egafd.com

Meatus the book reviewer:

Meatus review: "For anyone with more than a passing interest in the case i would highly recommend the book Jeremy Bamber by Scott Lomax a totally impartial account of the case."

Impartial?

A non-Meatus review: "Although being described as an in depth description of this infamous case in reality it is one mans version of Jeremy Bamber's supposed innocence. It is a completely biased account of the case, page after page after page is devoted to explaining how, where and why Sheila Caffell (Bamber's step sister and the the other chief suspect) could indeed have murdered the family before committing suicide. As previous reviewers have stated it becomes extremely hard going, I could have quite easily given up reading about a third of the way through as the more the book goes on the more you feel you are being led in one direction only and it frankly becomes quite a boring read. In short, if you want to read a thorough account of this investigation with all the evidence explored in full with no bias involved either way then I would look elsewhere, if you're happy to read an author's account of Bamber's innocence then by all means give it a whirl."

In court transcripts i have read and from details i've read in books on the cases its always been stated that Bamber arrived at the farmhouse before the officers, though no haste was made to get there.

The line you said that was omitted from my version

"When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father"

So she fit the "concept" then of someone who would be violent towards her mother? Is that what you are saying or suggesting Dr Ferguson was alluding to, if so then all this proves was that she was capable of violence. And if so, could she have not turned violent on her Mother first and in the struggle became violent to the others? After realising what she did or what happened, perhaps she may have decided then that the best thing to do would be to kill her children or herself?

"There is no mention in the Meatus version of events that the police burnt these items on Jeremy Bamber's request. The police have always said it was a specific request by Jeremy Bamber to have these items burnt and this has never been contradicted. Even Jeremy Bamber's own website does not contradict the police statements that it was Bamber who wanted the item's burnt."

Because the police said it, does that make it so? No police constabulary has ever lied? And yo mention that Bamber's own website doesn't contradict this? So what? Even if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bamber did ask them to destroy the items. Should the police have done so? Is it normal police practice to destroy evidence in a criminal case? I'll need to remember that next time i murder someone "Excuse me officer, would you mind burning all that evidence?"

"According to Meatus there are "reports of officers retreating from the door of the house as shots were fired".

According to the published judgement of the Court of Appeal, after arriving at the farmhouse the police heard no sound whatsoever "save for the barking of a dog". "

From all the transcripts i have read and the books i have read, the officers reported hearing shots. That's were i got my information. If its false, then perhaps i am wrong? It wouldn't be the first time.

Perhaps you can enlighten us were you got your information? Did you actually read the full published Court of Appeal judgement? Or a you quoting a version of it from a book you have read? If so what book? And does it say whether Bamber's defence just accepted this as fact or if they challenged it?

"On the matter of Sheila Caffell's hands:

According to the Meatus version of events "her post mortem showed traces of lead on her hands".

The Court of Appeal tells a rather different story: "Sheila Caffell's hands and forehead were swabbed. Extremely low traces of lead were detected when the swabs were examined. Such levels being consistent with the levels found from the handling of every day things around the house. The scientist Mr Elliott gave evidence that if Sheila Caffell had loaded eighteen cartridges into a magazine he would have expected the hand swabs to have revealed appreciably higher deposits of lead." "

What about Jeremy Bamber's hands? Were there test's carried out on those? And if so? What were the results? Did anyone ever ask if Sheila Caffell had been washed when moved or washed before any swab's were taken?

It is stated in the Meatus version of events that "The bible found with Sheila was never examined".

The published transcript of the appeal court says otherwise: "The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child".

Everything i have ever read states that the bible that was found with Sheila was never examined. Though if i'm wrong, then again i apologise. Though what you say is that the Bible was June's and kept on her cupboard by her bed, yet it was found on Sheila, with her fingerprints on it and NOT Jeremy Bamber's?

"It is claimed by Meatus that "only 1 officer a DC Jones (Not to be confused with DCI "Taff" Jones) thought that Bamber may be guilty".

This claim is directly contradicted by police ?sergeant Chris Bews, who met Bamber at the farm on the night of the tragedy. Bews said: ?He seemed rehearsed and ready for every question. I felt deep down there was something going on.? Sgt Bews said both he and his colleagues were suspicious of ?Bamber?s calm, collected ?manner considering the atrocities he must have feared had occurred. One thing he found strange was that Bamber had phoned ?Chelmsford ?police station direct. He added: ?Even kids at primary school are taught to dial 999 in an ?emergency.? "

All senior officers involved in the case have all stated they thought Bamber had no involvement in the case. The officer in charge DCI "Taff" Jones was due to testify on behalf of the defence stating he thought Bamber had no involvement, before he died the day before he was due in court.

There were junior officer's who thought Bamber was involved? But on what evidence? "He ate Breakfast?" "He seemed rehearsed?" What makes Chris Bews an expert on what is rehearsed? Could he say for sure. Bamber was never ever an official suspect until Julie Mugford changed her testimony. And even then after his arrest he was released without charge and only charged 3 weeks later.

In the end even the trial judge said that the case came down to "Whether the jury believed Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber?"

Oh and before you ask, just because DCI "Taff" Jones, and other senior detectives though Bamber was innocent, doesn't necassarily make it so. But that is what evidence is for and why a Guilty conviction can only be handed down were its proved beyond Reasonable Doubt. There is as much reasonable doubt in the case than many many others.

"What Meatus doesn't tell us is far more interesting. Meatus fails to inform us that the police only logged one call that night regarding the Bamber farmhouse and Jeremy Bamber admitted making it. Since the police records showed only one call on the matter it follows that Nevill Bamber did not call the police. If Jeremy Bamber made the only call that the police received on the matter then it couldn't have been Nevill Bamber calling."

That was not the only call logged on the night. As police records show a call was made by Nevill Bamber, which i have seen in books it is headlined "Essex Police - Communications" Obviously i can't show it here, but if you have any books you can look for it or try online. I'm sure it will be on Bamber's website, though since many people won't believe that, then its worthwhile trying somewhere else.

""The statement made by Meatus that the log wasn't "seen by Bamber's lawyers until at least 2004" is not strictly factual. It was given to Bamber's lawyers at the time along with all other police documents in the case. Of course Meatus can always argue that they may have received it in 1985, but didn't actually look at it until 2004." "

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!!