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 27th September 2015, 01:51 PM   #241
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Comments in bold.
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
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?

She was useful. She got temazapam when he was planning to drug them and burn the house down. She kept lookout when he burgled the Osea Road office, She was a criminal in her own right. I think this quality may have been the only, or main, thing that attracted him to her. After the murders, once the fuss died down and it became apparent his ruse had worked, he realised not only that he didn't need her but that there were much more attractve alternatives available. He calculated that she wouldn't dare go to the police because she would imperil herself and that if the worst came to the worst, no one would believe her.

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

There was a Mexican stand off. At any moment the police might bust the case wide open. If she didn't rat him out first, he might implicate her. By going first she was taking a huge risk, you're right, but she figured the only way he could get her in trouble would be by confessing himself. I'm not surprised it took her several weeks to make this call.

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.

But then the police would not have had her evidence. How were they to convict without 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, 01:52 PM   #242
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
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?"
Funerals for a single person last about an hour. For a family of five, goodness knows how long that would be, and the moments of high emotion are many. I would hardly take two snapshots of just a moment in those funerals as some sort of indication of how people are feeling, what they are thinking, or whether they are faking it or not.
__________________
"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; 27th September 2015 at 01:55 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 27th September 2015, 02:23 PM   #243
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,555
Of time-stamped answerphone recordings from those days -

We had a cassette answerphone back then but I don't recall time-stamps, just a flashing light to indicate that messages had been recorded. Wouldn't it require a voice synthesiser to insert a timestamp statement based on the time set on the recorder? "First message, received at one fifty-two pm" or somesuch?

Or I could be way wide of the mark. It's early here
GlennB 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, 03:11 PM   #244
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Of time-stamped answerphone recordings from those days -

We had a cassette answerphone back then but I don't recall time-stamps, just a flashing light to indicate that messages had been recorded. Wouldn't it require a voice synthesiser to insert a timestamp statement based on the time set on the recorder? "First message, received at one fifty-two pm" or somesuch?

Or I could be way wide of the mark. It's early here
It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.
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, 03:21 PM   #245
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Funerals for a single person last about an hour. For a family of five, goodness knows how long that would be, and the moments of high emotion are many. I would hardly take two snapshots of just a moment in those funerals as some sort of indication of how people are feeling, what they are thinking, or whether they are faking it or not.
I would add that after a while, no matter how much you love the victims you will simply get bored and hope for it to be over. I don't think we should take anything from the pictures.

If I had a girlfriend who murdered her family, I don't think I would want to help her hand but some people are strange. As such, I don't think that we can even make that assumption.
__________________
"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, 03:23 PM   #246
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.
But Essexman's transcript has the cops saying no records are available from BT. How is this blended into the discussion?
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, 03:24 PM   #247
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It's not that the answerphone would provide a time stamp but that the telecoms provider would. The answerphone is the solution to Guybrush Threepwood's problem that the call needed to connect in order to register with BT.
Doesn't that seem just a little far fetched?
__________________
"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, 03:59 PM   #248
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
But Essexman's transcript has the cops saying no records are available from BT. How is this blended into the discussion?
It's what Bamber believed that matters. He seems to have thought the times of calls could be verified.
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
Doesn't that seem just a little far fetched?
Why?
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, 04:13 PM   #249
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
AL:
You seem to be coming up with the huge complex plot with all of these variable including
1. Lying to Mugford about hiring an assassin yet all the while planning to murder them himself.
2. Somehow making Shelia's murder look like a suicide.
3. Using the phones to try to create an alibi.

At the same time, you argue that he was stupid enough not to dispose of the moderator. Soak the frigging thing in bleach and bury it in the forest somewhere. Stupid enough also to dump his girlfriend a month or so after the murders. Take her on a vacation to Spain and have her disappear. Just claim she ran off with some Antonio. If he is willing to murder his whole family, he would certainly be willing to do the same with his girlfriend.
__________________
"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, 05:42 PM   #250
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
AL:
You seem to be coming up with the huge complex plot with all of these variable including
1. Lying to Mugford about hiring an assassin yet all the while planning to murder them himself.
2. Somehow making Shelia's murder look like a suicide.
3. Using the phones to try to create an alibi.

