Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

PUBLIC STATEMENT

This statement concerns the present state of the Jeremy Bamber case and the present situation of this Forum.  I wish to address both matters.

Thoughts about Jeremy Bamber

At the time of writing (late July 2025), Jeremy Bamber's application is still under formal consideration by the CCRC.  Two recent developments have been reported unofficially:

First, in mid-June it was being claimed that the CCRC had already made their decision but were refusing to notify Jeremy Bamber and his lawyers what that decision was.  Quite why the CCRC would behave in this way is anyone's guess.  On the other hand, the claim came not from Jeremy Bamber's lawyers but from his Campaign Team, and the Campaign Team do have a history of advancing claims that turn out to be untrue or misrepresentations - which is not to say I am suggesting they are liars, you understand.  Let us put that awkward topic aside.

Second, it is now being claimed that the CCRC have refused four of Jeremy's 10 grounds for appeal, but there is no official confirmation of this.  The closest to a reliable source is the Guardian newspaper, which reports it here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/04/review-body-ccrc-refuses-to-refer-jeremy-bamber-murder-case-back-court-of-appeal.

I say 'reliable'.  That word perhaps does not go well with the Guardian, given its history, and I think their source must be the same Campaign Team I refer to above.  Nevertheless, I will proceed on the assumption that the report contains at least the essential truth that the CCRC are unimpressed with Jeremy's application, since something that goes to the disadvantage of Jeremy seems unlikely to be a misreport or mistake in the hands of his own Campaign Team or the Guardian newspaper.

What I am about to say may be spectacularly overturned any day now and I may turn out to be completely wrong, but my belief is that the CCRC have already rendered a decision - at least provisionally - to Jeremy Bamber and his lawyers (and by extension, to the Campaign Team) on all grounds and that decision is a conclusive refusal to refer his case to the Court of Appeal on any of the 10 grounds advanced. Accordingly, I predict there will be an announcement at some point in the future that his application to the CCRC for a referral has been refused in full.

It will be open to Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers and the Campaign Team to persuade the CCRC to change their minds or successfully challenge the decision in a judicial review, but I think it is likely further pleas and applications will fall on stony ground.

If I turn out to be wrong about this and the CCRC renders a favourable decision for Jeremy, I will greet the news with genuine excitement and fascination, but I think this is unlikely to happen. 

Absent of some change in the law concerning sentencing, I think Jeremy Bamber will remain in prison until he dies.   

I started out my interest in this case as a sceptic of Jeremy's claims of innocence, and at one point I even frankly told him in a letter that I believed he was guilty of killing his family.  Yet at one and the same time, I was also convinced that there was doubt as to the legal safety of the case against him.  That's what made the case interesting.  This view was based not on the theories and claims of his Campaign Team or Mike Teskowitz, much of which I have always been inclined to dismiss, rather it was my own conclusion based on my own thoughts and study of the case. 

However, as time has gone on and I have seen and studied more documents and material, I have become more receptive to Jeremy Bamber's protestations of innocence.

I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility.  I never thought I would make that statement.  This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public.  It is not conclusive, and never will be, and I must grant that it is also possible I am misinterpreting it.  Expert input is needed, but my tentative conclusion about it is that it is damning for the prosecution. 

Note: I am NOT saying that I think he is innocent.  That is not my stance.  I never have taken a dogmatic stance on this case and I never will.  I am a researcher, not a campaigner.  I merely say that, having come into possession of a certain piece of evidence, I think his factual innocence is a significant possibility, whereas previously I would have been best described as sceptical of his claims of innocence.

As to the law, I remain of the same view as always: that there is reasonable doubt in the case, he should not have been convicted in 1986, and his case should be referred to the Court of Appeal at once where his convictions should be overturned.  Not to do so would, I believe, be a legal injustice at minimum, and quite possibly keep an innocent man in prison.

This Forum

You may be wondering why this Forum is so quiet.  Currently, there are three major online platforms for discussion of this case: the Jeremy Bamber Forum ('the Blue Forum'), a sub-forum of the UK Miscarriage of Justice Forum ('the Red Forum'), and various groups on Facebook that can easily be found by searching on that platform.

I have no wish to post on any of those platforms; I have neither the time nor inclination.  Specifically, the Red Forum is dogmatically pro-guilt and its members come over as closed minded, and at times unpleasant and abusive.  Facebook is a waste of time in general and I have never understood its appeal, but a particular factor in my aversion to it is that the pro-Jeremy Bamber groups on there contain some of the most boorish (and boring) and abusive individuals you could hope to meet, giving the lie to any suggestion that the rabid, haranguing and unpleasant atmosphere that characterises this case at times has its provenance exclusively with the pro-guilt side.  It doesn't.  There are some nasty people on the pro-innocent side as well.

The Blue Forum is the superior of the three, but the discussions go over old ground already covered, sometimes involving people who would not post such opinions and speculation if they took the time to actually read the case documents and other primary sources.  The Blue Forum also tolerates a group of trolls who I suspect are heavily vested in the case and whose purpose is to disrupt that forum and render it mostly trivial (and I believe they have succeeded).

