ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags jeremy bamber , Julie Mugford , murder cases , Nevill Bamber , Sheila Bamber

Reply
Old 23rd September 2015, 12:00 PM   #121
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,259
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
David Bain did 15 years for appearing to have staged his father's suicide as the culmination of a quintuple homicide. In fact it was a quadruple homicide suicide, now hang on, what do we have here? Even The Atheist sees the parallels, but we disagree on who was firing the gun in the Bain case. (Robin Bain did it, murder suicide).
Mate, you have a Baino thread, can you please keep it there.

Also, you're still wrong.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 01:08 PM   #122
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
My understanding is that he has generally shown himself to be a reasonable inmate (cannot blame any inmate for trying to fight to get out). In fact, his activity reminds me of Jason Baldwin of the WM3. No psychological evaluation has shown any evidence of being a sociopath / psychopath either.
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Does anyone attach any weight to decades long protestations of innocence?

I do, to an extent. Our system apparently requires an acceptance of guilt as part of parole, and therefore refusing to accept your guilt leads necessarily to additional time in prison. (This is a problem which needs reviewing, but I have no suggestions.) Before Michael Howard extended Bamber's tariff to whole-life, he was serving life sentences with a tariff of 25 years. This meant that he would have been eligible to apply for parole after 25 years (4 years ago). However, protesting his innocence throughout that period removed his parole chances.

I understand that now he has a whole-life tariff his campaign is just something he does without any cost to himself, but previously, it did have a cost (the loss of possible parole). Obviously that cost has to be weighed against the potential benefit of being found innocent and released early.....but nonetheless, there was a cost to Bamber in continuing to protest his innocence.

I don't follow these things closely. Are there many cases of people protesting their innocence and thus losing the right to parole who were actually guilty all along? There are many tragic cases of the innocent who protested for years and stayed in prison way longer than they otherwise would, but is there much history of the converse?
If you are relying on this sort of tosh then I can bring up all the gossip about him down under, his involvement in drugs, rumours of money trouble etc etc. None of this junk has any weight IMO.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 01:36 PM   #123
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
If you are relying on this sort of tosh then I can bring up all the gossip about him down under, his involvement in drugs, rumours of money trouble etc etc. None of this junk has any weight IMO.
Not relying on it, of course, but troubled by it a little. These last few days have moved me much more pro-guilt than I was. I'm just rehearsing some of the reasons why I previously had thought there may be the possibility of a miscarriage.

Unlike you, as I explained there is a reason why I give this just a little weight. Or, at least......gave it a little weight. A cost-free campaign now is just an irrelevance, but it wasn't ten years ago.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 02:07 PM   #124
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Not relying on it, of course, but troubled by it a little. These last few days have moved me much more pro-guilt than I was. I'm just rehearsing some of the reasons why I previously had thought there may be the possibility of a miscarriage.

Unlike you, as I explained there is a reason why I give this just a little weight. Or, at least......gave it a little weight. A cost-free campaign now is just an irrelevance, but it wasn't ten years ago.
A lot of rumours have circulated about the case, for instance that the police saw two bodies when looking through the window or that Nevill called the police - but they don't survive a review of the documents. This Court of Appeal judgment of 2002 addresses quite a few of them and is worth a read if you can find the time.

His latest gambit involves expert evidence that proves the moderator was not on the rifle when it was fired. The CCRC refused to take that to appeal and Bamber challenged the refusal in Judicial Review proceedings. He lost thst challenge in 2012. Unfortunately, we don't get to see the full grounds on which the CCRC declined to act but they are referred to in the judgment.

Something that tells against him for me, given that we are now discussing fairly weak points, is his apparent reticence in putting trial transcripts online. There is very little there, in contrast to other cases, and almost nothing on his supporters' web-site. I sense some control-freakery as well as a reluctance to allow the weaknesses in his case to get an airing. One thing that would be fascinating to read, for example, is his cross examination at trial. Did he call Julie then the police or was it the other way round? Neither makes any sense at all. Did June really let him have her bike for Julie's use? Did Julie ever actually use it? Why didn't he call 999? Why did he drive so slowly to the farm?
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 03:42 PM   #125
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
If you are relying on this sort of tosh then I can bring up all the gossip about him down under, his involvement in drugs, rumours of money trouble etc etc. None of this junk has any weight IMO.
I think if he was as bad as some people describe him, it certain that he could not get along in prison even.

