Jeremy Bamber
Re: Jeremy Bamber
Bamber's problem and the weakest part of his story all along has the difficulty of making his sister appear to be a killer.
Re: Jeremy Bamber
Yes that was always a difficult hurdle for Jeremy to overcome and close to impossible for him. Anyway there is a claim by Meatus on a different issue which I meant to correct earlier, but will do so now.
Meatus: "It is the truth, it was withheld from the defence and not shown to the jury it was only discovered when Bamber's new defence team were giving access to prosecution files in 2004!!"
This comment refers to a telephone log, which as can be seen Meatus alleges was not available to the defence until 2004. What Meatus doesn't state is far more interesting. He doesn't state that the telephone log in question is clearly stamped "Chelmsford Crown Court" and "Bamber" and "Exhibit No. 29". Therefore, despite Meatus claiming that the document was "withheld from the defence" and that this is "the truth", it is clearly not the truth at all. It's actually completely and utterly impossible for the prosecution to 'withhold' a court exhibit from the defence, as the defence would automatically have been given copies of all exhibits by the court itself, and in any event it's not something that any professional barristers would ever have done, even if it had been possible.
Despite Meatus attempting to beef up his argument by not only saying "it is truth" but also by using 2 exclamation marks at the end of his sentence, his claim that the document was "only discovered" in 2004 is entirely false. Bamber's court case at Chelmsford Crown Court was in October 1986 and the document was clearly a court exhibit at that trial (exhibit no. 29).
Since Meatus claims to have seen this document, he must be well aware from merely using his own eyesight that it was stamped as a court exhibit in 1986 (and initialled by the court clerk) and accordingly he must know that his own claim that the document was "only discovered" in 2004 is inevitably false and without any foundation whatsoever.
Meatus: "It is the truth, it was withheld from the defence and not shown to the jury it was only discovered when Bamber's new defence team were giving access to prosecution files in 2004!!"
This comment refers to a telephone log, which as can be seen Meatus alleges was not available to the defence until 2004. What Meatus doesn't state is far more interesting. He doesn't state that the telephone log in question is clearly stamped "Chelmsford Crown Court" and "Bamber" and "Exhibit No. 29". Therefore, despite Meatus claiming that the document was "withheld from the defence" and that this is "the truth", it is clearly not the truth at all. It's actually completely and utterly impossible for the prosecution to 'withhold' a court exhibit from the defence, as the defence would automatically have been given copies of all exhibits by the court itself, and in any event it's not something that any professional barristers would ever have done, even if it had been possible.
Despite Meatus attempting to beef up his argument by not only saying "it is truth" but also by using 2 exclamation marks at the end of his sentence, his claim that the document was "only discovered" in 2004 is entirely false. Bamber's court case at Chelmsford Crown Court was in October 1986 and the document was clearly a court exhibit at that trial (exhibit no. 29).
Since Meatus claims to have seen this document, he must be well aware from merely using his own eyesight that it was stamped as a court exhibit in 1986 (and initialled by the court clerk) and accordingly he must know that his own claim that the document was "only discovered" in 2004 is inevitably false and without any foundation whatsoever.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: Jeremy Bamber
As an aside, does anyone remember the Bakewell tart murder with Steven Downing, I am sure he was innocent, he even did the extra ten years for not admitting to the crime, he was released due to unreliable conviction, and the work of some tireless journo, I am not sure if he has ever been pardoned and had his conviction quashed, but my point is, If Bamber had admitted to this crime he would be free by now.
[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Re: Jeremy Bamber
The Downing conviction was quashed, due to the unreliability of the evidence as you said above. But I don't think admitting to the crime would help Bamber, as he has a whole life term to serve, so can't be considered for release. That's probably why he won't admit to the crime, because he knows it won't help him.
-
Kyle Richmond
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jeremy Bamber
i've just dropped in again and am stunned to see this thread still going. How long was it before he got arrested, there are those often shown pics/film of him at the funerals.All this business of no forensic evidence on his sister to show she used/loaded the gun seemed to be missed, i'm sure he was on track to get away with it until Mugford spoke up.
Re: Jeremy Bamber
The killings occurred on 7 August 1985 and Bamber was arrested on 8 September.
Of the detectives in the Essex police, to start with only one believed Bamber was the killer, the others accepting Bamber's story that his sister had done it. The one detective - Stan Jones - said he was getting nowhere convincing the others until Mugford spoke up, after which the focus of the investigation switched completely. Several junior policeman had suspected all along that Bamber was the killer, but until Mugford came forward their views were ignored.
Of the detectives in the Essex police, to start with only one believed Bamber was the killer, the others accepting Bamber's story that his sister had done it. The one detective - Stan Jones - said he was getting nowhere convincing the others until Mugford spoke up, after which the focus of the investigation switched completely. Several junior policeman had suspected all along that Bamber was the killer, but until Mugford came forward their views were ignored.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: Jeremy Bamber
In reply to Kyle Richmond, yes all this business of no forensic evidence on his sister to show she used/loaded the gun seemed to be missed, until Mugford came forward anyway. The police didn't follow the proper procedures.
Re: Jeremy Bamber
Yes it's true that the police didn't follow normal procedures, which was a lot to do with the fact that Taff Jones was strangely convinced of Bamber's story and didn't bother to order a proper investigation.
By the way, the claim by Meatus that Taff Jones was going to give evidence for the defence, but that this was thwarted by his death is a seriously flawed one. It's flawed because if Taff Jones had agreed to give evidence for the defence, they would immediately have taken a statement from him, which could have been given in evidence even if he had died before the case had come to court (or changed his mind about giving evidence). Needless to say the defence had no such statement.
It's already been noted above that the date given by Meatus for the death of Taff Jones is out by around 5 months.
By the way, the claim by Meatus that Taff Jones was going to give evidence for the defence, but that this was thwarted by his death is a seriously flawed one. It's flawed because if Taff Jones had agreed to give evidence for the defence, they would immediately have taken a statement from him, which could have been given in evidence even if he had died before the case had come to court (or changed his mind about giving evidence). Needless to say the defence had no such statement.
It's already been noted above that the date given by Meatus for the death of Taff Jones is out by around 5 months.
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
-
Kyle Richmond
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Jeremy Bamber
there is a programme on tonight ITV 1 7.30pm about his latest effort to get it back to the court of appeal.Don't think any previous appeal has got that far.