The purpose of this Forum is a bit different to those other places.  This Forum is a place for serious discussion of the case and to provide access to a comprehensive library of case documents, catalogued and indexed.  That means there will not be a queue down the street to join.  I receive plenty of applications that aren't Russian bots, maybe 10 a week at the moment, but nearly always never hear back when I explain that I expect people to join transparently under their own names because I don't want (and don't have the time for) trolls and bored, mentally-unbalanced middle-aged people who need to fill up their lives by annoying people online.  This means that the Forum has few members and is quiet, and that is the way I want to keep it for now.

Filling up an online forum with idiots and silly people is something anybody can do.  I don't have the time to nanny a bunch of adult babies.

If you have a genuine interest in the case, by all means e-mail me and you can join.  If you are vested in the case in some way, there is no objection to you joining as long as we have transparency and you let me know what your interest in the case is.

My approach to the case – to any such case – is strictly neutral, impartial and objective.  I have come to my conclusions, but that does not alter my neutrality.  I have spent considerable time examining and debunking the claims and theories of the Campaign Team, as much time as I have spent on the prosecution, and if further evidence arises that causes me to believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty, then so be it.

Another factor in the quietness of the Forum is that, frankly, I am mentally spent.  I will not lie to you: I am a failure.  I had hopes for my investigation of this case and those hopes have come to naught – so far.  The root of this is that the task of cataloguing and uploading all the case documents in an organised and comprehensible structure took six months of solid work in between my other commitments, with late nights and getting up in the early hours of the morning.  By the end of it, I was cursing Mike Teskowitz because Jeremy Bamber had trusted the case documents to him and it was incumbent on him to carry out this archiving, not spend his time inventing wild theories.  Had he buckled down to the task, his legacy to Jeremy Bamber would have been meaningful.  This is a case that should have light shone on it because it can teach us so much about policing and the workings of the criminal justice system in England and all their flaws, but that can only happen if people can approach the material in an organised and systematic way.

By the end of the archiving task, I was done with this case forever – or so I told myself at the time – because all I could see was more and more thankless work stretching into the distance.  I was also at this point still demoralised from my experiences on the Blue Forum. 

The work ahead

The good news [well, I think it's good news anyway] is that I am back at it.

What I have organised into a library now needs to be indexed and turned into a searchable archive, which requires coding work.  I now intend to resume that work, but slowly this time, and this time alongside my other plans: including one or more books on the case.

I am only slowly getting back into it, and in so doing, I am wary and mistrustful of others and any claims of good faith.  The behaviour of trolls on the Blue Forum took its toll on me mentally and motivationally.  They know who they are and they will always deny what they did.  My attitude to it is let them waste their lives arguing online.  My time will be spent on productive work. 

Realistically, what can be achieved?

I no longer believe that it is a matter of challenging an unsafe conviction.  Unless I am shown to be wrong by the CCRC, I think the case made by Jeremy's representatives was not enough to overturn the convictions and he will stay where he is until he dies.  If he is truly innocent (it is very much an 'If'), it is monstrous what has been done to him, but realistically I am just one man and I cannot change it. 

It is not that the evidence is lacking, it is more the nuanced problem that the expertise to translate the evidence into an arguable case in legal terms is lacking, and so in my opinion, the real task before us is now public education and recording history for future generations.  Whether my efforts are of any effect or value will be for others to judge, probably after I am dead - should anyone even find me or pay attention.

QuoteAdam:
I first mentioned the answering machine years ago. And today in reply 9!

Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

QuoteMunksa:
Did he even have an answering machine pre murder though? Unless it can be established then it's waste of my time imo to discuss.

I have head of this answering machine but he got it pro murders.

Munksa,

If Jeremy is guilty, he must have at least one answering machine pre-murders, maybe two if he wants a 'clean' one for the murders that he then hides or destroys while he pretends his usual one was not switched-on that evening.

QuoteMunksa:
No clue QC

Sorry, it would have to be the one answering machine.  The reason I am getting confused is because I have been looping together all the logical deductions and it gets convoluted and confusing.

I now realise that he can't have planned the phone calls.  It follows that he had just the one answering machine and if he is guilty, that must have been switched on.  He has then opportunistically come up with the idea of the call on the hoof, then it goes as Adam says - he rings his own number, presses the hook switch down, leaves the handset off the hook, then takes the ladies push bike back.  He then unravels things at the other end by disposing of the answerphone tape or deleting the record on the phone digitally (hoping that there is no way for it to be recovered by forensic examination).  He rings Julie, then the police, etc., etc.

I accept all this is possible, but in order for it to be plausible I need a solution to the problem of timings.  Remember, he is making three calls:

- one to himself;
- one to Julie;
- one to the police.

How does he manage to keep the timings consistent, bearing in mind he is staging this on the assumption that there could be a traceable record at the telephone exchange of what he is doing?

Specifically, this is what I asked Adam:

QuoteQuote from: QCChevalier on January 08, 2022, 06:09:PM
Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

Or do we say that he doesn't care about the timings of calls, he even invents the call from Nevill?  If so, what does he need the bike for?

QuoteJane:
Surely all he needed was a spare tape? I seem to think the early answer machines were like mini tape recorders.