Now, this case is a tough one where unlike the AM/RS case, it is much harder to argue for innocence although I believe he is innocent. The cops hosed this cases something fierce however.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 05:01 PM   #126
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Mate, you have a Baino thread, can you please keep it there.

Also, you're still wrong.
I regard it as extremely useful to look at similar cases. And I am right, forensically and legally. It was looking at all the cases in these forums that shows difficult murder strategies mean the cops probably have it wrong. I am undecided about this Bamber case though. But thanks for helping with forum discipline.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2015, 11:57 PM   #127
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
.......Why did he drive so slowly to the farm?
If guilty, he clearly drove slowly to make sure the police were there to witness his arrival. If innocent, then it's either a lie or sloppy note-keeping by the police who say they passed him, or he wanted the police to be there first in case he got shot at by a nutter with a rifle.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:01 AM   #128
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
If guilty, he clearly drove slowly to make sure the police were there to witness his arrival. If innocent, then it's either a lie or sloppy note-keeping by the police who say they passed him, or he wanted the police to be there first in case he got shot at by a nutter with a rifle.
Well it certainly isn't a police lie because Bamber accepted in interview that he drove slowly. Either in interview or at trial he claimed to have been concerned that the phone call may have been a ruse to lure him into a trap.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:06 AM   #129
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I think if he was as bad as some people describe him, it certain that he could not get along in prison even.

Now, this case is a tough one where unlike the AM/RS case, it is much harder to argue for innocence although I believe he is innocent. The cops hosed this cases something fierce however.
Seriously? I'm not sure how well he has got on TBH. He has been violently assaulted at least once. I suspect that being at the centre of a decades-old controversy provides him with a form of solace and stimulation most prisoners lack. I read elsewhere detailed discusion of whether he is a psychopath and about a lie detector test. It's all pap that leads nowhere. The solution, if there is one, is in what emerged from the botched enquiry and the trial.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:11 AM   #130
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Well it certainly isn't a police lie because Bamber accepted in interview that he drove slowly. Either in interview or at trial he claimed to have been concerned that the phone call may have been a ruse to lure him into a trap.
There is a podcaster in the skeptical who was recently released from US Federal Prison on a charge of wire fraud. He admits that he committed the crime in question. However the FBI kept notes on what he said. Later he was allowed to read them and they conveyed nothing like what he stated.

I really do wish we had audio tapes of what he actually said.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:15 AM   #131
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
There is a podcaster in the skeptical who was recently released from US Federal Prison on a charge of wire fraud. He admits that he committed the crime in question. However the FBI kept notes on what he said. Later he was allowed to read them and they conveyed nothing like what he stated.

I really do wish we had audio tapes of what he actually said.
I can practically vouch for the reliability of his police notes of interview in this case. As I have explained elsewhere, the practise at the time (when I was myself a criminal law practitioner) was for questions and answers to be written down longhand and for the accused to sign each page at the end of the interview. Bamber was interviewed under caution with his solicitor present and, as far as I know, has not challenged the admissibility of the statements he made.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:37 AM   #132
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Seriously? I'm not sure how well he has got on TBH. He has been violently assaulted at least once. I suspect that being at the centre of a decades-old controversy provides him with a form of solace and stimulation most prisoners lack. I read elsewhere detailed discusion of whether he is a psychopath and about a lie detector test. It's all pap that leads nowhere. The solution, if there is one, is in what emerged from the botched enquiry and the trial.
Jason Baldwin was assaulted in prison as well. Few people consider him to be a psychopath / sociopath. There are a few on the pro guilt side but they are a fringe.

The argument was meant as a minor point however.

I had a thought about this case and many others. Maybe others have long considered this but it sank in. They did not investigate the case to see if he was actually guilty or if he was innocent. They investigated to see if they could build a case against him. Any contrary evidence was ignored or discard.

