidence for the crown at Jeremy's trial. So much for fair justice.
Jeremy's parents, Neville and June Bamber were a wealthy and successful farming couple. June Bamber was the daughter of wealthy landowners, Lesley and Mabel Speakman. June's sister Pamela married a local man named Robert Boutflour, and they had two children, David and Anne, who also went into the farming business themselves. Later, Anne Boutflour married Peter Eaton, and they farmed Peter's share of the land which was jointly owned with his brother. Before Neville Bamber's death, Peter's father died and Peter's brother, John Eaton, had inherited half the land which he intended to sell to the Bambers. Concerned that their livelihood would be in jeopardy, Peter and Anne did not obtain financial help to purchase this land from Anne's parents, but instead made an approach to Anne's uncle, Neville Bamber, who bought the land from John, so that they were able still to farm the acreage until such time as they could afford to purchase it. This meant that when Neville Bamber died in the tragedy, his son Jeremy now owned unknowingly half of the Eaton's farm. Local gossip was retold about the land deal in police records. Apparently Neville Bamber had had a fight with John Eaton in a local pub over some land that Neville purchased, which Neville felt was vastly overpriced. The jury at Jeremy's trial was suspicious of the testimony of Robert Boutflour and relatives, asked the following question. If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy's being able to kill his own parents. The Eatons and the Boutflours were, after all, the ones who found the only evidence which convicted Jeremy, the sound moderator. Mysteriously, this was in the very cupboard already searched by the police 3 days prior to the relatives finding it. The jury were told via a statement from Robert Boutflour that he was wealthy in his own right, but neither the jury, nor the defence knew anything about the secret land deal in which Jeremy now owned half of the Eatons' land. It was only in 1986, after the trial, when Peter Eaton told the truth about this deal to the Dickenson investigation, which was set up to explore the police handling of the case. Robert Boutflour had also disguised financial affairs from the court in a second way. Jeremy's grandmother Mabel Speakman, who had survived her husband Leslie, rearranged her will leaving a large part of her estate to June and Pamela, her daughters. Robert Boutflour told the jury that he and his wife owned the land that they farmed, but failed to mention that at the time of the tragedies, Mabel Speakman owned the land they farmed, not them. Which meant that once Mabel Speakman died, her estate would pass to June and Pamela. But as June was now deceased and Jeremy was her remaining next of kin, he would also unknowingly have owned half the land they farmed. This only became clear during the statements made by Robert Boutflour to the City of London police in 1991 when he discussed the fact that after his wife inherited the farm from Mabel Speakman, she gave her husband Robert his own equal share of the land they were farming, known as Carbonle's farm. Which meant that he was a wealthy land owner in his own right. This means that during the trial Robert Boutflour did not make it clear to the jury that at the time of the tragedy and during the weeks after, he did not own the land he was farming therefore he did have a very strong motive to lie to the jury as they had suspected. Owing to the Eatons' secret land deal, and if Mabel Speakman had died before her will was changed, Jeremy unknowingly, would have inherited the entire Bamber estate including half of the Eatons' farm and half of the Boutflours' farm, which would have put the relatives into a financially vulnerable position.
According to companies house records in 1985 N and J Bamber limited had been a successful company worth about 400,000 pounds. Neville Bamber the father was worth about 310,000 and a further 80,000 from other personal assets. Jeremy's share was worth about 75,000. After he was convicted he lost legal control of the company. Between the years 1984 and 1988, N and J Bamber made an average profit of about 60,000 a year. Based on these figures the company would have been expected to make about 600,000 pounds in profit, about 60,000 a year over the next ten years. Yet the accounts show that the company made less than 4,000 pounds. This excludes the 58,000 pounds from the winding up of the company in 1998. N and J Bamber Ltd had a fixed asset value of 79,800 pounds in 1984 and a fixed assets value of zero from 1990 to 1998, meaning that between 1985 and 1989 N and J B Ltd lost the whole 79,800 pounds in fixed assets under the control of Peter Eaton and Mr Wilson. Mabel Speakman had been ill for some time, and shortly after the tragedies, but before the trial, she mysteriously changed her will, leaving her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour. This was just 2 weeks after she had been declared medically unable to make a statement to the police owing to ill health. During the trial Robert Boutflour had responded with a definitive statement that included
" Personally I would have no claim on the estate and would not benefit in any way."
