Unsafe convictions lobby groups in modern UK murder cases

[Fantomas]

I have come across the phenomenon, in two high profile crime cases - Ian Huntley (The Soham Murders) and Thomas Mair (The Murder of Jo Cox) - that lobby groups for both men's commuted sentences or even freedom has arisen. Both seem rooted in conspiracy theory (that Soham was perpetrated by other agencies and, in Mair's case, that Cox was an intelligence hit for which he was patsy or that she was not murdered at all.)

Does anyone else have any more on this or know of other Lord Longford style "fool's errand" groups championing the clearly guilty?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Rabbit hole this way:

http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/geopolitics/the-soham-scapegoats-a-gross-miscarriage-of-justice/

[Herlock Sholmes]

This bloke says that the girls were never at Huntleys house and yet….

“During his trial, Huntley insisted Holly had suffered a nosebleed. He claimed he'd been trying to help her attend to it when he 'accidentally knocked her into his bath' where she apparently drowned.”

Then there’s this……

“Tapes leaked in February 2018 revealed Ian Huntley speaking out about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman for the first time. Obtained by The Sun, the recordings - which were made at his prison - depict Huntley admitting his wrongdoing. "What I will say is that I am so terribly, terribly sorry for what I have done... I am sorry for what I have done, sorry for the pain I have caused to the families and friends of Holly and Jessica, for the pain I have caused my family and friends, and for the pain I have caused the community of Soham," he reportedly says.

The recordings continue, with the murderer appearing to reflect on where Holly and Jessica might be now if he hadn't cruelly taken their lives. "I can’t change anything. I cannot remove that day from history, what I have done. I know those girls would be 26 this year with families of their own, jobs and lives. I thought about them when they were turning 21 and when they were turning 18."

…..

He’s a textbook Conspiracy Theorists and people wonder why I’m so averse to them. Miscarriages of justices certainly occur (I think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent for example) but there’s no support for this. It seems like it’s a one man bandwagon. Even Huntley has accepted that he’ll never be released.

[OneRound]

Hi Herlock,

I hope you and no one else minds me picking up here on the final para of your last post but I would be very interested to learn more about why you claim innocence on the part of Jeremy Bamber.

Many thanks,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I hope you and no one else minds me picking up here on the final para of your last post but I would be very interested to learn more about why you claim innocence on the part of Jeremy Bamber.

Many thanks,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

I read a book a few years ago which got me interested because I just believed that it was obvious that he was guilty. Then I read Why Jeremy Is Innocent which left me amazed that people could still say that he was obviously guilty. I can’t recall all of the details or the pro and con arguments but there appeared to be…..

The police logs show that Jeremy’s father did call the police before Jeremy did. If that’s the case then he’s obviously innocent. If there wasn’t 2 calls why were 2 separate cars sent out to the farm?

The police log that there was movement from inside the house while Jeremy was outside the house with the police.

The police log shows the police saying that they were in contact with someone from inside the farm. Again while Jeremy was outside the farm.

A policeman said that he’d looked into the kitchen window and saw 2 bodies yet there was only Jeremy’s father there when they broke down the door.

The DNA on the moderator couldn’t be tied to Bamber.

There was no forensic evidence against Bamber.

I believe that the moderator was missed by the police but conveniently found by the very people that benefitted from Jeremy being imprisoned.

A family friend reported ill feeling between Shiela and the in-laws at the farm that night because Bamber’s parents had suggested that Shiela’s children should be cared for until she’s recovered.

She’d stopped taking her medication and was smoking marijuana.

Julie Mugford changed her story dramatically. She also admitted putting a pillow over Jeremy’s face while he was sleeping. And if I remember correctly the jury was split so the judge asked if there was any evidence that they’d like to see again. They asked for Mugford’s statement. So basically the jury was swayed by a proven liar.