It depends on the model and type of machine used.  Do we know?

QuoteMunksa:
Agreed! This is why I don't want to think of a scenario unless I am sure he definitely had one pre murders

I think you misunderstand.  I'm not arguing against scenarios, I merely say that it is confusing because we have to think in reverse about how he might have planned it.

My questions still stand.  At what times did he make the relevant calls?  Or do you say he simply invented the call from Nevill?

QuoteAdam:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10965.0.html

I have done a recent time scale of the massacre.

At what time does he ring himself from the farm?

Your time for ringing Julie is different to that given by the prosecution.  Susan Battersby seems very sure that Julie came into her room at 3.12 a.m. immediately after her call from Jeremy.

QuoteRob:
If he simply invents the call from Nevil QC then there is no need to delay? He either phones the Police direct, or even better 999 and just says my farther just called etc.

The delay suggests to me he faked a call from WHF?

Yes, could be.  If you accept Susan Battersby's evidence, then you have a 10-minute or so delay which I assume is needed by the guilt camp so that Jeremy can hurriedly cycle back.  But I think they forget that he is cycling back in the dark and being careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage.

I'm still doubtful that this adds up.  It does look like he winged it and invented the call from Nevill, if he is a guilty.

QuoteAdam:
Well there are lots of different times as to when he phoned Julie. Bamber wasn't even sure if he phoned her before or after the police.

He phoned himself around 3am.

So Susan Battersby's evidence is wrong now?  How convenient for you, to leave the times open like that; but we do have a definite book-end, because PC West must have taken Jeremy's call no later than 3.25 a.m., probably 3.24 a.m.

Let's see:

He phones himself at 3 a.m.

We're now disregarding Susan Battersby's evidence.  She must have been lying.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he cycled back to the cottage in reasonably quick order.  DI Wilson managed it in 16 minutes during daylight.  How about 25 minutes?

He then composes himself, but wait, he needs to ring the police.

It's now 3.27 a.m.  He should have been speaking with PC West three minutes ago, and he first has to ring two other police numbers and he also needs to ring Julie.

Oh dear.

OK.  Let's say he cycles there in 20 minutes.  Then it becomes just about possible, but it means he only has minutes to make multiple phone calls and compose and collect himself, etc., etc.

To me, this doesn't add up.  Or rather, it only adds up if you shave more time off his cycle journey between the crime scene and the cottage.  Shall we say 17 minutes?  But it took DI Wilkinson 16 minutes in daylight.

It remains doubtful he could have done this.  Sorry.

QuoteAdam:
Why are you focusing on SB? There are about 6 people who give varying times on when Bamber called Julie.

The reason should be obvious, if you know the case.

It is Susan Battersby who was encouraged by the police to give a precise time [*date], and she obliged them.  Interestingly, this was not the time of Jeremy's call, rather it was the time that Julie came into Susan Battersby room after Jeremy's call - though Jeremy's call was brief, hence the significance of the time given.  I wonder why Julie did that?  Perhaps we should pass over that question in silence, as a famous philosopher once said.

As you rightly say, the flatmates were all over the place with times, even suggesting it could have been any time between 2.00 and 3.30 a.m.!  But that doesn't help the prosecution case, does it.  It means Jeremy could be as right as the flatmates about when he rang Julie, and in that regard, you have not a leg to stand on.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, if you are saying Jeremy has staged the call, then it doesn't add up.

If you want to change your story and say that Jeremy just made up the call from Nevill out of thin air, fine.  In that case, you don't need June's bike, Jeremy can just go back on foot.

Quoteilovebooze:
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?

If Jeremy is guilty, I don't believe he could have planned the call from Nevill or staged one, which leaves only the option of inventing a call from Nevill.

QuoteActually he probably phoned his cottage around 2.50am. Then phoned Julie around 3.15am.

In all the excitement he lost track of time. Or thought a shorter gap between receiving Nevill's call & phoning the police was better.

So now we're saying Jeremy phoned himself at 2.50 a.m.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he has nothing else to do in the farmhouse at this point and can leave quickly.  So he makes off from the farm reasonably smartly at 2.55 a.m.

Adam says he rings Julie from the cottage at 3.15 a.m.  You'll see immediately that the timings are still tight.  He has to be very careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage especially.

For this to work, he needs to be at the cottage by 3.10 a.m. and then ring Julie quickly and only be on the phone with her briefly.

He speaks with PC West at 3.24 a.m., so he has a 10-minute window after his call to Julie to shower, change and compose himself.

All the time he is doing this, it will be on his mind that the police may ask him why it took him almost 35 minutes to get through to the police.  This must be why he lied in his statement and said 3.10 a.m. for Nevill's call.  He then suggests to the police in an interview that they should check on the call times with British Telecom.

Of course, all of this is possible, but the issue here is plausibility: it doesn't sound convincing to me.

QuoteMunksa:
If he had planned this murders for months, I am sure he would have done his homework if calls could be traced or not.

One could say he was adamant because he knew it couldn't.

He even said a pathetic thing in desperation , that a witness could have seen him through the window taking the call! Ya right, what are the chances of someone seeing him taking a call at 3am in a quiet rural  " sleepy" village?