At the same time, you argue that he was stupid enough not to dispose of the moderator. Soak the frigging thing in bleach and bury it in the forest somewhere. Stupid enough also to dump his girlfriend a month or so after the murders. Take her on a vacation to Spain and have her disappear. Just claim she ran off with some Antonio. If he is willing to murder his whole family, he would certainly be willing to do the same with his girlfriend.
1 he probably did toy with the idea of using a hit man. What I haven't figured out is why he didn't tell Julie he had ditched that plan. OTOH you can't imagine the police fed her that story and it would be odd if she just made it up out of nothing. She named a real person who was arrested at the same time as Bamber but proved to have an alibi. Why would she do that?

2 that's the case on which he was convicted - I didn't make it up

3 yes, this is the key to the whole thing

I remain unsure about the moderator. It could be a plant by desperate, venal relatives who thought he was getting away with murder due to police indifference and incompetence. It's also possible he didn't realise blood had blown back inside it.

Murrdering Julie would have been a good idea if he could do it without drawing suspicion. However, life is not so simple. The fragmentation of their relationship was gradual and he had a series of fall back positions to put his faith in against the possibility she would rat on him. Taking her on holiday and coming back without her in circumstances in which she was never seen or heard from again would have had the police and press swarming all over him. Too obvious even for the dozy cops.
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, 05:56 PM   #251
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
`

Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
1 he probably did toy with the idea of using a hit man. What I haven't figured out is why he didn't tell Julie he had ditched that plan. OTOH you can't imagine the police fed her that story and it would be odd if she just made it up out of nothing. She named a real person who was arrested at the same time as Bamber but proved to have an alibi. Why would she do that?

2 that's the case on which he was convicted - I didn't make it up

3 yes, this is the key to the whole thing

I remain unsure about the moderator. It could be a plant by desperate, venal relatives who thought he was getting away with murder due to police indifference and incompetence. It's also possible he didn't realise blood had blown back inside it.

Murrdering Julie would have been a good idea if he could do it without drawing suspicion. However, life is not so simple. The fragmentation of their relationship was gradual and he had a series of fall back positions to put his faith in against the possibility she would rat on him. Taking her on holiday and coming back without her in circumstances in which she was never seen or heard from again would have had the police and press swarming all over him. Too obvious even for the dozy cops.
The elephant in room is that suicide staging. It is not so much it is impossible to do it. It is completely impossible to expect to pull it off. And if it is an impossible expectation it is part of no plan.
Mugford is one piece of work to make all this up. These are all the same problems plaguing these cases, the premeditation angle destroys the case.
Premeditation works fine if you plan to end up dead.

Last edited by Samson; 27th September 2015 at 05:58 PM.
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, 08:41 PM   #252
Metullus
Forum -Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,079
Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
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.
My point is that the purported alibi is false and I know it. I also know that the police cannot verify it. When they do not verify it I can spin the story in such a way that I claim to have an alibi and it is not my fault that the police can't support it.

In the Faria case the accused has a well supported alibi that the DA simply hand waved away. Not at all the same thing.
__________________
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
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, 08:54 PM   #253
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
My point is that the purported alibi is false and I know it. I also know that the police cannot verify it. When they do not verify it I can spin the story in such a way that I claim to have an alibi and it is not my fault that the police can't support it.

In the Faria case the accused has a well supported alibi that the DA simply hand waved away. Not at all the same thing.
I was told by another poster that they were suppose to have electronic records of phone calls at that time. If so, it would be a simple task to simply call the phone company. It is not the idea of finding a mystery witness. If Bamber thought that, he was not asking for anything unreasonable.

You can also see from anglolawyer's posts that even if they had phone records of the call, they would simply be dismissed as him calling an answering machine to create a false alibi.

It is very similar Russ were the argument is that somebody else had his phone and used his credit card to create an alibi.
__________________
"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 28th September 2015, 05:26 AM   #254
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
This is my current version of the plan:

1 he murdered everybody
2 he called his own number from WHF at 3.00 a.m. a pre-agreed time with Julie
3 he hung up once the answer phone kicked in, thus ensuring, as he thought, BT would have a record of the call
4 he called Julie's number a minute or two later, again by prior arrangement
5 he interrupted the call before it was answered so BT would not have a trace of it
6 he went home
7 Julie (this is part of their plan) went into SB's room to discuss the call she had not, in fact, answered
8 SB noted the time on her clock as being 3.12, adjusted to 3.02, which fits perfectly with point 4 above. I bet Julie said something seemingly innocent about the time to cause SB to notice it
9 JB cycles home like crazy, takes a quick shower, discarding his clothes and towels somewhere with a view to permanent disposal later
10 JB calls Witham/Wickham Bishop and then Chelmsford having some time beforehand, when preparing the crime, circled the number(s) in the phone book (this is a prediction based on a combination of (i) faint recollection of reading that he did that and (ii) an appreciation of his scheme)
11 he has a private meeting with Julie when she showed up in the morning in order to agree some aspect of their stories (e.g. whether he called her before the police or after)
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 28th September 2015, 07:26 AM   #255
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,340
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Innocent or Guilty Jeremy should have had his conviction quashed many years ago but it would be too shattering for the legal system to admit a conspiracy may have taken place.
What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