Curiously, Robert Boutflour appears in a deed dated 4 August 1987 which was made between one Mr Cock, Mrs Boutflour the second Robert Boutflour and third defendants Martin Cowell. It was agreed and declared that from the respective deaths of Mr Bamber, Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell, Mr Cock stand possessed of all Mrs Boutflour's interest in the respective estates of Mr Bamber Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell upon trust for Mrs Boutflour's children, the 5th defendant, Mr Boutflour and 6th defendant, Mrs Eaton in equal shares absolutely. This means that after the death of Neville, June and Sheila, Basil Cock the company accountant was an executor to the estate. He decided that as June's mother Mabel Speakman was still alive when the tragedies happened, she would now inherit the whole estate. As Jeremy was convicted of murder he could not inherit his parents' share, but he still owned 20% of the company N and J Bamber in his own right. Antony Pargeter and Jaqueline Wood were now Neville's next of kin, and in 1992 made a claim against Basil Cock's decision to give the entire estate to Mabel Speakman, simply because when Mabel Speakman died, before the trial but after the tragedy, she had left her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour, wife of Robert. Pamela then kept half the estate for herself and divided Carbonle's farm between Robert and herself, also giving June and Neville's share of the estate to her children equally, David Boutflour and Anne Eaton. This meant that with Jeremy in prison, the Boutflours and Eatons now had control of all the family assets, including Jeremy's 20% share. The case went to the high court, justice brought by Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood. But on the first day of proceedings they all agreed to an out of court settlement. This meant that Jeremy would not know what the exact terms of the settlement were other than the fact that Antony and Jacqueline would take Neville Bamber's share of the estate. The statement of claim does not suggest that Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood knew their uncle Neville also owned half of the Eatons' farm. The company was eventually wound up many years later leaving Jeremy with a debt of 16,000 pounds, no assets, which was to ensure that he had no finances with which to fight an appeal. Jeremy therefore has been deprived of his own personal wealth because of his conviction, and has never been able to obtain the personal money taken from him with which to fight legal action. There is therefore no legal aid and he can't progress with this.
The N and J Bamber company solicitor Mr Wilson had made Peter Eaton a director of the company without Jeremy's consent. Jeremy had simply believed that Peter Eaton was acting as a manager after the tragedies. Further to this in 1987, the company secretary, Barbara Wilson, approached the police and reported a string of fraudulent activity allegedly carried out by Peter Eaton. This included the following
1. Disposal of farm machinery
2. Sale of a combine harvester.
3. Theft of monies
4. Excessive expenditure
5. Obtaining of discounts using the Bamber company
6. Obtaining of goods being paid for by the Bamber company
7. Using manpower from the estate on his own land
8. Stealing a tractor engine
9. Selling off cattle from the Bamber farm
10. Sale of Jeremy's car and keeping the funds.
Essex police failed to investigate the claims until after the first appeal of Jeremy, as this would ensure that the integrity of a key prosecution witness was not brought into question. It is unclear whether the allegations relate to the time before Jeremy Bamber was taken into police custody.
Antony Pargeter claimed to have kept his rifle and its accessories at White House Farm where it is licenced for use. In his 12 december 1985 statement he claims he left his rifle at the farm and he told the court at the trial he'd bought a sound moderator with the gun which he kept at WHF and yet noone even questioned where this identical moderator was kept during and after the tragedies. In 1991 Antony Pargeter changed his story and told the city of London police investigation that his gun was not at the farm. In the same year he was awarded 40,000 pounds damages and 60,000 costs by the Sunday Sport when they had claimed he could have been a suspect in the murders because bullets found at the scene could have been fired from his rifle. It is unclear what his statement of claim to the court actually was. For example he may have made the claim that his rifle was not after all at the farm, but we simply do not know.
The evidence presented in this video coupled with the material on the website proving Jeremy's innocence strongly suggests that the court were not told the truth about the relatives' financial motive and neither were the jury clear about Sheila Caffel's medical history. Her diaries and medical records were refused disclosure to the defence. There is and never has been any evidence connecting Jeremy Bamber to the killing of his family. The case at trial relied on those who benefited from his conviction and from the evidence they obtained 3 days after the tragedies
" Personally I would have no claim on the estate and would not benefit in any way."
Curiously, Robert Boutflour appears in a deed dated 4 August 1987 which was made between one Mr Cock, Mrs Boutflour the second Robert Boutflour and third defendants Martin Cowell. It was agreed and declared that from the respective deaths of Mr Bamber, Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell, Mr Cock stand possessed of all Mrs Boutflour's interest in the respective estates of Mr Bamber Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell upon trust for Mrs Boutflour's children, the 5th defendant, Mr Boutflour and 6th defendant, Mrs Eaton in equal shares absolutely. This means that after the death of Neville, June and Sheila, Basil Cock the company accountant was an executor to the estate. He decided that as June's mother Mabel Speakman was still alive when the tragedies happened, she would now inherit the whole estate. As Jeremy was convicted of murder he could not inherit his parents' share, but he still owned 20% of the company N and J Bamber in his own right. Antony Pargeter and Jaqueline Wood were now Neville's next of kin, and in 1992 made a claim against Basil Cock's decision to give the entire estate to Mabel Speakman, simply because when Mabel Speakman died, before the trial but after the tragedy, she had left her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour, wife of Robert. Pamela then kept half the estate for herself and divided Carbonle's farm between Robert and herself, also giving June and Neville's share of the estate to her children equally, David Boutflour and Anne Eaton. This meant that with Jeremy in prison, the Boutflours and Eatons now had control of all the family assets, including Jeremy's 20% share. The case went to the high court, justice brought by Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood. But on the first day of proceedings they all agreed to an out of court settlement. This meant that Jeremy would not know what the exact terms of the settlement were other than the fact that Antony and Jacqueline would take Neville Bamber's share of the estate. The statement of claim does not suggest that Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood knew their uncle Neville also owned half of the Eatons' farm. The company was eventually wound up many years later leaving Jeremy with a debt of 16,000 pounds, no assets, which was to ensure that he had no finances with which to fight an appeal. Jeremy therefore has been deprived of his own personal wealth because of his conviction, and has never been able to obtain the personal money taken from him with which to fight legal action. There is therefore no legal aid and he can't progress with this.