Who told him?  Where did he find this information?  How?

QuoteAdam:
Just need a BT log to show a 10 second phone call took place at 3.10am from WHF on the night.

Good luck finding that.

Oh & Bamber is saying he phoned the police at 3.36am. So there is time.

So to be clear, now you're saying that Jeremy was telling the truth all along and he rang Julie at 3.30 a.m.?

QuoteAdam:
That is what I just said. Assuming he did phone WHF at all.

And assuming he did phone Julie at 3.15am.

Bamber told the police he received Nevill's call around 3.10am.

What is the problem.

The problem is that you're all over the place.  You're the one who boasts that you know it all about this case and that Jeremy is definitely guilty beyond all doubt, so make up your mind please about what occurred.

You're being evasive and changing the times and explanations when cornered because the prosecution case does not add up.

If Jeremy did this, he must have invented the call from Nevill, but he then tells the police to check with BT.  It's now suggested he was just being cocky.  I note that whenever a stumbling block arises in this case, it's always put down to Jeremy being arrogant or cocky.  That's the go-to explanation.

Ok, let's say he was being cocky, we're still left with doubt about the safety of the conviction because we have a story that doesn't add up.

Someone else says Jeremy must have established the position with BT as part of his planning.  So he rang up BT and asked them?  I can only assume he must have done so under a false name.  Who did he speak to?  I doubt an ordinary BT operator would know this information.  The police looked into this and needed a witness statement from an engineer and even his evidence is inconclusive.

QuoteAdam:
This is a straight forward scenario.

QC will try to go around in circles on specific times.

If Bamber did phone his cottage from WHF, it would be around 2.45am - 3.00am.

He then cycles back & phones Julie/the police.

That is if he did phone WHF.

You are now putting the time back potentially by another five minutes, but conceding that you think it could have been as late as 3.00 a.m., when I have already shown you that this is next-to-impossible, and certainly rather implausible.

You don't have a clue.

QuoteMunksa:
I wish I had an answer to that.

Where there a will there is a way. He could have started it as casual conversation, he knew lots of people around London Clubs and I am sure sone of them will be unsavoury character. He could have got an idea.

Mind you I said COULD.

I don't believe it, sorry.  You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needed to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  It's the sort of thing the person asked would remember.

I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever.

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.

QuoteAdam:
Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks.

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

QuoteAdam:
As said, Bamber would -

Ring his answering machine from WHF. Leave a 10 second message. Hang up.

That ends the call. On both ends.

I thought of this as well.  It's in my Jeremy scenario, albeit I agree that if he is going to stage the call in a way that is sensitive to timings (which is the only reason he would do it), then he must terminate the call at the farm end, leave the handset off the hook, and he absolutely must return to Bourtree Cottage by push bike (whatever the practicalities of this method of conveyance, another issue).

I had understood that an answerphone at Bourtree Cottage was examined by the police, but I don't recall where that is confirmed.  Assuming that is the case, then it must be that Jeremy had a second answerphone, which he rigged up on the night and then hid.

Another issue here is, if Jeremy did have an answerphone at the cottage that was seized by the police, how did Jeremy take the call from Nevill in the first place?  Surely if Nevill had first started speaking into the answerphone, that evidence would have been retained by police?  Is Jeremy saying that he just didn't connect the answerphone that evening (they did have an on-off switch in those days, I seem to recall)?

QuoteRob:
If the answer phone was off QC the phone would ring but no call would be registered? I did read somewhere that the police removed a answerphone but don't quote me.

I've just realised that the answerphone theory doesn't stand up.  Before I explain why, I will address your comment.  You're overlooking that if Jeremy is guilty, he has obtained a second answerphone and rigged that up and switched it on prior to leaving for White House Farm.  On the other hand, if Jeremy is innocent, the answer function on the phone has simply been switched off, meaning that the phone would ring on in the normal manner without the interruption of an automated message.

Now I will explain why the answerphone theory doesn't hold together.  The reason is that in order for it to work, Jeremy would need to obtain a second phone that would be used that night then hid from the police, but as I have already explained, Jeremy could not have planned to stage a call as he had no way of knowing that Nevill would be in the kitchen and there was no phone in the bedroom, so he had no means to explain how Nevill could reach a phone.

A pro-guilt person could reply to this by saying that Jeremy could have planned to stage a pre-incident call from Nevill as part of an alibi, but if you think about this within the parameters of a prosecution scenario, that can't work and this would be intuitive and obvious to Jeremy, if he were guilty.  The bottom line is, he has to kill Nevill in bed or wherever Nevill is sleeping.  Anything else represents the plan going awry.

I am swinging back and forth on this case, but I am very doubtful that Jeremy could have carried out this plan.  If he did, then I'm still struggling to see how he did it.

