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 26th September 2015, 04:21 PM   #201
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
There are so many mistakes that the conviction should be squashed. I don't see a conspiracy but just so many screw ups and then covering things up after the fact. Cops and prosecutors the world around seem to love to cover their hind parts.

The other thing that is horrid is that they can change the rules against the defendant as they go along. One should not be able to upgrade the sentence after the fact.
If the sound moderator is authentic then Jeremy is guilty, Problem is this was "discovered" by his cousins several days afterwards and they stood to inherit the family fortune if Jeremy was convicted. Its suspiciously too convenient whatever way you look at it.

Even some people who believe Jeremy is guilty think the cousins planted residual blood from the crime scene into the sound moderator. its very possible.
Essexman 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 26th September 2015, 04:27 PM   #202
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.
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 26th September 2015, 04:35 PM   #203
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.
25 years old he is suddenly a millionaire (in todays money) who in his position would not spend allot?
Essexman 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 26th September 2015, 05:04 PM   #204
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
25 years old he is suddenly a millionaire (in todays money) who in his position would not spend allot?
To me it falls into the category of inappropriate behaviour that causes suspicion. It is seen a lot amongst the wrongly accused, Amanda Knox, Mark Lundy, David Bain, Lindy Chamberlain, Arthur Thomas. Possibly Angelika Graswald. It is plain dumb for a (guilty) Bamber.
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 26th September 2015, 05:57 PM   #205
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
I can just post the relevant part in text. This is an interview taken between 9th-12th September 1985. Jeremys words are in Blue, Essex police are in Red. This is very significant for the telephone debate.


R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.


Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB.


0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.


R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42



Jeremy seems to have assumed Telecom could prove such a call happened therefore if he was responsible he would have orchestrated the phone call somehow. Its things like this that make me believe he is innocent he does not seem capable of such a well thought out criminal execution only to leave a blood stained sound moderator in his cupboard then go and tell his girlfiend he done it. A guilty Jeremy would be criminal mastermind and at the same time a complete idiot. It don't make sense.
I agree this is important. What he believed about the telephone system is as important as what that system was. I am baffled.

ETA no I'm not. He had an answerphone! Simple. I don't know he had one. I predict he did. He can't be guilty otherwise.

Last edited by anglolawyer; 26th September 2015 at 06:02 PM.
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 27th September 2015, 12:17 AM   #206
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
He had a phone with an automatic call back function so it was funky to at least that extent. The thing is, if he said in interview that the police should be able to verify from telephone records that the call was made it means it must have been picked up at Bourtree Cottage. If there was no answerphone then there was no way of pulling off the crime so as to leave a trace of this call. He believed a trace had been left. Therefore:

(I) no answerphone = not guilty
(II) answerphone = guilty or not guilty, and
(III) if guilty, he had an answerphone

Now there is a second problem. If Bamber called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. how did he place a call from Bourtree to Julie a minute or two later? That seems impossible but, if he believed, right or not, the call times could be retrieved then he had to solve 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 27th September 2015, 01:10 AM   #207
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Figure this out

Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.
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 27th September 2015, 01:33 AM   #208
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.
Ahem, this plan is delightfully complicated. It sure is lucky Sheila posed dutifully for the suicide with all those bodies around so the show could sensibly go on for the 3am segment.

But seriously, this stuff must have been covered in 30 years, because it is fundamental. I (we) must be missing something obvious.
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 27th September 2015, 02:00 AM   #209
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Ahem, this plan is delightfully complicated. It sure is lucky Sheila posed dutifully for the suicide with all those bodies around so the show could sensibly go on for the 3am segment.

But seriously, this stuff must have been covered in 30 years, because it is fundamental. I (we) must be missing something obvious.
Not that complicated IMO, just logical. We know from Julie, assuming she can be believed on this, that Bamber discussed a telephone-alibi with her. The hitman was to use the preset buttons on the cordless phone to ring Bamber's number before leaving via the secret window. For whatever reason, he ditched the hitman idea but kept the telephone alibi thing.

It's possible that, like Scott Peterson's claim to have been playing golf, he just assumed the police would not check up on his claim that he called Mugford. That was actually a pretty good call because they didn't.
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 27th September 2015, 02:16 AM   #210
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Not that complicated IMO, just logical. We know from Julie, assuming she can be believed on this, that Bamber discussed a telephone-alibi with her. The hitman was to use the preset buttons on the cordless phone to ring Bamber's number before leaving via the secret window. For whatever reason, he ditched the hitman idea but kept the telephone alibi thing.