I have a couple of thoughts about the crime itself. If you are trying to stage the killing of your family, would you do it as a murder-suicide? Until learning about this case, I don't know if the idea of staging one would even occur to me. I almost certainly would try to stage it as a home invasion. You would not have to get Shelia to cooperate but just shoot her. You would not have to mess around with fake phone calls either. Real home invasions are relatively common and staged home invasions are not unknown.

Also, Jeremy would be in battle mode if he was killing his family. Being able to change gears both to stage the phone call and to try to make Shelia's death look like a suicide would be close to impossible,
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:41 AM   #133
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I can practically vouch for the reliability of his police notes of interview in this case. As I have explained elsewhere, the practise at the time (when I was myself a criminal law practitioner) was for questions and answers to be written down longhand and for the accused to sign each page at the end of the interview. Bamber was interviewed under caution with his solicitor present and, as far as I know, has not challenged the admissibility of the statements he made.
I am not so much concerned with him wanting the police to get there first. I note that the police did not barge into the house either. The actual reasoning behind it is the issue. Might have even used the word trap but (assuming he is innocent), just was likely scared.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 02:21 AM   #134
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,751
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I have a couple of thoughts about the crime itself. If you are trying to stage the killing of your family, would you do it as a murder-suicide? Until learning about this case, I don't know if the idea of staging one would even occur to me. I almost certainly would try to stage it as a home invasion. You would not have to get Shelia to cooperate but just shoot her. You would not have to mess around with fake phone calls either. Real home invasions are relatively common and staged home invasions are not unknown.
I probably would, because if you can do it successfully the case is immediately closed and there's no need for further investigation. If you stage a home invasion, the police would be looking for the perpetrator, interviewing all the neighbours about suspicious movements on the night, so Jeremy would have to be very sure no-one saw him.
Incidentally do you have figures for the number of UK home invasions where an entire family was killed in the last 40 years? I don't, but suspect it is in the low single figures.
Guybrush Threepwood is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 02:24 AM   #135
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
I probably would, because if you can do it successfully the case is immediately closed and there's no need for further investigation. If you stage a home invasion, the police would be looking for the perpetrator, interviewing all the neighbours about suspicious movements on the night, so Jeremy would have to be very sure no-one saw him.
Incidentally do you have figures for the number of UK home invasions where an entire family was killed in the last 40 years? I don't, but suspect it is in the low single figures.
There is a lot of hype so hard to find actual information. The hype though makes it actually more likely that one would stage it.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 03:12 AM   #136
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
........ I almost certainly would try to stage it as a home invasion. You would not have to get Shelia to cooperate but just shoot her. You would not have to mess around with fake phone calls either. Real home invasions are relatively common and staged home invasions are not unknown.
.......
In Britain? No, they aren't. Really.

The obvious reason why he wouldn't do this is that suspicion in these cases always starts with people known to the family, and people who stand to benefit from the deaths. JB would have been a suspect under both criteria, and so would have needed a cast-iron alibi, which would have put him entirely at the mercy of someone else.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 03:40 AM   #137
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
In Britain? No, they aren't. Really.

The obvious reason why he wouldn't do this is that suspicion in these cases always starts with people known to the family, and people who stand to benefit from the deaths. JB would have been a suspect under both criteria, and so would have needed a cast-iron alibi, which would have put him entirely at the mercy of someone else.
You have to figure that it is almost impossible to get a murder / suicide right.

Most people who fake home invasions do not believe they will be caught at it either.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 03:55 AM   #138
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
You have to figure that it is almost impossible to get a murder / suicide right.

Most people who fake home invasions do not believe they will be caught at it either.
He didn't get it right. So he satisfied your rule. He came close, though.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 04:20 AM   #139
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
He didn't get it right. So he satisfied your rule. He came close, though.
Umm, I am not trying to play games here. He has to expect that he can actually get Shelia to go along with his plan?

He also has to actually do everything right with regards to calls after having been in a major fight?
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 04:22 AM   #140
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
AL is agreeing with you, DF, that it is almost impossible to stage a murder/ suicide and get away with it. Bamber came close, but he didn't get away with it.....(if he is guilty, that is, which I am becoming increasingly sure of).
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 04:29 AM   #141
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
AL is agreeing with you, DF, that it is almost impossible to stage a murder/ suicide and get away with it. Bamber came close, but he didn't get away with it.....(if he is guilty, that is, which I am becoming increasingly sure of).
Have you ever played a game of laser tag or paint ball?