[quote=Essexman;10897190]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.
So the only reason to doubt the silencer, and thus Bamber's guilt, is a supposed motive of others?

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
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.
Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?

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
Firstly none of this is relevant. Secondly, in the only case I feel competent to comment on (the death of Azaria Chamberlain) the finding of blood was down to incompetence.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 28th September 2015, 07:51 AM   #256
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
[quote=catsmate;10899298]What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

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.
So the only reason to doubt the silencer, and thus Bamber's guilt, is a supposed motive of others?


Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?


Firstly none of this is relevant. Secondly, in the only case I feel competent to comment on (the death of Azaria Chamberlain) the finding of blood was down to incompetence.
But I am demonstrating a pattern. All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent. Including Jeremy Bamber. The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions.
Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.
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 28th September 2015, 09:01 AM   #257
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
But I am demonstrating a pattern. All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent. Including Jeremy Bamber. The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions. Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.
I think you are thinking of things as big Conspiracy not little conspiracy. It is more suspicion (cops thinking everybody is guilty) combined with laziness, willingness to bend the system to get the results they want, and an unwillingness to accept that they made mistakes.
__________________
"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 28th September 2015, 10:02 AM   #258
Essexman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
What evidence do you have for this conspiracy?

Who are these people? How was the blood evidence fabricated?

If Jeremy is innocent then a conspiracy has taken place its as simple as that.


How was the blood evidence fabricated? Easy, one could have taken apart the baffle plates in the sound moderator then planted Shelias blood inside.
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 30th September 2015, 06:05 AM   #259
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,340
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
But I am demonstrating a pattern.
No you're not; there are no connections between the cases, hence no "pattern".

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
All the people convicted on the above evidence are innocent.
Go and demonstrate this.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Including Jeremy Bamber.
Nope.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The evidence is manufactured late by parties that need a conviction to validate their nefarious positions.


Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Once this is understood, scales can descend from eyes.
How about some facts and evidence not silly rhetoric?

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
How was the blood evidence fabricated? Easy, one could have taken apart the baffle plates in the sound moderator then planted Shelias blood inside.
Where did they get it from? How did they place it so it matched the expectations of the experts?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 30th September 2015, 06:20 AM   #260
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
No you're not; there are no connections between the cases, hence no "pattern".


Go and demonstrate this.


Nope.





How about some facts and evidence not silly rhetoric?


Where did they get it from? How did they place it so it matched the expectations of the experts?
If so you win, but citations, and proof including scientific testimony that locates the blood in moderator as replicated by firing a gun at a person or similar. No. I thought not.
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 1st October 2015, 05:25 AM   #261
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,340
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If so you win, but citations, and proof including scientific testimony that locates the blood in moderator as replicated by firing a gun at a person or similar. No. I thought not.
What? Is there a point (or a question) in there somewhere?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th October 2015, 02:06 AM   #262
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
I've finished reading "The Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee. I am now as certain as I can be that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. One of my main reasons is the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy, which, if it occurred, must have happened before he (Nevill) was shot in the face twice (because he then couldn't speak, and even if he could he would surely have said "I've been shot"). According to that scenario, he went downstairs to make the phone call, then went upstairs and back to his bedroom where he was shot, then came back downstairs to have a fight with Sheila in the kitchen before finally being shot dead. Then Sheila would have had to have gone back upstairs, cleaned herself ("ritual washing"), taken the silencer off the gun and put it in a cupboard (why would you put it away?), before shooting herself twice. If Jeremy had put the silencer in Sheila's hand, or on the floor alongside her, rather than back in the cupboard, he might well have got away with the crime.

