Jeremy Bamber

[catsmate]

There was no reasoning from you worth responding to. Just the usual word salad that ignored everything presented in the two articles.

OK then. I have read both articles, and much, much, more about Barber's murders.
I consider him very clearly guilty, a dangerous, manipulative psychopath.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, at least that wasn't word salad, but the remaining criticism is still valid.

 

[catsmate]

Well, at least that wasn't word salad, but the remaining criticism is still valid.

Please elucidate, what do you consider to invalidate the conviction of Bamber?

 

[Matthew Best]

Everything presented in the articles I just linked.

 

[catsmate]

Bamber's attempt to have his case to the CoA has failed.

The CCRC has declined to refer the Bamber case back to the court of appeal. It has spent some four years examining four (of the ten) grounds that Bamber’s lawyers claimed undermined the safety of his conviction.
It will continue to examine the other six.

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as stated.

 

[Nessie]

It is staggering that there is definitely evidence of a 999 call from the house, and evidence that Essex Police tried to hide that, and the appeal has been refused. Reasonable doubt should also apply when appealing and there is absolutely reasonable doubt that everyone was dead inside when the police and Bamber were outside.

 

[Vixen]

It is staggering that there is definitely evidence of a 999 call from the house, and evidence that Essex Police tried to hide that, and the appeal has been refused. Reasonable doubt should also apply when appealing and there is absolutely reasonable doubt that everyone was dead inside when the police and Bamber were outside.

The appeal courts looked at all of that stuff and clearly decided it wouldn't make a material difference to the verdict.

 

[Matthew Best]

Obviously that would open up an appalling vista and we can't have that, can we?

 

[catsmate]

The appeal courts looked at all of that stuff and clearly decided it wouldn't make a material difference to the verdict.

Actually they didn't.

 

[Mojo]

The appeal courts looked at all of that stuff and clearly decided it wouldn't make a material difference to the verdict.

Understand how a criminal court works. Part one: finding of facts. Facts cannot be appealed. Part 2: the appeal. An appeal can be on legal points (point of law) or procedural points (such as a mistrial, a jury member was amiss, the judge was drunk or fell asleep). You cannot appeal against established facts.

 

[Vixen]

Not sure what point is being made by Mojo. A crucial element of any appeal is whether the purported 'new evidence' - if you can call a presumed typographical error [in which a handwritten log at the police station notes time of calls received] - would have the potential to change the verdict were it to be sent back to trial.

 

[Nessie]

A 999 call handler, giving evidence at the trial, of a 999 call made from the house, when Bamber was outside, would have altered the verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Heidi Blake, the journalist who wrote the relatively recent 17,000 word US newspaper article claimed to have interviewed Milbank, the police officer who took the call. Millbank denied he was ever interviewed by this journalist and has since died, according to Hattenstone himself.

However, in its provisional statement of reasons, the CCRC said that subsequent to publication of the Blake article, Milbank provided a statement, dated 10 October 2024, saying: “I have never to my knowledge spoken to the New Yorker,” and that he did not know he had been talking to a journalist. Milbank, who was still an officer with Essex police at the time, has died since making the statement. GUARDIAN

 

[catsmate]

Heidi Blake, the journalist who wrote the relatively recent 17,000 word US newspaper article claimed to have interviewed Milbank, the police officer who took the call. Millbank denied he was ever interviewed by this journalist and has since died, according to Hattenstone himself.

Do you ever read other people's posts?

 

[Vixen]

Do you ever read other people's posts?

Please elaborate.

 

[catsmate]

Please elaborate.

Post in thread 'Jeremy Bamber'

Jul 4, 2025

Bamber's attempt to have his case to the CoA has failed.

The CCRC has declined to refer the Bamber case back to the court of appeal. It has spent some four years examining four (of the ten) grounds that Bamber’s lawyers claimed undermined the safety of his conviction.
It will continue to examine the other six.

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as...

• catsmate

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as stated.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's all very vague, isn't it? "Denised the interview occurred as stated"? What is that supposed to mean? The interview occurred but not in the way Blake said? Who cares? "He didn't know he'd been talking to a journalist" - either he said the things he said, or he didn't.

Unfortunately, as we've come to expect from the CCRC, the "investigation" they did doesn't seem to have included interviewing either Blake or anyone from the New Yorker and Milbank is already dead, so all they have to go on are these vague half-hearted denials that don't really deny anything important at all.

 

[Fixit]

It's in her statements to police which weren't admitted at the time as they fell under the hearsay rule. Perhaps you should "use the internet for [your] own research".


She had mental problems and was being treated for them.
She wasn't told on that occasion that "she was an unfit mother" as the letter to her adoptive father from her ex-husband wasn't sent at that time.
Further I suggest you address the evidence from the medical professionals, who were treating her, and from her ex-husband, that she wasn't likely to have engaged in murderous violence, especially towards her father and children.


He hated his adoptive parents, confessed to his then girlfriend and wanted money (hence his earlier criminality)


Instead of invoking supposed parallels why not deal with the mass of evidence of Bamber's guilt?


Right...
You clearly know nothing about the case if you can make such a ridiculous assertion.


Utterly irrelevant. Why not deal with the case you brought up?


Yep and he didn't do a very good job. Most of the investigating officers saw straight through his attempt. As did the court and the appeals courts.


Again study the case before engaging in silly hyperbole.


Again with the irrelevant parallels, you seem rather obsessed. And what exactly is your "far more logical alternative"?

I note Samson that you haven't addressed any of the following points:
1. The phony phone call.
2. The lack of forensic evidence on Sheila's clothes, or on her fathers'.
3. The matter of the moving telephones. This especially mitigates against your apparent belief in Nevill's guilt.

Nor have you elucidated a timeline that explains the events of that night or a motive for Nevill to murder his wide, daughter and grandchildren, nor why Bamber then told police his sister was the killer.

Would you expect gunshot residue on her clothes or herself?