Unsafe convictions lobby groups in modern UK murder cases

[caz]

There’s no way of identifying the voice on the phone as the tapes of the calls are ‘missing.’ Originally the Police had said that they were destroyed but there’s evidence that copies were made.

I can’t see any reason to eliminate the possibility of a third party Caz unless the question is dealt with later in the book satisfactorily. I still find it difficult to dismiss - schizophrenic / recently released/ reduced meds/ cannabis use/ family argument that night/ history of volatility and violence/ husband concerned about her…etc.

Hi Herlock,

The problem I've always had with cases like this, when there is a 'Sheila' in the picture, as you describe her here, is that it is all too easy to assume she must have done it, when her obvious problems also made it very convenient for someone else, whose behaviour was outwardly 'normal' comparatively, who may have secretly wanted his family out of the way, for reasons of greed, resentment, hatred, revenge or whatever. If Bamber had any such 'issues' with his family, Sheila gifted him a way of killing two birds with one stone. If the nutter is naturally assumed to have killed everyone, followed by herself, and the job is executed well enough, Bamber will be left alone with his grief - or his crocodile tears.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The problem I've always had with cases like this, when there is a 'Sheila' in the picture, as you describe her here, is that it is all too easy to assume she must have done it, when her obvious problems also made it very convenient for someone else, whose behaviour was outwardly 'normal' comparatively, who may have secretly wanted his family out of the way, for reasons of greed, resentment, hatred, revenge or whatever. If Bamber had any such 'issues' with his family, Sheila gifted him a way of killing two birds with one stone. If the nutter is naturally assumed to have killed everyone, followed by herself, and the job is executed well enough, Bamber will be left alone with his grief - or his crocodile tears.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I certainly wouldn’t dispute that. Sheila can certainly be said to have ticked all of the boxes but from my own point of view and from reading though the evidence in the book I really think that it’s worth mentioning the true extent of her illness. The fact that it looks like she had actually harmed her children and had even mentioned killing them. Also her strained relations with her mother might be important along with the fact that her anxieties and issues appeared to increase during and after a visit to her parents and that there was a very specific argument at the time concerning her children.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the reliable ‘witness’ Julie Mugford. From the eBook - Why Jeremy Is Innocent.

I’ve already posted this but…

“[3] In her 17th December 1985 statement, she states that by the 1st September she had said about Jeremy: “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that during that night, “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”

….

“By the 4th September 1985, the reality of the relationship ending had become all too real for Julie when she discovered Jeremy talking on the phone to another woman called Virginia, with whom he had planned to start a relationship. He was making arrangements to meet her and Julie was furious. Julie had realised that her relationship with Jeremy was over and smashed a mirror by throwing an ornament at it in a fit of rage. She then physically attacked Jeremy.”

……

“On the 8th September, Julie attended Witham police station after Stan Jones had ensured she was “reported for process.” She was charged with burglary, as detailed by Mr Adams of the DPP. The charge was then curiously withdrawn on the 5th December 1985. Adams said in a handwritten addendum: “I also agree the burglary charge can be withdrawn.”

- the obvious suggestion was that the charges might have been dropped in exchange for her statement against Bamber.

…..

“Back in 1991, the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police, and they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected. These included taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada and cheque book fraud. [11] Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but newly surfaced documents show that she was charged with burglary, and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office. In the same document, Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal, the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber, but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity.”

……

She claimed that Jeremy told he that the hit man had told him that he’d hot Nevill 7 times. But this was what was mistakenly reported in the Press. Nevill had been shot 8 times.

Her story changed, the time of Jeremy’s call to her changed, she named a hit man who was categorically exonerated. And let’s remember this was a woman (and a trainee teacher) who continued to live and sleep with Bamber after she was allegedly fully aware that he’d slaughtered an entire family including 2 young children.……

Not forgetting the £25,000 she was payed by the News Of The World from which she bought an apartment. She was waiting in a hotel room for this when the verdict came in. The contract she signed conveniently cannot be found. If she’d have signed it before the verdict she’d have been in contempt of court.


Good witness……….

[Herlock Sholmes]

It just keeps on piling up.

“2. New forensic evidence from American expert Dr Fowler, (confirmed by two peer reviewers) found that the fatal gun shot wound to Sheila’s neck was a contact wound. This wound was caused when the end of the rifle’s barrel was in contact with her skin, and not caused by the end of the moderator as the court was told. Dr Fowler’s evidence has been confirmed through experimentation by ballistics expert Mr Philip Boyce. The CCRC reject this evidence from four credible experts stating that their conclusions are “speculation” and incapable of forming a ground of appeal.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

“3. Burn marks to Nevill Bamber’s back. The judge said in his summing up that it was “a fact” that the moderator was on the rifle in the kitchen. New evidence from Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist, confirms that Nevill’s burn injuries were made by the end of the rifle’s barrel. They were not made by the end of the moderator. Forensic tests and experiments have been carried out by ballistic expert Mr Philip Boyce which has confirmed the conclusions of Dr Caruso. Scientific evidence from five credible experts makes it very unlikely that the moderator was on the rifle during this tragic incident. Evidence strongly suggests that Nevill was burnt with the end of the rifle’s barrel either after death or when he was completely incapacitated. In 2011, the defence discovered that Essex Police had instructed Mr Fletcher (pre-trial) to test whether the burns to Nevill’s back were caused by the end of the rifle’s barrel or the end of the moderator. It was suggested that he used pig skin for these experiments. The results from Mr Fletcher’s tests have never been disclosed.

Does anyone really believe that the Police would have withheld Fletcher’s test results if it backed up there version of events?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest I could just keep posting this stuff and it would bore everyone to death. All I’ll say is that like many on here I’ve read about many a potential miscarriage of justice but I’ve never, ever seen anything that comes close to this one. So many documented lies and mistakes. So many important documents and reports lost and evidence illegally destroyed. So much withheld at the time of the trial. How could it be said that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? It’s page after page of jaw dropping stuff and it’s not imaginary. It’s documented stuff. I know this might wind some people up (let’s face it it’s not the first time for me) but I think that one one should march up to Bamber’s cell door with a key, open it up and say “off you go Jeremy.” 35 years in prison on that evidence.