I can't understand why Jeremy didn't kill Nevill in bed. Surely he should have dealt with the biggest threat first, then June. His failure to do this is why he is spending his whole life in prison, in my view.
__________________
"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 15th October 2015, 02:16 AM   #263
anglolawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I've finished reading "The Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee. I am now as certain as I can be that Jeremy Bamber is guilty. One of my main reasons is the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy, which, if it occurred, must have happened before he (Nevill) was shot in the face twice (because he then couldn't speak, and even if he could he would surely have said "I've been shot"). According to that scenario, he went downstairs to make the phone call, then went upstairs and back to his bedroom where he was shot, then came back downstairs to have a fight with Sheila in the kitchen before finally being shot dead. Then Sheila would have had to have gone back upstairs, cleaned herself ("ritual washing"), taken the silencer off the gun and put it in a cupboard (why would you put it away?), before shooting herself twice. If Jeremy had put the silencer in Sheila's hand, or on the floor alongside her, rather than back in the cupboard, he might well have got away with the crime.

I can't understand why Jeremy didn't kill Nevill in bed. Surely he should have dealt with the biggest threat first, then June. His failure to do this is why he is spending his whole life in prison, in my view.
It's a pity we lost Charlie Wilkes from the forum as he is holding up the pro-innocence side pretty well over at Injustice Anywhere. I'm more with you but, as to why he did not terminate Nevill, I think perhaps he simply underestimated the difficulty of executing his plan. June was a light sleeper according to Lee. It is possible she woke at some sound, maybe the dogs, and woke
Nevill so they were both in motion when Bamber entered the room, resulting in a hail of fire (7 for her, 4 for him) that didn't quite work. Nevill took his chance when the rifle was empty to run downstairs and across the kitchen, displacing the table and chairs, Bamber caught up, battered him unconscious with the rifle, reloaded it and put four bullets in his skull.
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 15th October 2015, 02:21 AM   #264
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
So what do the pro-innocence side make of the phone calls? And of placing the silencer back in the cupboard?
__________________
"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 15th October 2015, 03:07 AM   #265
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,340
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It's a pity we lost Charlie Wilkes from the forum as he is holding up the pro-innocence side pretty well over at Injustice Anywhere. I'm more with you but, as to why he did not terminate Nevill, I think perhaps he simply underestimated the difficulty of executing his plan. June was a light sleeper according to Lee. It is possible she woke at some sound, maybe the dogs, and woke
Nevill so they were both in motion when Bamber entered the room, resulting in a hail of fire (7 for her, 4 for him) that didn't quite work. Nevill took his chance when the rifle was empty to run downstairs and across the kitchen, displacing the table and chairs, Bamber caught up, battered him unconscious with the rifle, reloaded it and put four bullets in his skull.
This seems likely to me; the rifle held (at maximum) ten rounds in the magazine and Bamber didn't have the opportunity to reload when his initial shots didn't kill Nevill.

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
So what do the pro-innocence side make of the phone calls? And of placing the silencer back in the cupboard?
Wrt the silencer they tend to try and discredit it, pushing weird conspiracy theories regarding it's discovery, claiming the blood was planted et cetera.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 15th October 2015, 04:54 AM   #266
Desert Fox
Philosopher
 
Desert Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,147
It is not like we have never seen "creative" evidence from a court case before. From some of what I have read, the serology test was not very definitive anyway.
__________________
"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 15th October 2015, 12:56 PM   #267
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
.......Wrt the silencer they tend to try and discredit it, pushing weird conspiracy theories regarding it's discovery,
Which is fair enough, as it was missed by the 3 or 4 policemen who had looked in that cupboard, and only found weeks later by a relative who had a vested interest in Jeremy ending up in prison.

Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
...... claiming the blood was planted et cetera.
That is't fair enough, though. That's CT nuts.
__________________
"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 15th October 2015, 01:10 PM   #268
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
.....How was the blood evidence fabricated? Easy, one could have taken apart the baffle plates in the sound moderator then planted Shelias blood inside.
At the same time making sure that some of June's DNA was included, and that before DNA testing had ever been used in a criminal case.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 01:11 AM   #269
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It's a pity we lost Charlie Wilkes from the forum as he is holding up the pro-innocence side pretty well over at Injustice Anywhere. I'm more with you but, as to why he did not terminate Nevill, I think perhaps he simply underestimated the difficulty of executing his plan. June was a light sleeper according to Lee. It is possible she woke at some sound, maybe the dogs, and woke
Nevill so they were both in motion when Bamber entered the room, resulting in a hail of fire (7 for her, 4 for him) that didn't quite work. Nevill took his chance when the rifle was empty to run downstairs and across the kitchen, displacing the table and chairs, Bamber caught up, battered him unconscious with the rifle, reloaded it and put four bullets in his skull.
12 months on now, and Charlie is no longer in doubt.
Jeremy Bamber looks the miscarriage of the millenium, but anglo is holding out. Nostalgia-NZ and Samson see a replay in the Bain case, gluttonous family peripherals steal the loot, and lead happy lives, though David Boutflour tragically lost a son in a farm accident. He looks a hapless fool, but Robert Boutflor definitely scraped the silencer under the mantle piece after retrieving it from the cupboard. No whippersnapper Bamber was going to become Lord of his manor.
The depravity of Boutflour, Anne Eaton and Julie Mugford sets a world record that won't be broken.
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 18th October 2016, 01:49 AM   #270
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
12 months on now, and Charlie is no longer in doubt.
Jeremy Bamber looks the miscarriage of the millenium, but anglo is holding out.
Not just him. I don't think there is much doubt about his guilt.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
........Robert Boutflor definitely scraped the silencer under the mantle piece after retrieving it from the cupboard. No whippersnapper Bamber was going to become Lord of his manor.
The depravity of Boutflour, Anne Eaton and Julie Mugford sets a world record that won't be broken.
Any evidence for this? Scraping anything on the underside of a piece of wood will produce detritus on the surface of the something, and a scrape-mark on the piece of wood. It wouldn't produce blood deep in the inside of the silencer.

Do you think that the silencer was the only thing that brought about his conviction?

Oh, and how did June's DNA get in there?

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
At the same time making sure that some of June's DNA was included, and that before DNA testing had ever been used in a criminal case.
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun and put it away in a cupboard before shooting herself?
__________________
"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; 18th October 2016 at 01:53 AM.
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 18th October 2016, 02:31 AM   #271
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Not just him. I don't think there is much doubt about his guilt.



Any evidence for this? Scraping anything on the underside of a piece of wood will produce detritus on the surface of the something, and a scrape-mark on the piece of wood. It wouldn't produce blood deep in the inside of the silencer.

Do you think that the silencer was the only thing that brought about his conviction?

Oh, and how did June's DNA get in there?



Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun and put it away in a cupboard before shooting herself?
Good to see you here Mike. Over on IA it's pretty lively with blue and red forum members blazing away.
N-NZ and I see obvious parallels with Bain, who is clearly innocent from a scientific perspective. There is little point reprising that one, which has been disgracefully resolved with a kind of Alford style finding.
But interestingly Bain opponents cite Bamber as an ideal precedent, so if we can prove Bamber innocent, another leg gets chopped off the milking stool.
Carol Anne Lee seems like a Truman Capote without proof of her case to me. But I will definitely read her book.
I am convinced Sheila did it for the following reasons.
1. A reconstruction by Holly Goodhead clearly shows that Neville was shot four times as he ascended the stairs. This is after he made the phone calls, one to the police, then one to Jeremy. The shots turned him back, by which time the magazine cartridge was empty, because she had also shot momma 5 times without killing her. Seriously disabled, Neville was then beaten with the rifle by Sheila, no overpowering required.
2. She reloads, finishes off Neville, then heads back upstairs and finds Momma has crawled across the room. She puts two shots in her brain, no difficulty aiming now.
3. She shoots the kids, 8 times after reloading, leaving two shots in the gun.
4. This is the real tragedy for Jeremy, Sheila props herself on her right arm, but fails to perceive the direction needed, and shoots herself in the neck. One bullet remains and she gets it right. Without that second bullet she may have survived. All the photographs confirm suicide, and the silencer was never involved.
There is paint on the silencer from under the mantle piece, and there is only one explanation that fits the evidence. Robert Boutflour scraped it on. The evenness of the scratch under the mantle piece is completely inconsistent with a disorganised struggle.

Still, as I say anglo/Clive is battling on bravely, but he may well be continuing as devil's advocate. Taking on Charlie tends to be a fool's errand, he has way too much ammo for the average punter.