Its generally believe that someone committing those kinds of murders that involve things like shooting children (and family members) in the head would have psychological issues. Bamber has been checked by teams of psychologist and have found zero evidence of psychopathy or any ‘illness’ of that kind.

Bamber fought to be allowed to take a lie detector test. He finally got one a few years ago and passed with flying colours.

Also, if I recall correctly, a doctor said that it wasn’t an issue that Shiela had 2 wounds as she could have definitely survived one of them.

Added to the above it has been discovered that the police used the scene as a training exercise with extra officers being bought in. It’s been ‘suggested’ that Shiela’s second wound might have been caused during these exercises with the gun gong off.


There’s more than this but I’m only going on memory OneRound so apologies for the lack of detail. I intend to re-read the book. I also met someone a few years ago that worked in prisons in some capacity. He met Bamber and was convinced of his innocence.

Maybe the image that was created of Bamber at the time didn’t help? Maybe he was on the arrogant side? For me to say that there’s room for doubt would be a massive understatement. Lots of stuff ‘missing ‘too. I can’t recall the details but there’s some record that show that copies of the phone recordings should still exist. Where are they? Maybe the police don’t want the recording of a phone call from Bamber’s father surfacing?

[OneRound]

Hi Herlock - many thanks for your genuinely interesting and very considered reply. I'm out for the day shortly but will give more of a reply tonight or tomorrow.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

I read a book a few years ago which got me interested because I just believed that it was obvious that he was guilty. Then I read Why Jeremy Is Innocent which left me amazed that people could still say that he was obviously guilty. I can’t recall all of the details or the pro and con arguments but there appeared to be…..

The police logs show that Jeremy’s father did call the police before Jeremy did. If that’s the case then he’s obviously innocent. If there wasn’t 2 calls why were 2 separate cars sent out to the farm?

The police log that there was movement from inside the house while Jeremy was outside the house with the police.

The police log shows the police saying that they were in contact with someone from inside the farm. Again while Jeremy was outside the farm.

A policeman said that he’d looked into the kitchen window and saw 2 bodies yet there was only Jeremy’s father there when they broke down the door.

The DNA on the moderator couldn’t be tied to Bamber.

There was no forensic evidence against Bamber.

I believe that the moderator was missed by the police but conveniently found by the very people that benefitted from Jeremy being imprisoned.

A family friend reported ill feeling between Shiela and the in-laws at the farm that night because Bamber’s parents had suggested that Shiela’s children should be cared for until she’s recovered.

She’d stopped taking her medication and was smoking marijuana.

Julie Mugford changed her story dramatically. She also admitted putting a pillow over Jeremy’s face while he was sleeping. And if I remember correctly the jury was split so the judge asked if there was any evidence that they’d like to see again. They asked for Mugford’s statement. So basically the jury was swayed by a proven liar.

Its generally believe that someone committing those kinds of murders that involve things like shooting children (and family members) in the head would have psychological issues. Bamber has been checked by teams of psychologist and have found zero evidence of psychopathy or any ‘illness’ of that kind.

Bamber fought to be allowed to take a lie detector test. He finally got one a few years ago and passed with flying colours.

Also, if I recall correctly, a doctor said that it wasn’t an issue that Shiela had 2 wounds as she could have definitely survived one of them.

Added to the above it has been discovered that the police used the scene as a training exercise with extra officers being bought in. It’s been ‘suggested’ that Shiela’s second wound might have been caused during these exercises with the gun gong off.


There’s more than this but I’m only going on memory OneRound so apologies for the lack of detail. I intend to re-read the book. I also met someone a few years ago that worked in prisons in some capacity. He met Bamber and was convinced of his innocence.

Maybe the image that was created of Bamber at the time didn’t help? Maybe he was on the arrogant side? For me to say that there’s room for doubt would be a massive understatement. Lots of stuff ‘missing ‘too. I can’t recall the details but there’s some record that show that copies of the phone recordings should still exist. Where are they? Maybe the police don’t want the recording of a phone call from Bamber’s father surfacing?