If he planned it, he planned it.  Tracing of phone calls is a very obvious point.  If what Rob said on the other thread is true and the line could only be closed at the caller end, then Jeremy can't stage the call from Nevill.  It's impossible.  Furthermore, we know that Jeremy did later on make calls from Bourtree Cottage.
Thus, what the guilt camp are telling us is that Jeremy has decided to wing it and invent a call from Nevill and hope either that the police don't check with BT or there is no practicable way of establishing the position.  I find that rather unlikely.  The pro-guilt camp agree with me, which is why they explain it as Jeremy's arrogance.  Notice what Jane is saying.  Think about it.  Jane is tacitly conceding the point, but saying: 'Oh, but Jeremy is arrogant and would have chanced it'.  Jeremy's supposed 'arrogance' has become the deus ex machina of the pro-guilt camp as they confront the practical and logical difficulties of the prosecution scenario.

My own belief is that, if Jeremy did this, the phone calls were an unplanned aspect and thought up on the hoof due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen.  This is based on the simple logical observation that Jeremy could not - and would not - plan for Nevill to be in the kitchen.  Even if Jeremy knew that Nevill would be sleeping downstairs, he would kill Nevill where he found him, for two reasons: (i). he needs to make it look like Sheila has run amok; and (ii). he needs to kill Nevill anyway.  If Nevill's body is found in such a way that suggests he was struggling with Sheila in the kitchen, Jeremy may have decided he needed to give himself what he considered to be the extra insurance of an 'alibi', otherwise investigators might well ask how it came to be that Nevill is running through the house away from a slight, weak woman (of course, there are rational explanations for this anyway - for one thing, she has a loaded rifle - but we need not go into that now, and the point is that Jeremy will not have thought about it that way).

In that scenario, Jeremy may well have decided to wing it, but the guilt camp also want us to believe that Jeremy would tell the police to make inquiries with BT.  Why would Jeremy do that?

My goodness, this Jeremy was a helpful, public-spirited chap wasn't he!  He commits mass murder and helps the police catch him.  I suppose it was only fair, as Taff did give him a sporting chance at the start.

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on October 09, 2023, 11:05:07 PMAfter reading the above post,I realize its a bit of a ramble.But it can basically be summed up with one question,if guilty,just when did JB realize that the silencer was missing from the gun cupboard?
Think about it,just when did he look in the cupboard after the murders?
Or did he just intend to vacate the WHF at some stage and leave the silencer in situ for the next accupants to find?

Please don't say such things, Leslie.  All your posts are interesting and important and I have learned from you by reading them.  This year has been pretty much a write-off for me in the Jeremy Bamber case, but I want to get back to it and I intend to reply to all your messages on here.

I have now found all the Blue Forum threads I can find on the issue and attach them here.  I also attach a short Red Forum thread on the topic.

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on October 08, 2023, 08:47:46 PMAnother thing,why would JB risk handling the wallet on the night of the murders and risk leaving any evidence on it? He couldn't touch it with his bare hands without wiping it afterwards to remove fingerprints,and if he was wearing gloves during the shooting he would have to wash them thoroughly before handling the wallet.And if he did actually take the risk to handle the wallet,why didn't he just take most of the money,who would have been any the wiser as to how much was in it?
Surely you either go the whole hog and empty the wallet or keep well clear of it,you wouldn't just count the money and leave it would you.
O f course part of Zoso's argument is that he knew the wallet was 'missing',but of course it would classed as missing if he couldn't find it anywhere in the house.What should he have said,lost?

The thinking goes like this:

(a). Jeremy could not know the circumstances of the shootings unless he was guilty.  If innocent, he could not know that Nevill was found in his pyjamas because he would not know that the shootings took place later in the night.

(b). Bearing in mind (a) above, for all Jeremy would know, the wallet should be with Nevill's body and in the custody of the police.

(c). Yet on the 11th., Jeremy is asking after the wallet.  It can't be all show on Jeremy's part because if the wallet is still at the farmhouse on the 11th., then Jeremy would assume the family also know this, so he would hardly pretend that the wallet isn't there if it is and take it for himself. 

(d). It must be that Jeremy could not find the wallet (it had already been seized by Ann), implying he knew where it was normally kept.  If Jeremy knew where it was normally kept, and is asking after it on the 11th., this implies he knew that Nevill was shot without the wallet because he thought it should still be there.

(e). Another point of interest is, of course, how does Jeremy know what amount of money the wallet contains, even in rough terms?  And if Jeremy is guilty, why didn't he take the money from the wallet on the night?  If he is guilty, the reason he didn't remove the money from the wallet or take the wallet must be that he knew he must not make the assault look like a robbery, as that would implicate him.  This does imply he must have handled the wallet that night and noticed its contents.

(f). It follows that Jeremy's inquiry after the wallet with Ann Eaton is a further indication of his possible culpability because he would not know the wallet is missing (i.e. should be there and isn't) unless he had knowledge of the shootings.

This seems pretty convincing on its face, but to me, it falls down for the following reasons:

1. Nevill was in his pyjamas, so Jeremy must have had prior knowledge of where the wallet was to be able to know where to find it.  This point, considered in isolation, applies irrespective of Jeremy's culpability, as that knowledge could be independent of the shootings.

2. In Ann Eaton's statement (16th. September 1985), the context in which Jeremy asked after the wallet was that it was a few days following the shootings and at a time when Jeremy must have known that Nevill was shot in his pyjamas, so he obviously realised that the wallet should still be where it normally was.