It's possible that, like Scott Peterson's claim to have been playing golf, he just assumed the police would not check up on his claim that he called Mugford. That was actually a pretty good call because they didn't.
Slightly off topic, but Anne Eaton said she was suspicious because he was the only survivor, how come. Well fragrant Anne, he didn't live there.

To go from hitman to if you want a job done properly you must do it yourself, he may well have been thinking he need not only be the survivor, but have a family suspect, Sheila. Hitman is not currently working for Richard Glossip, they saw right through it and will kill him wednesday. (He is innocent). But in fairness, the random home invasion theory is discredited, it is not favoured. Bamber may have amended plans accordingly.
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 27th September 2015, 02:16 AM   #211
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
If the sound moderator is authentic then Jeremy is guilty, Problem is this was "discovered" by his cousins several days afterwards and they stood to inherit the family fortune if Jeremy was convicted. Its suspiciously too convenient whatever way you look at it.

Even some people who believe Jeremy is guilty think the cousins planted residual blood from the crime scene into the sound moderator. its very possible.
The problem I have with such statement is that you are basing SOLELY your suspicion on the fact they might inherit. You are not looking at the item discovered or the forensic of it. You are just looking at who discovered it and what they might gain from it. Remove the inheritance and make the exact same discovery in the exact same circumstance and you would not suspect a thing.

Do you see why I am not taking the "they inherit so that make evidence suspect" theory ? You are not basing your judgement on the evidence, you are solely basing it on WHO found the evidence.

That is not how it should be. Firstly you should discuss the evidence found, and what forensic bits it bring up. If it brings up blood, which can be matched, then any objection on who found it and what they stand to get for it, would have first to overcome all those forensic bit in strength.

In other word just saying "but but they might have gained stuff !" is not enough. You would have to demonstrate that not only would they have the knowledge and the possibilities to make up such object, but also to make up every bit of forensic knowledge gained by the object.

Frankly suspicion of gain on the family part is on the level of baseless CT.
Aepervius 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 27th September 2015, 02:18 AM   #212
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I am also interested in his motive for spending up large immediately after the deaths. In my view this shows he is innocent, but not sorry.
No. Because there is an easier explanation which psychologist can tell you : Most people getting large amount of money immediately tend to spend it. Most of us have stuff they can't do because they do not have the money, and having the suddenly large influx, they do not put it in a piggy bank, they spend it on those needs or perceived needs they had for years.

You might be different, if so congrats. But most people are not like that.

Skepticism also means considering the most likely explanation. Not only the one going toward your pet theory.
Aepervius 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 27th September 2015, 02:20 AM   #213
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Talking

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
To me it falls into the category of inappropriate behaviour
Congrat you just called most human as having inappropriate behavior.
Aepervius 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 27th September 2015, 02:25 AM   #214
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The problem I have with such statement is that you are basing SOLELY your suspicion on the fact they might inherit. You are not looking at the item discovered or the forensic of it. You are just looking at who discovered it and what they might gain from it. Remove the inheritance and make the exact same discovery in the exact same circumstance and you would not suspect a thing.

Do you see why I am not taking the "they inherit so that make evidence suspect" theory ? You are not basing your judgement on the evidence, you are solely basing it on WHO found the evidence.

That is not how it should be. Firstly you should discuss the evidence found, and what forensic bits it bring up. If it brings up blood, which can be matched, then any objection on who found it and what they stand to get for it, would have first to overcome all those forensic bit in strength.

In other word just saying "but but they might have gained stuff !" is not enough. You would have to demonstrate that not only would they have the knowledge and the possibilities to make up such object, but also to make up every bit of forensic knowledge gained by the object.

Frankly suspicion of gain on the family part is on the level of baseless CT.
Noble cause corruption or bad and very late forensic evidence without which the case collapses.