Do you think after fighting for 15 minutes, you could switch your mind into staging the suicide and making these calls?

The other issue is that you have to know that Shelia will cooperate with the simulated suicide. She may go crazy on you and attack, especially if she thinks you are threatening her kids.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 05:02 AM   #142
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Telephone calls on the night of the crime

For me, these calls are the clincher. Unlike the moderator, the evidence is not easy to dismiss as being tainted by corruption or bungling.

A key part of his idea was the call from Nevill to himself. In plan A, this call was to have been made by a hit man who was to be instructed which of the preset buttons to use on the cordless phone, which would retain a memory of the call, before letting himself out by the secret window which could be shut from the outside so as to appear locked. Source: Julie Mugford (creative minds who think the police planted her story are free to try and explain why they inserted this bit).

Plan A was modified with the hit man being replaced by Jeremy himself. It's not difficult to think if a couple of reasons for that but the result was a serious timing issue. He seems to have thought the time of the call from WHF to his place would be accessible in the records (it doesn't appear he was right about that, Heaven knows why not) so that time would be fixed and he would have to work around it to explain why his call to the police was not immediate. This was how he did it:

(i) he would try to call back but would find it impossible because the phone was off the hook - that could be said to consume a few minutes

(ii) then he would call Julie, feigning concern about the peculiar message received from Dad and she would advise him to call the police. Another few minutes.

(iii) then he would call the local nick (possibly wasting even more time by calling Witham police station, getting no answer there, and then calling Chelmsford - a point proved by Ann Eaton but negligently not put to Bamber by the useless cops - see page 26 of her 8th Sep statement, linked below) after looking the number up in the telephone directory. In interview, he estimated this had taken '10 minutes at the outside' to look up the number and another 5 waiting for the cops to answer the phone. I find this alone utterly incredible. A 999 call would have taken seconds. He expected to be believed in claiming that he spent 15 minutes gaffing about calling the locals when he had a vastly more efficient alternative.

Did he call the police or Julie first?

In this statement given on 7th August (the day the bodies were found) he says he immediately called the police - see page 6.

In his statement of 8th September, however (given under caution, after Julie had shopped him) he reversed the order. See page 6. He said he was on the phone to her for about 'two minutes not very long as I had to call the police'. On the same page he records how long it took looking everything up and hanging on etc.

In a further statement given on about 10th September, the cops pinned him down on this. See pages 15 et seq (it goes on for a few pages). They drew his attention to what he had first said and what he later said.

The problem is there is no satisfactory answer to the question. Whether he called her first or second the call looks suspicious and, being a clever person, he realised his difficulty but, not being quite clever enough, he had no way out of it and had to fall back on being unable to remember the sequence.

The next statement to consider was given by Ann Eaton on 8th September 1985. This key document contains a wealth of detail but most importantly, records her recollections of the morning of the 7th August spent at Goldhanger (Bamber's place). You can find it here (sorry I can't cut and paste from these but they are all jpegs or something). It gets interesting around page 25.

One data point to note is Bamber telling the police that Nevill called at 3.00 a.m. He said he checked the time with his watch (and the suspicious Ann made a mental note that he must have been wearing his watch in bed ).

She observes that he did not mention the call to Julie at all (a fact I do not find at all suspicious in itself). On p.27 is the thing I mentioned before about him not speeding to the farm because he feared a trick - so that's where that comes from.

What time did Bamber call Julie?

The evidence about this is summarised by the court in his 2002 appeal, which is here.

At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.


The balance of that evidence is to put the call closer to 3.00 p.m. than 3.30 (or actually 3.36 since this is the time Bonnet noted as the time he took PC West's call and Bamber was on the other end of West's line at the time). That suggests he called Julie first and, to me, that he probably intended to use that call to help fill in the time he needed to fill as explained above.