Last edited by Samson; 18th October 2016 at 02:34 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 18th October 2016, 03:02 AM   #272
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
.........the silencer was never involved.......
I'll have a good think about the rest of your post. However, in the meantime, perhaps you could explain how 2 different lots of victim's blood ended up on the inside of the silencer if it wasn't on the gun during the shootings? Why would anyone bother faking this in the days before DNA was even heard 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 18th October 2016, 03:16 AM   #273
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I'll have a good think about the rest of your post. However, in the meantime, perhaps you could explain how 2 different lots of victim's blood ended up on the inside of the silencer if it wasn't on the gun during the shootings? Why would anyone bother faking this in the days before DNA was even heard of?
It's an important case, and to be taken seriously. I am studying a whole raft of cases mainly to try to get a handle on how to get Mark Lundy out of jail, so details like the blood and dna inside the silencer have an answer, but not by me.
From what I have assimilated Robert Boutflour had motive and opportunity with the silencer. His "lazy" nephew had complete control of his farming future. I transcribed a financial analysis from a youtube post, that may interest you. I will post it in two parts below.
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 18th October 2016, 03:23 AM   #274
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
On the 29th September 1985 a 24 year old man Jeremy Bamber was arrested at the Port of Dover and charged with shooting his entire family. His father 61 year old Neville his mother 61 year old June his sister 27 year old Sheila and her 2 twins 6 year olds Nicholas and Daniel.
On the 28th October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years. To mark his 28th year of wrongful imprisonment we want to trace one of the biggest issues in this case, that of money, and the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, as it was considered that money and the inheritance of the family assets was Jeremy's motive to kill everyone.

Julie Mugford, the girlfriend that Jeremy jilted for another woman not long after the tragedies, made up a story about a hit man, when she herself had been charged with theft, and this particular situation was acted by her to take revenge on an innocent man. She claimed in court that Jeremy had told her, that the hitman had told him, that he had shot Neville 7 times as the police reported, but Neville Bamber was actually shot 8 times. Julie Mugford arranged the deal with the News of the World before the trial for a 25 thousand pound payoff paid on his conviction only, and that sum was worth about 80k in todays terms. She did not sign the contract until minutes after the verdict was announced, when she was waiting with photographers and a journalist, and two police officers in a local hotel, and some of her statements and interviews remain under public interest immunity. Furthermore, Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution provided that she gave evidence for the crown at Jeremy's trial. So much for fair justice.