My list
Arthur Thomas....................cartridge case.
Lindy Chamberlain..............blood in boot
David Bain...........................lens of glass
Jeremy Bamber...................blood in silencer
Scott Watson.........................two blonde hairs
Mark Lundy..........................wife's brain on shirt (but no blood or neurons)
Raffaele Sollecito...................dna on bra hook

And on and on

Last edited by Samson; 27th September 2015 at 02:27 AM.
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 27th September 2015, 02:31 AM   #215
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Slightly off topic, but Anne Eaton said she was suspicious because he was the only survivor, how come. Well fragrant Anne, he didn't live there.

To go from hitman to if you want a job done properly you must do it yourself, he may well have been thinking he need not only be the survivor, but have a family suspect, Sheila. Hitman is not currently working for Richard Glossip, they saw right through it and will kill him wednesday. (He is innocent). But in fairness, the random home invasion theory is discredited, it is not favoured. Bamber may have amended plans accordingly.
This is incorrect. She was suspicious by nature, to begin with, but the many things her suspicions focused on were perfectly legitimate things for the police to have questioned, the most obvious and glaring being Bamber's failure to call 999 immediately. The complacency and incompetence of Essex police in this case were utterly staggering but not unique.

Ian Huntly, the Soham murderer, escaped immediate arrest by telling the WPC he conducted around the girls' school, where he was caretaker, he could not unlock a particular cupboard because he didn't have the key. She swallowed that. The victims' clothes were in the cupboard.
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 27th September 2015, 02:35 AM   #216
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Noble cause corruption or bad and very late forensic evidence without which the case collapses.

My list
Arthur Thomas....................cartridge case.
Lindy Chamberlain..............blood in boot
David Bain...........................lens of glass
Jeremy Bamber...................blood in silencer
Scott Watson.........................two blonde hairs
Mark Lundy..........................wife's brain on shirt (but no blood or neurons)
Raffaele Sollecito...................dna on bra hook

And on and on
You would have to demonstrate that the evidence is flawed. Stating "but but in other case of history there was corruption somewhere in the world!" does not help you a little bit (otherwise every and ANY evidence could then be discredited by just pretending somebody somewhere faking some evidence. Which is a stupid contention sorry).
Aepervius 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 27th September 2015, 02:37 AM   #217
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Kind of dusting off what I wrote earlier on naother forum about the potential phone calls:

I was looking at Wiki and they have a call sheet from a potential call which is thought by some to be Neville. If there are two police call logs, that does seem pretty weird. If there is only one, it means some pretty sloppy way of wording things. In another case I am looking at, the police appear to have created some of their paperwork after the fact. That might be the case here as well where the police created reports after the fact, forgetting they created the already existing paperwork.

Assuming that there is only one call to the police, I actually can believe that it might take around 26 minutes to call the police. It takes a few minutes really to wake up from a full sleep. In addition, you hope that Neville will call you back and tell you that it has been resolved. You try to call him back a few times. You worry a lot. You also really do not want the police involved. You finally and reluctantly decide that you need to call the police all the while castigating yourself for taking so long to call them. [Yes, I might be talking from personal experience.] Calling a local police number is strange but not enough to be considered suspicious even when tied to time frame. I have some speculation why he might do it but I don't know if they are relevant.

With regard to his call to Julie, this was recorded at least a month afterwards, correct? Anything that removed from the events is very suspicious because it can easily be suggested into somebody's memory or could be a different day. For example, there is another case I am looking at where witnesses said that the victim had a basketball game the day the victim disappeared where she was suppose to score. There is pretty solid evidence that the basketball game did not happen that day and that the people were confused about the day.

Did not Mugford in her first police interview states that Jeremy hired an assassin who killed his family? After the assassin was proved to have an ironclad alibi, her story changed?
__________________
"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 27th September 2015, 02:39 AM   #218
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
This is incorrect. She was suspicious by nature, to begin with, but the many things her suspicions focused on were perfectly legitimate things for the police to have questioned, the most obvious and glaring being Bamber's failure to call 999 immediately. The complacency and incompetence of Essex police in this case were utterly staggering but not unique.