Hi again Herlock - thanks once more for your thorough response and apologies for not following up sooner.

Just a few thoughts of mine, particularly relating to your comments now in bold.

First off, the original police investigation was undoubtedly a dog's dinner. That doesn't mean guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt but it makes it a lot harder.

My own feeling is that whilst Bamber did not personally kill his family, he arranged the murders. This is of course what Julie Mugford claimed Bamber had admitted to her (albeit the person named as doing the physical killing had an alibi putting him in the clear).

So much for me hangs on the phone call Bamber claimed (and still claims) to have received from his father saying that his sister Sheila had gone mad with a gun. If that phone call really happened, Bamber must be innocent and Sheila the killer. If it didn't, Bamber must surely be guilty of the murders, either by personal act or arrangement.

Bamber's father was well over 6 feet tall and, I believe, in reasonably strong health. However, the injuries he suffered prior to being shot were severe. I struggle to visualise Sheila - a marijuana smoking would be model - being capable of doing that. There is also nothing to link her forensically to the murders and then we have all the confusing business doubting whether she could have shot herself.

To be fair to Bamber, he showed no signs of having been in a fight with his father and, as you say, there was also no forensic evidence against him.

This then all points to neither Sheila or Bamber having physically killed the family. However, if Shela didn't do it, Bamber must have lied about the phone call and the only feasible reason for that is because he arranged the murders.

I'm comfortable with the logic of the above but whether it tallies with all the circumstances (I don't know enough about calls to the police and police logs as you understandably highlight) and should be sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I'm unsure.

I would add that the evidence of Julie Mugford has always struck me as needing to be treated with caution and it is concerning if that was so pivotal to Bamber's convictions.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi again Herlock - thanks once more for your thorough response and apologies for not following up sooner.

Just a few thoughts of mine, particularly relating to your comments now in bold.

First off, the original police investigation was undoubtedly a dog's dinner. That doesn't mean guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt but it makes it a lot harder.

My own feeling is that whilst Bamber did not personally kill his family, he arranged the murders. This is of course what Julie Mugford claimed Bamber had admitted to her (albeit the person named as doing the physical killing had an alibi putting him in the clear).

So much for me hangs on the phone call Bamber claimed (and still claims) to have received from his father saying that his sister Sheila had gone mad with a gun. If that phone call really happened, Bamber must be innocent and Sheila the killer. If it didn't, Bamber must surely be guilty of the murders, either by personal act or arrangement.

Bamber's father was well over 6 feet tall and, I believe, in reasonably strong health. However, the injuries he suffered prior to being shot were severe. I struggle to visualise Sheila - a marijuana smoking would be model - being capable of doing that. There is also nothing to link her forensically to the murders and then we have all the confusing business doubting whether she could have shot herself.

To be fair to Bamber, he showed no signs of having been in a fight with his father and, as you say, there was also no forensic evidence against him.

This then all points to neither Sheila or Bamber having physically killed the family. However, if Shela didn't do it, Bamber must have lied about the phone call and the only feasible reason for that is because he arranged the murders.

I'm comfortable with the logic of the above but whether it tallies with all the circumstances (I don't know enough about calls to the police and police logs as you understandably highlight) and should be sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I'm unsure.

I would add that the evidence of Julie Mugford has always struck me as needing to be treated with caution and it is concerning if that was so pivotal to Bamber's convictions.

Best regards,
OneRound

Cheers OneRound,

Ill make a fuller post tomorrow but one other point to mention are the police logs which state that when they got into the house there were 2 bodies in the kitchen. A man and a woman. Yet we know that the final crime scene report states that only Nevill Bamber was found downstairs. Also before they broke in PC Collins said that he saw through the window what he thought was the body of a women just inside the kitchen door. Nevill Bamber was found by the Aga.

White House Farm had 3 staircases and the police initially went up one that didn’t connect to the part of the upstairs where the bodies were found so they had to come back down.