There is a pro-innocence argument here, namely that if the call from WHF was really made at 3.00 and Bamber had called Julie at 3.02 or only a few minutes after then he could not be guilty because he couldn't be in two places at the same time. However, in that scenario, it is simply impossible to fill the time between c. 3.02 and 3.26. Bamber certainly does not offer either a credible or even a complete explanation for the delay.

Therefore, taken together with other things, he is most probably guilty.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 09:50 AM   #143
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
I am not understanding the argument.
Lets try to simply this a little and then fill in details
1. What time was the "Neville call" recorded by the cops as being?
2. What time was the call by Jeremy to the cops recorded as being?

As far as wearing a watch, I have worn a watch when I sleep pretty much from around 16 onward. Sometimes I will take it off but it is rare.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 10:00 AM   #144
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I am not understanding the argument.
Lets try to simply this a little and then fill in details
1. What time was the "Neville call" recorded by the cops as being?
2. What time was the call by Jeremy to the cops recorded as being?

As far as wearing a watch, I have worn a watch when I sleep pretty much from around 16 onward. Sometimes I will take it off but it is rare.
There was no Nevill call but the piece of paper it's protagonists rely on records a time of 3.36 a.m. I know people wear watches in bed. That's not the point. The point is Bamber said his dad called at 3.00 and if he is to be believed he has 26 minutes to account for. See if you can do it.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 10:08 AM   #145
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,473
just reading the last couple posts about times of calls. No one offered phone records as evidence?
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 10:13 AM   #146
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
just reading the last couple posts about times of calls. No one offered phone records as evidence?
I have come across no reference to them, which seems crazy but there it is.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 10:34 AM   #147
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
There was no Nevill call but the piece of paper it's protagonists rely on records a time of 3.36 a.m. I know people wear watches in bed. That's not the point. The point is Bamber said his dad called at 3.00 and if he is to be believed he has 26 minutes to account for. See if you can do it.
I honestly think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Originally Posted by Whip View Post
just reading the last couple posts about times of calls. No one offered phone records as evidence?
Back in 1985 in the US, land line calls which were not long distance would have no record. I suspect that it would be the same in the UK
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:06 PM   #148
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,316
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
Back in 1985 in the US, land line calls which were not long distance would have no record. I suspect that it would be the same in the UK

Nope. Not the same. The reason there were no records in the US was that local landline calls were entirely free of charge. In 1985, that was not the case in the UK. Every single landline call - no matter what distance - was charged on a timed basis (with different rates for local and national calls). Therefore, the exchange would without doubt have generated a billing record of all landline calls, including number dialled and call duration.

As an aside, I remember this case from the time, and have read a few things about it in passing over the years (in addition the flat that Bamber burgled in Morshead Mansions in Maida Vale is quite near me). I am of the pretty confident opinion that he is factually guilty of the crime, though the catalogue of errors and omissions from Essex Police are pretty eye-opening. IMO it's only these errors which have even opened the door the tiniest bit for Bamber to pursue a campaign for wrongful conviction. I believe he's a true psychopath, and as such he might even have genuinely convinced himself that this was somehow Sheila Caffell's "fault", and that he was somehow only a bit-part player (c.f. another murderer in Italy.....).

Last edited by LondonJohn; 24th September 2015 at 12:07 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:22 PM   #149
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Nope. Not the same. The reason there were no records in the US was that local landline calls were entirely free of charge. In 1985, that was not the case in the UK. Every single landline call - no matter what distance - was charged on a timed basis (with different rates for local and national calls). Therefore, the exchange would without doubt have generated a billing record of all landline calls, including number dialled and call duration.
Why did neither side produce call records then. Also, how were they generated - computer I assume?
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell
Desert Fox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:24 PM   #150
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Nope. Not the same. The reason there were no records in the US was that local landline calls were entirely free of charge. In 1985, that was not the case in the UK. Every single landline call - no matter what distance - was charged on a timed basis (with different rates for local and national calls). Therefore, the exchange would without doubt have generated a billing record of all landline calls, including number dialled and call duration.........
So it is beyond astonishing that these phone records weren't part of the evidence presented at trial.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:38 PM   #151
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
On anglolawyer's recommendation, I have just bought this book. Keep the conversation going for a week or so, and I'll be back with some informed questions
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:39 PM   #152
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Nope. Not the same. The reason there were no records in the US was that local landline calls were entirely free of charge. In 1985, that was not the case in the UK. Every single landline call - no matter what distance - was charged on a timed basis (with different rates for local and national calls). Therefore, the exchange would without doubt have generated a billing record of all landline calls, including number dialled and call duration.