Ian Huntly, the Soham murderer, escaped immediate arrest by telling the WPC he conducted around the girls' school, where he was caretaker, he could not unlock a particular cupboard because he didn't have the key. She swallowed that. The victims' clothes were in the cupboard.
I read her statement, and this stuck with me. She said many things, this was one thing, I will return to PDF if necessary. I regard her as being keen on her suspicion, because he told her he was planning to have a greater share of the caravan park some time previously, and that pissed her off.
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 27th September 2015, 02:53 AM   #219
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Comments in bold type.
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
Kind of dusting off what I wrote earlier on naother forum about the potential phone calls:

I was looking at Wiki and they have a call sheet from a potential call which is thought by some to be Neville. If there are two police call logs, that does seem pretty weird. If there is only one, it means some pretty sloppy way of wording things. In another case I am looking at, the police appear to have created some of their paperwork after the fact. That might be the case here as well where the police created reports after the fact, forgetting they created the already existing paperwork.

I am quite sure Nevill did not call Malcolm Bonnet, whose note you are referring to. That idea faces insuperable difficulties not excluding Bonnets own denial, of course.

Assuming that there is only one call to the police, I actually can believe that it might take around 26 minutes to call the police. It takes a few minutes really to wake up from a full sleep. In addition, you hope that Neville will call you back and tell you that it has been resolved. You try to call him back a few times. You worry a lot. You also really do not want the police involved. You finally and reluctantly decide that you need to call the police all the while castigating yourself for taking so long to call them. [Yes, I might be talking from personal experience.] Calling a local police number is strange but not enough to be considered suspicious even when tied to time frame. I have some speculation why he might do it but I don't know if they are relevant.

Your explanation isn't the one he gave Ann Eaton, He told her he didn't think it was that important. Wasting time looking up the number for Chelmsford police when the 999 service was available is inexplicable IMO.

With regard to his call to Julie, this was recorded at least a month afterwards, correct? Anything that removed from the events is very suspicious because it can easily be suggested into somebody's memory or could be a different day. For example, there is another case I am looking at where witnesses said that the victim had a basketball game the day the victim disappeared where she was suppose to score. There is pretty solid evidence that the basketball game did not happen that day and that the people were confused about the day.

True. The evidence of the timing of his call to Julie is sketchy.

Did not Mugford in her first police interview states that Jeremy hired an assassin who killed his family? After the assassin was proved to have an ironclad alibi, her story changed?


No. I don't think this is correct. She said he told her he would use a hitman who he named (and the police arrested) but she gradually came to realise he did it himself.
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 27th September 2015, 03:01 AM   #220
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,316
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Let's assume:

1 Bamber is guilty
2 he believed call times were recorded
3 he planned to construct his alibi using call times

He said he received Nevill's call at 3.00 a.m. It follows from the above that he called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and that his answerphone picked up the call. Next, he had to place a call to Julie within a minute or two of 3.00 a.m. from Bourtree Cottage. That's the problem.

I can figure how perhaps Mugford faked a call to herself at just after 3.00 because I faintly remember it used to be possible to make your own phone ring. Say they pre-agreed 3.00 a.m. as the time of the WHF call and that Julie would cause her communal phone to ring a couple of minutes later, pretending to take a call from Bamber (or, maybe Bamber called her from WHF right after 3.00, the deal being she would pick up right after he terminated the call).

That at least places a call through to Julie's place at the right time but it doesn't create a record of a call from Bourtree Cottage to Julie. Solve it please.

Here's a thought:

In those days, answerphones were stand-alone units that were in a serial connection with the telephone. The only way they time-stamped received messages was via their own clock which had to be set manually - there were no network timings communicated to the answerphone device (nor, of course, any internet times). The answerphone time (and date) had to be manually set just as one would set a cheap bedside alarm clock nowadays.

And therefore, a crafty Bamber who had carefully premeditated and planned this murder could easily have manually adjusted the time on his answerphone before he left for White House Farm, such that the call he placed to himself from the farm would receive a time stamp on his answerphone that constructed his alibi. After he got back to his house after the murder, he would have reset his answerphone clock to the correct time. He would have been confident (and correctly so) that there would be no forensic record on his answerphone of the time having been changed twice on that night.
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 27th September 2015, 03:06 AM   #221
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,316
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Comments in bold type.