Sheila had 2 wounds but the Doctor said that she could have survived and moved around after the first but not after the second.

All that said, it appears to point to the possibility that Shiela was actually unconscious on the kitchen floor after the first shot then when the police went upstairs she became conscious and went upstairs where she killed herself.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

While we're on Bamber...

It's odd that Jeremy claimed Neville called him. He'd already been shot twice in the jaw, but makes a call to Jeremy. Apparently after calling the police. His wife's been shot several times, he's been shot at this point 4 times, twice in the face, Sheila's still "going beserk", but Neville makes a call to Jeremy? And doesn't mention that he's been shot, or sound in any way impaired, despite having been shot twice in the jaw?

Twenty five shots fired. Multiple reloads of wax coated ammo, into a magazine that was difficult to load, yet Sheila's hands and long fingernails are perfectly clean and unbroken. 'Ritual cleaning'?

The sash window. By Jeremy's own admission, he claims to have jimmied it open while on bail to obtain the documents he needed to hire a car and go to France, hence the window showing signs of this and a rusty hacksaw blade being on the ground outside. Jeremy was under police surveillance and was in London on the dates he gave for breaking into the house. How and why the prosecution overlooked that detail, I don't know.

Jeremy admitted to loading the gun and leaving it in the kitchen. He admitted to breaking into the farm, but at a later date. He claims Neville called him, after being shot in the face twice.

I've said before, I believe Bamber is entitled to a fair retrial, and the police handling of the initial scene was a mockery. But he's guilty. A genuine psychopath.

[Herlock Sholmes]

While we're on Bamber...

It's odd that Jeremy claimed Neville called him. He'd already been shot twice in the jaw, but makes a call to Jeremy. Apparently after calling the police. His wife's been shot several times, he's been shot at this point 4 times, twice in the face, Sheila's still "going beserk", but Neville makes a call to Jeremy? And doesn't mention that he's been shot, or sound in any way impaired, despite having been shot twice in the jaw?

Twenty five shots fired. Multiple reloads of wax coated ammo, into a magazine that was difficult to load, yet Sheila's hands and long fingernails are perfectly clean and unbroken. 'Ritual cleaning'?

The sash window. By Jeremy's own admission, he claims to have jimmied it open while on bail to obtain the documents he needed to hire a car and go to France, hence the window showing signs of this and a rusty hacksaw blade being on the ground outside. Jeremy was under police surveillance and was in London on the dates he gave for breaking into the house. How and why the prosecution overlooked that detail, I don't know.

Jeremy admitted to loading the gun and leaving it in the kitchen. He admitted to breaking into the farm, but at a later date. He claims Neville called him, after being shot in the face twice.

I've said before, I believe Bamber is entitled to a fair retrial, and the police handling of the initial scene was a mockery. But he's guilty. A genuine psychopath.

There’s nothing I can see so far Al that suggests that Nevill Bamber was injured when he made the call. The police logs show 2 calls. One of them by Nevill in which he mentions his ‘daughter.’ If that call took place then Bamber is innocent.

Bamber has been well tested by experts and they’ve found absolutely no evidence of psychopathy. He fought for years to be allowed a Lie Detector test with opposition. He eventually took one and passed.

There are so many doubts for me. So many police lies. Bodies moving around, a rifle moving around, a silencer conveniently found after the police missed it (where they blind) by people who benefitted greatly from Bamber being locked up. And a prosecution witness (Julie Mugford) who lied more than once and when the trial was over was waiting in a hotel room paid for by the Press to sell her story.

I think Bamber is innocent.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'll have to have a re-read of some particulars, I've not looked at the case in detail in a long while.

The call log is absolutely the critical thing, if Neville called, Jeremy's innocent, no arguing about it. The existence of the audio recordings is disputed but that would seal it.