Jeremy's parents, Neville and June Bamber were a wealthy and successful farming couple. June Bamber was the daughter of wealthy landowners, Lesley and Mabel Speakman. June's sister Pamela married a local man named Robert Boutflour, and they had two children, David and Anne, who also went into the farming business themselves. Later, Anne Boutflour married Peter Eaton, and they farmed Peter's share of the land which was jointly owned with his brother. Before Neville Bamber's death, Peter's father died and Peter's brother, John Eaton, had inherited half the land which he intended to sell to the Bambers. Concerned that their livelihood would be in jeopardy, Peter and Anne did not obtain financial help to purchase this land from Anne's parents, but instead made an approach to Anne's uncle, Neville Bamber, who bought the land from John, so that they were able still to farm the acreage until such time as they could afford to purchase it. This meant that when Neville Bamber died in the tragedy, his son Jeremy now owned unknowingly half of the Eaton's farm. Local gossip was retold about the land deal in police records. Apparently Neville Bamber had had a fight with John Eaton in a local pub over some land that Neville purchased, which Neville felt was vastly overpriced. The jury at Jeremy's trial was suspicious of the testimony of Robert Boutflour and relatives, asked the following question. If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy's being able to kill his own parents. The Eatons and the Boutflours were, after all, the ones who found the only evidence which convicted Jeremy, the sound moderator. Mysteriously, this was in the very cupboard already searched by the police 3 days prior to the relatives finding it. The jury were told via a statement from Robert Boutflour that he was wealthy in his own right, but neither the jury, nor the defence knew anything about the secret land deal in which Jeremy now owned half of the Eatons' land. It was only in 1986, after the trial, when Peter Eaton told the truth about this deal to the Dickenson investigation, which was set up to explore the police handling of the case. Robert Boutflour had also disguised financial affairs from the court in a second way. Jeremy's grandmother Mabel Speakman, who had survived her husband Leslie, rearranged her will leaving a large part of her estate to June and Pamela, her daughters. Robert Boutflour told the jury that he and his wife owned the land that they farmed, but failed to mention that at the time of the tragedies, Mabel Speakman owned the land they farmed, not them. Which meant that once Mabel Speakman died, her estate would pass to June and Pamela. But as June was now deceased and Jeremy was her remaining next of kin, he would also unknowingly have owned half the land they farmed. This only became clear during the statements made by Robert Boutflour to the City of London police in 1991 when he discussed the fact that after his wife inherited the farm from Mabel Speakman, she gave her husband Robert his own equal share of the land they were farming, known as Carbonle's farm. Which meant that he was a wealthy land owner in his own right. This means that during the trial Robert Boutflour did not make it clear to the jury that at the time of the tragedy and during the weeks after, he did not own the land he was farming therefore he did have a very strong motive to lie to the jury as they had suspected. Owing to the Eatons' secret land deal, and if Mabel Speakman had died before her will was changed, Jeremy unknowingly, would have inherited the entire Bamber estate including half of the Eatons' farm and half of the Boutflours' farm, which would have put the relatives into a financially vulnerable position.
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 18th October 2016, 03:24 AM   #275
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
According to companies house records in 1985 N and J Bamber limited had been a successful company worth about 400,000 pounds. Neville Bamber the father was worth about 310,000 and a further 80,000 from other personal assets. Jeremy's share was worth about 75,000. After he was convicted he lost legal control of the company. Between the years 1984 and 1988, N and J Bamber made an average profit of about 60,000 a year. Based on these figures the company would have been expected to make about 600,000 pounds in profit, about 60,000 a year over the next ten years. Yet the accounts show that the company made less than 4,000 pounds. This excludes the 58,000 pounds from the winding up of the company in 1998. N and J Bamber Ltd had a fixed asset value of 79,800 pounds in 1984 and a fixed assets value of zero from 1990 to 1998, meaning that between 1985 and 1989 N and J B Ltd lost the whole 79,800 pounds in fixed assets under the control of Peter Eaton and Mr Wilson. Mabel Speakman had been ill for some time, and shortly after the tragedies, but before the trial, she mysteriously changed her will, leaving her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour. This was just 2 weeks after she had been declared medically unable to make a statement to the police owing to ill health. During the trial Robert Boutflour had responded with a definitive statement that included
" Personally I would have no claim on the estate and would not benefit in any way."
Curiously, Robert Boutflour appears in a deed dated 4 August 1987 which was made between one Mr Cock, Mrs Boutflour the second Robert Boutflour and third defendants Martin Cowell. It was agreed and declared that from the respective deaths of Mr Bamber, Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell, Mr Cock stand possessed of all Mrs Boutflour's interest in the respective estates of Mr Bamber Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell upon trust for Mrs Boutflour's children, the 5th defendant, Mr Boutflour and 6th defendant, Mrs Eaton in equal shares absolutely. This means that after the death of Neville, June and Sheila, Basil Cock the company accountant was an executor to the estate. He decided that as June's mother Mabel Speakman was still alive when the tragedies happened, she would now inherit the whole estate. As Jeremy was convicted of murder he could not inherit his parents' share, but he still owned 20% of the company N and J Bamber in his own right. Antony Pargeter and Jaqueline Wood were now Neville's next of kin, and in 1992 made a claim against Basil Cock's decision to give the entire estate to Mabel Speakman, simply because when Mabel Speakman died, before the trial but after the tragedy, she had left her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour, wife of Robert. Pamela then kept half the estate for herself and divided Carbonle's farm between Robert and herself, also giving June and Neville's share of the estate to her children equally, David Boutflour and Anne Eaton. This meant that with Jeremy in prison, the Boutflours and Eatons now had control of all the family assets, including Jeremy's 20% share. The case went to the high court, justice brought by Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood. But on the first day of proceedings they all agreed to an out of court settlement. This meant that Jeremy would not know what the exact terms of the settlement were other than the fact that Antony and Jacqueline would take Neville Bamber's share of the estate. The statement of claim does not suggest that Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood knew their uncle Neville also owned half of the Eatons' farm. The company was eventually wound up many years later leaving Jeremy with a debt of 16,000 pounds, no assets, which was to ensure that he had no finances with which to fight an appeal. Jeremy therefore has been deprived of his own personal wealth because of his conviction, and has never been able to obtain the personal money taken from him with which to fight legal action. There is therefore no legal aid and he can't progress with this.

The N and J Bamber company solicitor Mr Wilson had made Peter Eaton a director of the company without Jeremy's consent. Jeremy had simply believed that Peter Eaton was acting as a manager after the tragedies. Further to this in 1987, the company secretary, Barbara Wilson, approached the police and reported a string of fraudulent activity allegedly carried out by Peter Eaton. This included the following
1. Disposal of farm machinery
2. Sale of a combine harvester.
3. Theft of monies
4. Excessive expenditure
5. Obtaining of discounts using the Bamber company
6. Obtaining of goods being paid for by the Bamber company
7. Using manpower from the estate on his own land
8. Stealing a tractor engine
9. Selling off cattle from the Bamber farm
10. Sale of Jeremy's car and keeping the funds.
Essex police failed to investigate the claims until after the first appeal of Jeremy, as this would ensure that the integrity of a key prosecution witness was not brought into question. It is unclear whether the allegations relate to the time before Jeremy Bamber was taken into police custody.