On the "hitman" issue (and IIRC the police brought this named "hitman" in for questioning and found that he had an unimpeachable alibi):

I think Mugford was telling the truth on this matter. I believe Bamber did tell her - before and after the fact - that he'd used this hitman. I think that a psychiatrist would be able to analyse this as a particular character trait of a psychopath (which is what I believe Jeremy Bamber was, in the classical sense). I think he used the device of a mythical hitman to "allow" himself to explain all the details of the crime to Mugford - serving the dual purpose to him of a form of catharsis ("I am responsible, but it wasn't actually me who carried out these horrific acts") and the satisfaction of reliving the crime (while being able to pretend that his reminiscences were vicarious rather than first-hand).
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 27th September 2015, 03:08 AM   #222
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer
Your explanation isn't the one he gave Ann Eaton, He told her he didn't think it was that important. Wasting time looking up the number for Chelmsford police when the 999 service was available is inexplicable IMO.
Do you not mean that is the reason that Ann Eaton said he gave? You might think it is not an important distinction but it can be quite important.

Edit: Not saying that she is lying either, simply that somebody will often try to simply a complex explanation and everybody gets confused. Might have also asked him why he took so long to call and he shrugged. That can be taken as a response of "I don't know" or "It did not see important."


I believe they have changed it but for a while calling 911 on a cell phone would get you in touch with the State Police. With regards to calling 999, one of the possible (among many) was that he was afraid he would get a non local police department.
__________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- - - -Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Desert Fox; 27th September 2015 at 03:19 AM.
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 27th September 2015, 03:12 AM   #223
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Here's a thought:

In those days, answerphones were stand-alone units that were in a serial connection with the telephone. The only way they time-stamped received messages was via their own clock which had to be set manually - there were no network timings communicated to the answerphone device (nor, of course, any internet times). The answerphone time (and date) had to be manually set just as one would set a cheap bedside alarm clock nowadays.

And therefore, a crafty Bamber who had carefully premeditated and planned this murder could easily have manually adjusted the time on his answerphone before he left for White House Farm, such that the call he placed to himself from the farm would receive a time stamp on his answerphone that constructed his alibi. After he got back to his house after the murder, he would have reset his answerphone clock to the correct time. He would have been confident (and correctly so) that there would be no forensic record on his answerphone of the time having been changed twice on that night.
That looks good, and if so becomes a necessary part of the plan.
There will be testimony from Mugford somewhere that just such an answer phone existed.
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 27th September 2015, 04:34 AM   #224
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Here's a thought:

In those days, answerphones were stand-alone units that were in a serial connection with the telephone. The only way they time-stamped received messages was via their own clock which had to be set manually - there were no network timings communicated to the answerphone device (nor, of course, any internet times). The answerphone time (and date) had to be manually set just as one would set a cheap bedside alarm clock nowadays.

And therefore, a crafty Bamber who had carefully premeditated and planned this murder could easily have manually adjusted the time on his answerphone before he left for White House Farm, such that the call he placed to himself from the farm would receive a time stamp on his answerphone that constructed his alibi. After he got back to his house after the murder, he would have reset his answerphone clock to the correct time. He would have been confident (and correctly so) that there would be no forensic record on his answerphone of the time having been changed twice on that night.
Nice idea but at no point did he say 'look, if you don't believe me, check my answerphone' to which there would have been an obvious rejoinder anyway. Plus, if you believe, as he seems to have done, that calls were time stamped somewhere, it would be a dead giveaway that you had fiddled with the device.

Now, LJ, please focus on the task I set! That's what you, especially, are here for
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 27th September 2015, 04:49 AM   #225
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
On the "hitman" issue (and IIRC the police brought this named "hitman" in for questioning and found that he had an unimpeachable alibi):

I think Mugford was telling the truth on this matter. I believe Bamber did tell her - before and after the fact - that he'd used this hitman. I think that a psychiatrist would be able to analyse this as a particular character trait of a psychopath (which is what I believe Jeremy Bamber was, in the classical sense). I think he used the device of a mythical hitman to "allow" himself to explain all the details of the crime to Mugford - serving the dual purpose to him of a form of catharsis ("I am responsible, but it wasn't actually me who carried out these horrific acts") and the satisfaction of reliving the crime (while being able to pretend that his reminiscences were vicarious rather than first-hand).
Julie Mugford said in a Television interview that at first she Didn't believe him because he always used to say things like that to shock people
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 05:29 AM   #226
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Julie Mugford said in a Television interview that at first she Didn't believe him because he always used to say things like that to shock people
It's another mystery to be woven into the telephone plot and figured out, why he left her believing the hitman story even after he dropped the idea.
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 27th September 2015, 06:14 AM   #227
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The problem I have with such statement is that you are basing SOLELY your suspicion on the fact they might inherit. You are not looking at the item discovered or the forensic of it. You are just looking at who discovered it and what they might gain from it. Remove the inheritance and make the exact same discovery in the exact same circumstance and you would not suspect a thing.