As an aside, I remember this case from the time, and have read a few things about it in passing over the years (in addition the flat that Bamber burgled in Morshead Mansions in Maida Vale is quite near me). I am of the pretty confident opinion that he is factually guilty of the crime, though the catalogue of errors and omissions from Essex Police are pretty eye-opening. IMO it's only these errors which have even opened the door the tiniest bit for Bamber to pursue a campaign for wrongful conviction. I believe he's a true psychopath, and as such he might even have genuinely convinced himself that this was somehow Sheila Caffell's "fault", and that he was somehow only a bit-part player (c.f. another murderer in Italy.....).
I don't think he burgled 2 Morshead Mansions, LJ. That flat was bought for Sheila and used by Bamber in the weeks after the murders. You may be thinking about the Osea Road caravan park office which he and Mugford burgled in April 1975, pinching 970 and staging a forced entry (in fact Bamber unlocked the door by reaching through the letter box for a key and then smashing a window).
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:47 PM   #153
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
So it is beyond astonishing that these phone records weren't part of the evidence presented at trial.
It is indeed and it's good that LJ has shown up because he knows about this stuff. As important as the facts of data storage and retrieval are, equally important is what Bamber believed to be the case, because he had to factor in the possibility that exact times were recorded.

Incidentally, while Desert Fox may consider these things of no significance, I believe one of the things Bamber needed time for was to clean himself up. Ann Eaton was surprised to discover when attending Goldhangar on the morning of the 7th that there no towels in the bathroom and the shower hose was not in its holder (don't suppose she was in a suspicious frame of mind or anything .. ) and Julie (just being helpful, no doubt) told her this was normal and that Bamber never had towels in the bathroom.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:48 PM   #154
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
On anglolawyer's recommendation, I have just bought this book. Keep the conversation going for a week or so, and I'll be back with some informed questions
One of the better true crime books I have read. There are some shockingly awful ones about this case.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:54 PM   #155
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
.........Incidentally, while Desert Fox may consider these things of no significance, I believe one of the things Bamber needed time for was to clean himself up..........
Look out! New theory-by-Mike.....

The reason, therefore, that he drove so slowly to the farm was that his hair was still wet, which would arouse suspicion in the small hours of the morning. I'll bet he had the car windows open, the fan on full, and the heater turned up to full blast.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:55 PM   #156
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It is indeed and it's good that LJ has shown up because ........
I've always thought that you two were either twins, or one was the sock of the other
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:56 PM   #157
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Look out! New theory-by-Mike.....

The reason, therefore, that he drove so slowly to the farm was that his hair was still wet, which would arouse suspicion in the small hours of the morning. I'll bet he had the car windows open, the fan on full, and the heater turned up to full blast.
That is bloody good IMO. But would he not have dried his hair as thoroughly as possble with the discarded towels?
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 12:59 PM   #158
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Look out! New theory-by-Mike.....

The reason, therefore, that he drove so slowly to the farm was that his hair was still wet, which would arouse suspicion in the small hours of the morning. I'll bet he had the car windows open, the fan on full, and the heater turned up to full blast.
No. While LJ lived near Morshead Mansions I lived in the place at the time of these events (true) so we are two totally different people. I even know who lives in that flat now.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:02 PM   #159
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
That is bloody good IMO. But would he not have dried his hair as thoroughly as possble with the discarded towels?
Of course, but towel-dry hair is still damp. If he had been disturbed from a night's sleep (no doubt his claim), then he would have had dry disheveled hair.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 24th September 2015 at 01:04 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2015, 01:03 PM   #160
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
No. While LJ lived near Morshead Mansions I lived in the place at the time of these events (true) so we are two totally different people. I even know who lives in that flat now.
I think you're quoting the wrong post here.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.