3. It is likely Jeremy would look for the wallet anyway, as he would want to take the money out of it (which is not necessarily suggestive of improper motives, he had to continue the running of the farm and other businesses).  He must also have been suspicious by this stage that the relatives were stealing.  You will notice in the statement that Jeremy makes a show of calling the police immediately after mentioning the wallet to Ann. 

4. Ann Eaton's statement does not confirm that Jeremy knew how much was in the wallet, it only states what Ann Eaton thought was in the wallet.  I think that's a misinterpretation on Caroline's part, but let's make the assumption in Caroline's favour and say he knew roughly how much was in the wallet.  This can be innocently explained.  He and his father worked together, in those days businessmen like Nevill kept large amounts of cash around as a float, and Jeremy just may have known innocently roughly how much money his father carried around.

5. We are reliant on Ann Eaton's account of events.  She took against Jeremy and was suspicious of him and that may have coloured her account.  As a counterpoint to this, Caroline bases her suspicions on certain replies she received from Jeremy to her letters in which she asked him about the incident, but when I was discussing all this with her on the Blue Forum, Caroline refused to show me even redacted versions of those letters.  Aside from that, it doesn't seem to have occurred to Caroline and others that Jeremy's memory of a tiny part of a long distant conversation - conducted at a time when he may have been in great distress and grief - may be incomplete or non-existent or simply wrong.  Our recollections of things also come and go.  Caroline is quick to treat this as suspicious.

6. A lot of what Caroline is saying about this is based on her applying a suspicious interpretation to Ann Eaton's account, and in particular she interprets a singular statement of Jeremy's as a closed statement when it could have been open.  In other words, she assumes that if Jeremy said the wallet was missing, that must mean he knew it is missing and knew where it normally should be kept, but these things don't necessarily follow.  "The wallet is missing" could mean "Where is the wallet?"

I appreciate that my antipathy for Caroline may have coloured my view of her theories, and had she a better 'bedside manner', so to speak, she might have 'peeled more onions'.  People will have to make up their own minds.

Here is a link to the original thread of Caroline's on the Blue Forum: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5265.15.html

There is another thread on the Blue Forum in which I challenged Caroline's suspicions, but I don't know where it is.  It's not terribly important to me, but if anybody finds it, by all means attach it to a post on here, if you want.

On the path to justice, a walk up the path where poor jodi was found

Corinne Mitchell's speech at the Miscarriage of Justice day meeting 2011

Some points to note:
(i). I posted this on the Forum way back on 23rd. February 2023.  I have decided to move it now to the public area.  I have deleted one short sentence, a rash remark about Neil Bellis that is not needed.  I have also made a couple of corrections for syntax and one or two minor stylistic emendations, and I may make more if I ever re-read it again.  The rest of it remains, as is. 
(ii). What follows should not be interpreted as a personal attack on Neil Bellis, let me just make that clear. It is harshly worded and maybe reproducing it here now is cathartic at some deeper level, but truly it was just my opinion at the time, and that's just how it is.  I came upon it because I was thinking about the Blue Forum the other day when composing my 'statement' in the other thread.
(iii). While I no longer share George Orwell's Leftist politics and have not done since my misguided youth 25 years ago, I remain fond of him and I will always defend him, even if the defence is more emotional than intellectual.  It is just about possible he would drag me back again, if he were still alive.
(iv). Thinking it over just now, this essay is, sort of, the type of thing George Orwell himself might have written, with all the flaws of Orwell's writing but none of the upsides - though I do not have even a drop of his ability, of course, let me make that clear too!





Two posts from Neil Bellis to the Blue Forum's 'Russia' thread caught my eye, and I attach them here.  In these posts, Neil Bellis expresses his venom towards George Orwell.

Bellis makes the following allegations against Orwell:

1. That George Orwell falsified his service during the Spanish Civil War.
2. That he (Neil Bellis) knew members of the International Brigades who had fought in the Spanish Civil War.
3. That these veterans had a low opinion of Orwell.
4. That Orwell was an MI5 informant.
5. That since 1945/46, Orwell has been a "darling of the right wing".

All of this is rubbish, Mr Bellis does not know what he is talking about, and I will here explain why.

Before I begin, it is important to give a little bit of background about Neil Bellis.  Mr Bellis is a Stalinist and I believe has held to this political philosophy pretty much his entire adult life, even when practising as a barrister and then working as chairman of a public company.  He associated with the neo-Marxist Left and supported the former Soviet Union.  By contrast, George Orwell was fiercely critical of Stalinism and the Soviet Union.  His most famous political novels, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, were critiques of Stalinism.  Therefore, Bellis' sectarian politics are diametrically opposed to that of Orwell, even if, as a figure of the Left, Orwell's viewpoints may overlap with those of Bellis.

Now a little about me.  If George Orwell were alive today, he would regard me as someone of the "far-Right" and want nothing to do with me.  I mention this to emphasise my objectivity in defending Orwell. 