Do you see why I am not taking the "they inherit so that make evidence suspect" theory ? You are not basing your judgement on the evidence, you are solely basing it on WHO found the evidence.

That is not how it should be. Firstly you should discuss the evidence found, and what forensic bits it bring up. If it brings up blood, which can be matched, then any objection on who found it and what they stand to get for it, would have first to overcome all those forensic bit in strength.

In other word just saying "but but they might have gained stuff !" is not enough. You would have to demonstrate that not only would they have the knowledge and the possibilities to make up such object, but also to make up every bit of forensic knowledge gained by the object.

Frankly suspicion of gain on the family part is on the level of baseless CT.
No its not just "suspicion on the fact they might inherit" there are many factor I bring into this.

1) Its not that they might inherit its that they would inherit. The executor of the will was with them when they looked through the house.

2) Not only did they present the silencer to the police they later showed the police scratch marks on the Kitchen mantle piece that they claimed was caused by the silencer being attached to the rife during a fight in the kitchen. In the early crime scene photographs scratch marks on the mantle piece do not appear in the photo yet they appear in crime scene photographs taken weeks later!

3) They didn't like Jeremy because he was adopted and felt they where the rightful beneficiaries of the estate.

4) Robert and David Boultflour owned two parker hale silencers, the exact same model found at WHF

5) Anthony Pargeter Jeremy's other cousin owned a firearms shop and would have good knowledge on ballistics.

6) The Family had both the silencer and the blood in their possession so they had what was necessary to manufacture the evidence by the standards of 1985forensics.


There is more I can point out but I think I have made my point.

Now if Jeremy is Innocent I don't believe his extended family believed he was, I seriously doubt they callously and wittingly framed an innocent man I think its most likely they became convinced he was guilty and manufacturing the evidence was needed to bring justice, The financial motive also played apart but it was more on subconscious level and only increased their tunnel vision on Jeremy.
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 06:28 AM   #228
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.


Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB


0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.


R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 06:29 AM   #229
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Essexman - what do you mean about them having the blood in their possession?
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 27th September 2015, 06:30 AM   #230
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.


Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB


0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.


R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was
Evidently, you aren't reading my posts.
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 27th September 2015, 06:38 AM   #231
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Evidently, you aren't reading my posts.
I am but please elaborate if you have a solution to this I may have misunderstood
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 06:40 AM   #232
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Essexman - what do you mean about them having the blood in their possession?
They had found a pair of Shelia's blood stained underwear, and there was blood still present at the scene.
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 07:01 AM   #233
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
I am but please elaborate if you have a solution to this I may have misunderstood
You said:

The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

and I said he could orchestrate the call with an answer phone.

This is my current theory:

1 Bamber calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and hangs up a few seconds after the answer phone kicks in
2 then he calls Julie's flat, also from WHF
3 by prior arrangement, he hangs up before she picks up
4 she pretends to take the call
5 she goes into Sue Battersby's room to turn SB into an unwitting witness to the time of the call
6 SB recalls later the time was 3.12 but that as her clock was kept 10 minutes fast, it was really 3.02

Now Bamber has a time-stamped call from WHF to Bourtree and an evidenced incoming call at Julie's place at 3.02. There is a flaw in the idea that BT will not have any record of the 3.02 call. I haven't figured that out yet.
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 27th September 2015, 10:42 AM   #234
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
You said:

The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was

and I said he could orchestrate the call with an answer phone.

This is my current theory:

1 Bamber calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. and hangs up a few seconds after the answer phone kicks in
2 then he calls Julie's flat, also from WHF
3 by prior arrangement, he hangs up before she picks up
4 she pretends to take the call
5 she goes into Sue Battersby's room to turn SB into an unwitting witness to the time of the call
6 SB recalls later the time was 3.12 but that as her clock was kept 10 minutes fast, it was really 3.02

Now Bamber has a time-stamped call from WHF to Bourtree and an evidenced incoming call at Julie's place at 3.02. There is a flaw in the idea that BT will not have any record of the 3.02 call. I haven't figured that out yet.
This requires Julie to be in on the plot thou. I don't think she was
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 11:32 AM   #235
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
This requires Julie to be in on the plot thou. I don't think she was
Oh, I do.