The N and J Bamber company solicitor Mr Wilson had made Peter Eaton a director of the company without Jeremy's consent. Jeremy had simply believed that Peter Eaton was acting as a manager after the tragedies. Further to this in 1987, the company secretary, Barbara Wilson, approached the police and reported a string of fraudulent activity allegedly carried out by Peter Eaton. This included the following
1. Disposal of farm machinery
2. Sale of a combine harvester.
3. Theft of monies
4. Excessive expenditure
5. Obtaining of discounts using the Bamber company
6. Obtaining of goods being paid for by the Bamber company
7. Using manpower from the estate on his own land
8. Stealing a tractor engine
9. Selling off cattle from the Bamber farm
10. Sale of Jeremy's car and keeping the funds.
Essex police failed to investigate the claims until after the first appeal of Jeremy, as this would ensure that the integrity of a key prosecution witness was not brought into question. It is unclear whether the allegations relate to the time before Jeremy Bamber was taken into police custody.
Antony Pargeter claimed to have kept his rifle and its accessories at White House Farm where it is licenced for use. In his 12 december 1985 statement he claims he left his rifle at the farm and he told the court at the trial he'd bought a sound moderator with the gun which he kept at WHF and yet noone even questioned where this identical moderator was kept during and after the tragedies. In 1991 Antony Pargeter changed his story and told the city of London police investigation that his gun was not at the farm. In the same year he was awarded 40,000 pounds damages and 60,000 costs by the Sunday Sport when they had claimed he could have been a suspect in the murders because bullets found at the scene could have been fired from his rifle. It is unclear what his statement of claim to the court actually was. For example he may have made the claim that his rifle was not after all at the farm, but we simply do not know.
The evidence presented in this video coupled with the material on the website proving Jeremy's innocence strongly suggests that the court were not told the truth about the relatives' financial motive and neither were the jury clear about Sheila Caffel's medical history. Her diaries and medical records were refused disclosure to the defence. There is and never has been any evidence connecting Jeremy Bamber to the killing of his family. The case at trial relied on those who benefited from his conviction and from the evidence they obtained 3 days after the tragedies
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
It never really was, despite the initial forcus on his sister. He's guilty and staying in prison.
Nope.Me neither.
We've covered all his "points" before.
What is it with you and your seeming urge to defend violent sociopathic scum?
In fact I take little interest in cases of obvious guilt, but I actually believe in my basic research, and there are a variety of inputs that lead to conclusions.It never really was, despite the initial forcus on his sister. He's guilty and staying in prison.
Me neither.
We've covered all his "points" before.
What is it with you and your seeming urge to defend violent sociopathic scum?
In the case of Bamber for example, anglo started by pointing out Mugford's story was too detailed to be made up.
But the deeper one looks, the more resounding is the evidence it was a poison concoction.
Just today on IA Charlie pointed out:
"In any case, Mugford came forward as an informant. Her story was that she was privy to the planning and execution of a quintuple murder, including two small children, before which she did nothing to stop it and after which she lied through her teeth to protect the perpetrator.
So how do police normally deal with scum like that?
Here's a link that spells out the procedures and best practices in a lot of detail:
http://www.academia.edu/8979564/Underco ... ing_Manual
Summary: Never trust an informant, never believe a word they say without corroboration, wire them up whenever possible.
I realize the cops who investigated Bamber were incompetent, but I assume they had a basic familiarity with standard police procedures. They must have had some reason for ignoring those procedures with Mugford. The only reason I can think of is that they didn't believe a word she said. They knew if they went by the book, they would end up discrediting her. And they didn't want to do that because they wanted her perjured testimony as evidence.
Can anyone think of a more likely reason?"
Can you, catsmate, deliver a death blow to that reasoning?
Last edited:
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
I'll admit I didn't really read the thread so maybe it's already been said, but is there ever anyone, anywhere that is guilty in Samson's world?
No mystery there, innocent men in jail are worth discussing, guilty not so much.
Therein lies the root of your problem, Samson: instead of focusing on trying to work out who is guilty and who is the victim of a miscarriage, you have just made it clear you make up your mind then "discuss" your decision.