I flip flop on Bamber at times, it's such a confused case but he 100% deserves to get a proper retrial with all the evidence reviewed and Julie Mugfords testimony stricken from the record.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll have to have a re-read of some particulars, I've not looked at the case in detail in a long while.

The call log is absolutely the critical thing, if Neville called, Jeremy's innocent, no arguing about it. The existence of the audio recordings is disputed but that would seal it.

I flip flop on Bamber at times, it's such a confused case but he 100% deserves to get a proper retrial with all the evidence reviewed and Julie Mugfords testimony stricken from the record.

There’s a lot there Al. When I said that I think that he’s innocent I think I’d be more accurate in saying that there seems to me to be enough doubt. Lots of things can be interpreted 2 ways as in many cases. You know that I’m not someone that’s easily convinced by cover-up and conspiracy but it seems to me that there’s plenty of evidence that the police covered things up. Of course that doesn’t automatically mean that Bamber’s innocent as it could just mean that they were covering up procedural ****-ups.

One thing I didn’t know Al, which the police definitely hid, was that they bought officers in to use the crime scene for training purposes. This has led to a suggestion that Sheila’s second wound might have come from a gun accidentally going off as they were taking it on and off the body. This is just conjecture of course. It’s hard/impossible to explain an officer (I think maybe 2) said that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen and one of the reports came from after they’d entered the house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A small point, but one worth noting I think, is that at the time of the murder Bamber claimed to have been at home watching tv before going to bed when he then received a call from his father. Apparently he was questioned in some detail about the programmes that he’d watched and his answers were totally accurate. The police even checked his video tapes to check that he hadn’t recorded them and watched them later. None of them had been recorded.

[OneRound]

A small point, but one worth noting I think, is that at the time of the murder Bamber claimed to have been at home watching tv before going to bed when he then received a call from his father. Apparently he was questioned in some detail about the programmes that he’d watched and his answers were totally accurate. The police even checked his video tapes to check that he hadn’t recorded them and watched them later. None of them had been recorded.

Hi Herlock,

Small point maybe but certainly a fair point.

Whilst it lends some support to claims of innocence on the part of Bamber, it though doesn't rule out him having planned and arranged the murders as I speculated earlier.

I appreciate you are more raising (serious) doubts about Bamber's convictions than asserting innocence on his part but, if he wasn't responsible in some way, I would be interested to learn who you think was. Could it really have been Sheila who pulverised her father and shot her family with no forensic evidence against her? If not, how do you explain the phone call that Bamber claimed to have received from his father?

Best regards,
OneRound

[caz]

A small point, but one worth noting I think, is that at the time of the murder Bamber claimed to have been at home watching tv before going to bed when he then received a call from his father. Apparently he was questioned in some detail about the programmes that he’d watched and his answers were totally accurate. The police even checked his video tapes to check that he hadn’t recorded them and watched them later. None of them had been recorded.

Hi Herlock,

I actually think it's a little bit suspicious that Bamber was able to go into commendable detail about what he watched on tv, immediately before the shi* hit the fan and he learned he had lost his family. I wonder if the police checked the TV Times for that day, to see if he could have got everything he 'remembered' from that. "I never knew there was so much in it." It would make more sense to me if he had arranged the whole thing, because he'd also be gearing up to give as solid an alibi as possible, knowing he would be facing a great deal of scrutiny from the police, especially given the doubts anyone would reasonably have had that Sheila could have done it all herself, and left no forensic evidence. If she was in such a bad state of mind that she did this thing and then killed herself, why would she have taken any care at all to avoid leaving forensic evidence?

I've always felt there was something very wrong with Bamber, psychologically, and his recall of what was on tv only makes him seem more cold and calculating to me. Obviously, if others were involved in the crime, they have escaped punishment and that is very wrong too, and frankly, the police are still not exactly covering themselves with glory over murder investigations, so if they screwed up over the Bamber case, and it results in a retrial, I just hope the truth of the matter will finally be established one way or the other beyond doubt.

Love,

Caz
X