Antony Pargeter claimed to have kept his rifle and its accessories at White House Farm where it is licenced for use. In his 12 december 1985 statement he claims he left his rifle at the farm and he told the court at the trial he'd bought a sound moderator with the gun which he kept at WHF and yet noone even questioned where this identical moderator was kept during and after the tragedies. In 1991 Antony Pargeter changed his story and told the city of London police investigation that his gun was not at the farm. In the same year he was awarded 40,000 pounds damages and 60,000 costs by the Sunday Sport when they had claimed he could have been a suspect in the murders because bullets found at the scene could have been fired from his rifle. It is unclear what his statement of claim to the court actually was. For example he may have made the claim that his rifle was not after all at the farm, but we simply do not know.

The evidence presented in this video coupled with the material on the website proving Jeremy's innocence strongly suggests that the court were not told the truth about the relatives' financial motive and neither were the jury clear about Sheila Caffel's medical history. Her diaries and medical records were refused disclosure to the defence. There is and never has been any evidence connecting Jeremy Bamber to the killing of his family. The case at trial relied on those who benefited from his conviction and from the evidence they obtained 3 days after the tragedies
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 18th October 2016, 03:56 AM   #276
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,340
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
12 months on now, and Charlie is no longer in doubt.
It never really was, despite the initial forcus on his sister. He's guilty and staying in prison.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Jeremy Bamber looks the miscarriage of the millenium,
Nope.

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Not just him. I don't think there is much doubt about his guilt.
Me neither.
We've covered all his "points" before.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It's an important case, and to be taken seriously.<snip>.
What is it with you and your seeming urge to defend violent sociopathic scum?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 18th October 2016, 04:15 AM   #277
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
It never really was, despite the initial forcus on his sister. He's guilty and staying in prison.


Nope.


Me neither.
We've covered all his "points" before.


What is it with you and your seeming urge to defend violent sociopathic scum?
In fact I take little interest in cases of obvious guilt, but I actually believe in my basic research, and there are a variety of inputs that lead to conclusions.
In the case of Bamber for example, anglo started by pointing out Mugford's story was too detailed to be made up.
But the deeper one looks, the more resounding is the evidence it was a poison concoction.

Just today on IA Charlie pointed out:

"In any case, Mugford came forward as an informant. Her story was that she was privy to the planning and execution of a quintuple murder, including two small children, before which she did nothing to stop it and after which she lied through her teeth to protect the perpetrator.

So how do police normally deal with scum like that?

Here's a link that spells out the procedures and best practices in a lot of detail:

http://www.academia.edu/8979564/Underco ... ing_Manual

Summary: Never trust an informant, never believe a word they say without corroboration, wire them up whenever possible.

I realize the cops who investigated Bamber were incompetent, but I assume they had a basic familiarity with standard police procedures. They must have had some reason for ignoring those procedures with Mugford. The only reason I can think of is that they didn't believe a word she said. They knew if they went by the book, they would end up discrediting her. And they didn't want to do that because they wanted her perjured testimony as evidence.

Can anyone think of a more likely reason?"


Can you, catsmate, deliver a death blow to that reasoning?

Last edited by Samson; 18th October 2016 at 04:17 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 18th October 2016, 06:31 AM   #278
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,349
I'll admit I didn't really read the thread so maybe it's already been said, but is there ever anyone, anywhere that is guilty in Samson's world?
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC 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 18th October 2016, 12:56 PM   #279
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,518
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
I'll admit I didn't really read the thread so maybe it's already been said, but is there ever anyone, anywhere that is guilty in Samson's world?
No mystery there, innocent men in jail are worth discussing, guilty not so much.
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 18th October 2016, 01:14 PM   #280
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
No mystery there, innocent men in jail are worth discussing, guilty not so much.
Therein lies the root of your problem, Samson: instead of focusing on trying to work out who is guilty and who is the victim of a miscarriage, you have just made it clear you make up your mind then "discuss" your decision.
__________________
"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 07:06 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.