To me, George Orwell was a chimera: a good writer, perhaps he should be regarded as England's national writer, but I also think that he was very naïve politically and socially.  The 'conservatism' and even racialism that some people attribute to him were really more a sign of the times he lived through and his own middle-class colonial background than a reflection of any change in sentiment from the Left to something else.  Orwell explicitly wanted a socialist revolution in Britain, but democratic socialist and patriotic.  He wasn't in the avant garde of the Left.  He was slightly imperialist and moderately conservative, but that's because a middle-of-the-road Leftist of his time often would be slightly imperialist and moderately conservative and so forth - especially if, like Orwell, the Leftist came from a colonial family and had received a public school education.  It was nothing unusual – for the time.  If Orwell were alive today, he would not be these things, he would instead be whatever is middle-of-the-road for a Leftist today, which means he would be a constant source of annoyance and incredulity to people like me. 

Now let us move on to Neil Bellis' allegations.

That George Orwell falsified his service during the Spanish Civil War.  That he (Neil Bellis) knew members of the International Brigades who had fought in the Spanish Civil War.  That these veterans had a low opinion of Orwell.

You will perhaps forgive me for being sceptical about Mr Bellis' claim that he knew some socialists who had fought in that war.  He grew up in England and has no obvious connection to Spain and veterans of the Spanish Civil War don't typically turn up in England, but we must assume that Mr Bellis has moved in radical political circles and may have attended talks and conferences and so forth, so there may be an element of truth to it. 

I suspect that he met such people once or heard them speak at an event and Orwell was mentioned.  At any rate, let's for the sake of argument assume Bellis has heard Spanish Civil War veterans bad mouth Orwell.  What to make of it?

Mr Bellis is giving us an account of Orwell from socialists, but socialists of a different stripe to Orwell, indeed of the type who may have taken a dislike to him purely for sectarian ideological reasons.  It follows that their account of Orwell cannot be treated as reliable.  Mr Bellis seems not to have considered this.  Nor, it appears, has he asked himself how, if Orwell was exaggerating his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, he came to be shot in the throat.  Was that a hoax? 

Let us suppose I am wrong about all this, and in fact Orwell did exaggerate his experiences in some significant way.  It seems to me that George Orwell was a writer, both fiction and non-fiction.  He was an imaginative person who made up stories for a living, as well as journalising real events.  Is it such a surprise that he may have blended the two worlds and exaggerated?  Suppose he did, is that such a great sin?  Don't professional soldiers exaggerate their experiences of war at times?  Is that such a great sin?  I would say not.  I would even defend it on the basis that if you want to fight in a war, you'd better come back with some entertaining stories.  Isn't it inevitable that somebody who makes his living as a writer will do just that?  Wouldn't it be more surprising if he didn't?

That Orwell was an MI5 informant.

This is the 'Orwell's List' allegation, which is that shortly before he died, Orwell gave a list to a government department of people he considered unsuitable for official propaganda work, in many cases on the basis that they were thought to be sympathetic to Stalinism. 

It appears that George Orwell did indeed prepare such a list, but there are some important points that Neil Bellis fails to mention:

(i).    How the list came to exist.

(ii).    What the list contained.

(iii).    Orwell's motives.

Let me explain.  It was common in those days for politically-engaged intellectual types like Orwell to compose such lists, often as a sort of parlour game.  On this occasion, the list took on a serious purpose. Orwell's motive was anti-Stalinism and British patriotism.  Orwell considered himself both a democratic socialist and a national patriot and compiled the list to ensure that individuals whose beliefs he found repugnant would not be influential in British society and would be stymied (or so he hoped). 

However - and this point is crucial - Orwell did not malign any of these people, did not mean any of them ill, and for the most part, did not show a trace of malice towards them.  To the contrary, in many cases he was full of praise for them and generous in remarks he added to the list before it was handed over. 

A further point to note is that Orwell would have had no control over how the information was used once it left his hands, thus Bellis attributes motives and purposes to Orwell that he simply did not have. 

The reason Neil Bellis does not mention all this is because he has imprisoned himself in a small ideological box and can't see anything outside it.  The result is variegated misunderstandings about all sorts of subjects, this being one of them. 

Mr Bellis' condemnation of Orwell is in fact what in psychology is called projection: denunciation of enemies and secret lists is a Stalinist thing, something Mr Bellis should know all about.  Inevitably, given that he is a Stalinist, he will see Orwell's actions through that jaundiced field of interpretation and ignore the nuances of the incident.

George Orwell became a "darling of the right wing" from 1945/46 (before his death)

It is not clear whether Mr Bellis is referring to the 'right wing of the Left' or political Right in opposition to the Left.  It is true that conservatives often cite and reference Orwell, especially his political literature, but that is not because they think George Orwell was one of them, rather it is because as conservatives they value traditional English liberty and recognise that Orwell, though of the Left, was equally determined to defend traditional England.  This did not make Orwell any less a figure of the Left, any more than advocating traditional liberty turns a conservative into a raving liberal.

Not everybody to the right of Neil Bellis is "right wing" or of the Right.  In Orwell's day, conservatism and traditional liberty were not the exclusive province of the Right, but were also believed in by the mainstream of the Left, who were socially and culturally conservative and, by today's standards, could be quite reactionary. 