Anyway, I'm told elsewhere that my plan doesn't work because it was a flatmate who answered the call. I'm stumped by that.
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 27th September 2015, 11:51 AM   #236
Metullus
Forum -Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,079
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
R. I seem to remember discussing yesterday as to the sequence of the telephone
calls and you seem to have got them wrong, it seems strange to say I knew
my family were dead because one of them spoke to me. Are you saying that it
was taped or something? JB.


Ds 21 R No I am saying no such phone call was received by you JB.

R. Telecomm must be able to tell you the times or phone calls on my parents
phone. JB


0. What do you mean by that? JB.

R. It would be proof that I received a phone call from my father. JB.

0. If I tell you that telecomm can't give such details then -your theory can't
be checked.


R. I thought telecomm could. JB.
.$1. 4 74 0 8 C1029: 42


The above is baffling me. Jeremy believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his fathers call. So if he is guilty then he must have orchestrated a phone call to appear on telecomms data. There is no way he would have falsely claimed to have a phone call while at the same time he believes Telecomm provider keeps records because the records he thinks are kept would prove him guilty if he was
Well, to be accurate, Bamber says that he believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his father's call. Just as I might attempt to establish a nonexistent alibi by claiming I was 100 miles away from the scene and I have as a witness a 40ish gentleman in a tweed coat walking a dog. Talk with him, he will remember me. Surely the police have a way of tracking him down?
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

Last edited by Metullus; 27th September 2015 at 11:52 AM.
Metullus 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 27th September 2015, 01:09 PM   #237
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
Well, to be accurate, Bamber says that he believes the Telecomm provider will have records of his father's call. Just as I might attempt to establish a nonexistent alibi by claiming I was 100 miles away from the scene and I have as a witness a 40ish gentleman in a tweed coat walking a dog. Talk with him, he will remember me. Surely the police have a way of tracking him down?
The police will often use unreliable witness statements to impeach a defendant then.

Example from a talk from a lawyer.
"No Officer, I was on the Eastern Shore all day."
"We have a witness that says they saw you in Virginia Beach that day."
They will present that in court even when the witness is mistaken about the day.

Look at the Russ Faria Case where he has receipts proving he is elsewhere and the police / prosecution still create a fantasy of how the defendant murdered his wife.
__________________
"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 27th September 2015, 01:21 PM   #238
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Oh, I do.

Anyway, I'm told elsewhere that my plan doesn't work because it was a flatmate who answered the call. I'm stumped by that.
If you believe Mugford to be involved there are several issues with that theory.

1. Jeremy does not need her and most importantly why on Earth would he leave her for another woman if he knows she knows?

2. If she was involved why would she go to the police? that would be the last thing she would do.

3. She had many interviews with the police and was given immunity from prosecution by the CPS for her felons of drugs supply and check fraud in exchange for testimony against Bamber at trail. If she was involved I think police may have realised and broken her to confess and instead she would be given a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony like Karla Homolka did with Paul Bernardo.
Essexman 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 27th September 2015, 01:38 PM   #239
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
..........
3. She had many interviews with the police and was given immunity from prosecution by the CPS for her felons of drugs supply and check fraud in exchange for testimony against Bamber at trail. If she was involved I think police may have realised and broken her to confess and instead she would be given a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony like Karla Homolka did with Paul Bernardo.
One suspects that you may not actually be from Essex.......
__________________
"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 27th September 2015, 01:45 PM   #240
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Another interesting observation is the funeral photographs of Mugford and Bamber. No doubt Jeremy is either innocent and in sad or her is guilty and playing an act.

However Julie Mugford if she was involved would also act sad or be genuinely sad however it is evident that Julie has something on her mind and its too difficult for her to focus on the funeral her mind is preoccupied with something she cannot ignore thus she cannot grieve or focus on the rituals at the funeral.

It seems to me Julie is contemplating if Jeremy done it or not and the fact she may be holding hands with a mass killer acting as a grieving son is making her stone faced she cannot believe what may be happening.

The look on her face to me in these photos is "did he do this?"



Essexman 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 04:28 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.