Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

Quote from: Rob Garland on October 10, 2023, 07:08:00 AM

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?

Even if JB is guilty Leslie I still believe the silencer was planted to beef up the evidence.

Though I believe this will one day be one of Britain's worst MOJ's.

Well,I suppose this is the walletgate topic Rob,will give some more thoughts about the silencer on the appropriate thread.Been thinking a lot about the silencer all day,but couldn't conclude much.

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?

Even if JB is guilty Leslie I still believe the silencer was planted to beef up the evidence.

Though I believe this will one day be one of Britain's worst MOJ's.

After 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?

Quote from: Erik Narramore on October 09, 2023, 02:55:20 PMI 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.

Still reading all the threads Erik,seems the one thing that Zoso keeps coming back to is the fact that Bamber avoided her question about the wallet,not how he knew the amount of money in it,just the way he avoided answering that one question only.Lookout says RWB took the contents of two purses too,haven't heard that before,but I agree with what she says about how stupid JB was giving the 'vultures' the keys as she puts it.

I mean,if JB is the cold blooded killer he is supposed to be, he would have had no problem entering the WHF in the aftermath of the murders.Why didn't he do this before the relatives got a chance to snoop around?
Especially if he moved anything out of place that they might notice,phones etc,.And its a funny thing,the silencer was spoken about from the start along with the sights,the police asked JB in the first few days if they were attached to the rifle,now this means two things,one,that the police knew at this stage that there was a silencer for the Anschutz and two,did JB take it that the sights and silencer were in the hands of the police.
The thing is,did Bamber ask the police at this stage if they had the silencer and sights? Well obviously no,he was later told that the relatives found them later on and handed them in,and he did not query this.
Point being,Bamber showed no apparent interest in the silencer or its whereabouts.Now,if JB is guilty,it seems his intention was to hide the silencer and the fact that it had been used in the shooting,yet the police were making enquiries about it.So shouldn't this have started a panic in JB knowing the silencer was used in the shooting?
Now we know that JB had no idea if the police had seized the silencer or not for reasons pointed out,so wouldn't he want to get inside the WHF as soon as possible to see if the silencer is still in the cupboard or not?
So,thats two reasons why JB SHOULD have been eager to get into the house first,the wallet and the silencer.
Yet he gave AE permission to enter the house first.This simply does not make sense from a guilty Bamber point of view,he lets the relatives in first without knowing if the silencer is still in the cupboard or not,and knows the wallet is lying around with four or five hundred pounds in it.
I mean,here we are years later discussing 'walletgate'when all JB had to do was walk into the farm house first and pick it up.

The thing is,his actions after the murders show no suspicion and do not fit in with what he should have done if he was the killer,the silencer and wallet being two examples.The fact is Bamber carried on in a slapdash overt manner,openly looking for the wallet in front of the relatives and taking the video recorder on the same day.
But here's the big question,if guilty,why didn't JB look in the gun cupboard that day with the relatives?
Surely he would have been eager to find out if it was still there,yet there is no mention of him looking in the den from the relatives.This just does not make sense to me.
From an innocence point of view,it all makes sense,he was present at the farm having afternoon tea or whatever and the wallet came into his mind,he instantly went to look for it then instinctilely phoned the police when he could not find it updtairs.Then his mind went to the VCR which he claimed was his,but no mention of rummaging around in the den at all.
I dont think the silencer entered JBs head that day at all,he clearly wasn't interested if it was in the gun cupboard or in the custody of the police,he probably just assumed as you would that the police took the silencer as an exhibit on the morning of the shooting.The silencer was of no use without the rifle anyway,so why would JB be in the least bit interested where it was?
Anyway,JBs actions over the wallet and the silencer make little sense to me if he is guilty.
Hope you can make some sense of this,I have gone a bit off topic,but as always once you start thinking about something other thoughts come into your head.
Just one other thing,it was the relatives who were deceitful that day hiding the fact that they had already found the wallet and'allegedly'removed the silencer.
What would they have said if JB looked for the silencer and found it wasn't there too? Talk about two faced,sitting having tea with Bamber while in the process of trying to prove he killed his family,very strange!

I see nothing in this myself, if guilty JB could have taken three quarters of the money and no one would be any the wiser.

Nevil and JB worked together so JB would naturally have a rough idea of how mush cash Nevil carried around.

This whole aspect to me shows just how little evidence the guilters have and are grasping at anything to help their cause.

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.

Quote from: Bill Robertson on October 03, 2023, 05:16:00 PMShe had a whole year to get her story straight and still managed to get her knickers in a twist numerous times during her evidence. How a jury could have believed her I can't imagine.

They probably didn't Bill,two obviously didn't for sure and the others only enquired about the blood in the silencer being told that there was no doubt it was Sheila's and instructed that they could convict on that evidence alone.Wonder how the Judge would have got round about the Aga burns if it had been available at the time.

She had a whole year to get her story straight and still managed to get her knickers in a twist numerous times during her evidence. How a jury could have believed her I can't imagine.

Quote from: Bill Robertson on October 02, 2023, 07:53:37 AMWhy was Mugford kept in a police house for a year prior to the trial? Who paid her expenses? Why did Stan Jones visit her 36 times during that period? Why would a young woman agree to such an egregious regime of self denial? What was the implied 'threat' to her if she had protested at such a loss of liberty?

I tried to get answers to these questions during my research but pretty much drew a blank. I feel that answers to these questions could reveal much about Mugford's role in the MOJ. This was a highly unusual situation for what was supposed to be a straightforward murder investigation. I'm not aware of any other case where a prosecution witness was treated in the same manner.

It was reported in the trash press that Mugford was guarded by armed police, however Mugford was in no danger as JB was on remand. I was left to conclude that it suited the police to keep her under 'house arrest' to prevent her talking to anyone, especially journalists, about the case. Perhaps she was not trusted to keep her version of events private for any length of time? I assume that she embarked on a sexual relationship with Stan Jones, she did after all disclose after the trial that she enjoyed adventurous sex with JB and I doubt she suddenly stopped when he was arrested. I wondered also if RB might have been slipping her money? My understanding is that she continued her studies in London; someone must have come up with the cash for commuting. Mugford must have had compelling reasons for agreeing to put her life on hold. In my view it was financial compensation; she knew that the trial and imprisonment of JB was her only hope of significant monetary gain from the WHF tragedy.

Neither EP or Essex County Council would divulge payments made to Mugford, though there was some documentation evidence that they did make payments. I suspect that there is much of interest in that year, not just her grooming as the star witness.

Very interesting Bill,I had no idea she was in a police safe house for a whole year.