I think it is clear that George Orwell was a man of the Left.  All of his writings and utterances show a definite commitment in that direction and the sheer weight of it would be hard to refute.  That doesn't mean he belongs to the Left exclusively, but his political home was amongst those who believe in the fundamental values of the Left: equality and the ultimate liberation of the working class from propertied social relations.  He supported government intervention in society in the sense of a humane democratic socialist and supporter of the Labour Party.  All that said, a good argument could be made that Orwell - who was always ambivalent and vague about the revolutionary character of socialism - moved towards the 'right wing of the Left' as the Atlee Labour government came to power in 1945.  Perhaps this was because he saw the social revolutionary possibilities of a Labour government supported by a landslide parliamentary majority.

To Neil Bellis, that makes Orwell "right wing" or "the darling of the right wing", but that seems purely a matter of relativity and hardly makes Orwell anything other than of the Left.  The real issue for Neil Bellis is sectarian: he supports Stalin, while Orwell supported democratic-socialism and a sort of esoteric English version of Trotskyism, involving mass worker action that raises popular awareness and consciousness of the problems in capitalism and brings about socialism by consent, in harmony with international currents amongst workers abroad.  To this end, Orwell had suggested early in the Second World War that the Home Guard could form the basis of a revolutionary people's militia, and this could have dovetailed with a peaceful resolution of war and conflict internationally, with peace and democracy everywhere.  Note that Orwell's ideas were entirely peaceful (accompanied by a willingness to use violence lawfully, when needed) and intended to be simpatico with English tradition, in which sense he was both deeply conservative and deeply socialist.  This is antithetical to the centralised, planned, top-down, bureaucratic character of Stalinism. 

In summary, Orwell wanted socialism (communism), but peacefully and by consent, and against the setting of a calm, bucolic, traditional England.  In other words, socialism that aligned with the rhythms of English life and the special character of England, blending civic patriotic ideas and internationalism.  Bellis wants socialism (communism) in the classical Stalinist way: top-down, a utopian template imposed by force, all 'for your own good', perhaps with a strong centralised British 'socialist' state.  Presumably, enemies of Bellis will be 'disappeared' and all records of their existence erased, living on only in the memories of the people who knew them - rather like what happens to Winston Smith's parents in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, if I recall, and certainly similar to what happens on the Blue Forum to anybody who crosses Neil Bellis.

Neil Bellis says George Orwell was a fraud.  I will leave others to judge whether it is in fact Neil Bellis who is the fraud.  I will say nothing on that question.

Quote from: Zak Beresford on January 21, 2023, 07:48:52 AMAgree Erik.

What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.

Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.

There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets

Looked in on the Blue Forum the other day.  I honestly don't know how you put up with that crap.

Quote from: Zak Beresford on January 21, 2023, 07:48:52 AMHello Zack, nice to see you back.

I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests.  As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm.  Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses.  However, the twins were still very young and away in London.

Agree Erik.

What's interesting though if we are talking from a relatives being jealous of Jeremy taking over and inheriting. It was a slow burning candle. He had been adopted by nevill and June from six weeks of age. He was their child. nevill was his middle name. It wasn't as if he was plucked from a care home at the age of 14. I find the term cuckoo completely childish and horrible to put it blunt.

Boutflour and co must have known from an early era that Jeremy would inevitably inherit all the assets. Then we are left with a situation that regardless of who committed the massacre. That boutflour and co jumped on the bandwagon and used the event to benefit themselves. Shelia gone. And to help engineer a campaign to put Jeremy in the nick.

There's the old addage of no smoke without fire. Though I must admit the idea that the relatives effectively "ganged" up on Jeremy to help put him away. I struggle now to see the difference that they genuinely thought he was guilty or they to put it bluntly just wanted the assets
[/quote]

Looked in on the Blue Forum the other day.  I honestly don't know how you put up with that crap.

Quote from: Zak Beresford on January 20, 2023, 10:56:20 AMWhy do the relatives seem to have a strong dislike towards Jeremy than to Shelia?

It has to be said that other than the occasional meetings and family celebrations etc. They had separate life's and were not the close.

I think we can all agree that Jeremys upbringing and general behaviour was a lot more trouble free than Shelias was

Hello Zack, nice to see you back.

I think it's likely the relatives disliked both of them, but appeared better disposed towards Sheila as she would have been perceived as less of a threat to their interests.  As a man, Jeremy was in a direct position to take over the farm.  Sheila, too, was in a position to do so, but more indirectly, through her twin boys, who may have grown up wanting to be involved in the various businesses.  However, the twins were still very young and away in London.

A Long Walk To Justice - Did Luke Mitchell Murder Jodi Jones?

In fact, the document Bubo bubo found (probably somewhere on the Blue Forum) is a draft statement of John Hayward, written on 8th. November 1985 and finalised in typed form on 13th. November 1985.

Here is the full handwritten version:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=3635.msg6807#msg6807

The typed version is here:
https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=3636.0

This now brings back to me the fact that I had spent ages trying to get hold of these notes and there is another thread in the 'Blood' section where I am trying assemble them into some order for transcription, which I think should be done anyway as there may be differences of significance between the handwritten and typed versions.